what they think, what they know, what they do: rural secondary teachers’ motivational beliefs and...

ORI GIN AL PA PER

What they think, what they know, what they do: Ruralsecondary teachers’ motivational beliefs and strategies

Patricia L. Hardre • Maeghan N. Hennessey

Received: 5 March 2011 / Accepted: 29 November 2011� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract This research examined how rural high school teachers’ beliefs and perceptions

of themselves, their students and the challenge of motivation influence their strategic

classroom and interpersonal motivating practice. Participants were 13 teachers in three

rural, public high schools in two US states. Teachers’ beliefs about motivation generally,

and their students’ motivation specifically, reflect a position favouring need and willing-

ness to intervene for unmotivated students. However, their self-perceptions reflect a rel-

atively weak efficacy to intervene successfully. Generally, teachers’ prevalent choice of

strategies aligned with their perceptions of reasons that students were undermotivated. In

contrast, some teachers’ narratives of actual efforts to motivate a specific student were

inconsistent with their self-reported philosophies and style of motivation, and with their

general statements of how they would motivate students who needed it. These findings

suggest implications for design of teacher education and inservice teacher professional

development.

Keywords Motivation � Rural schools � Teacher beliefs � Teaching strategies

Introduction

Research on teacher strategies is concerned with how assertions of general cognitive and

affective processes translate into classroom practice. Rural schools research is attentive to

the place culture, which enhances research authenticity (Barley and Beesley 2007; Howley

et al. 2005). In the present study, we used a data-driven, mixed-method approach to

examine motivational beliefs, perceptions and strategic actions among high school teachers

in several rural secondary schools. In effect, this study examined closely how a set of

aspects of personal and environmental factors influence teachers’ thoughts and actions

about motivating students, addressing the question: What motivates teachers to motivate

students?

P. L. Hardre (&) � M. N. HennesseyUniversity of Oklahoma, 820 Van Vleet Oval, 321 Collings Hall, Norman, OK 73019-2041, USAe-mail: [email protected]

123

Learning Environ ResDOI 10.1007/s10984-013-9131-0

Research in rural schools

Relatively little systematic research involves teachers and students in small, rural schools

(Gandara et al. 2001), perhaps as little as 6 % of the published K–12 teacher research

(Hardre 2008). Even less has been undertaken on teachers’ strategic motivating practice in

rural contexts (Freeman and Anderman 2005; Hardre and Sullivan 2008a, b).

Despite mobility and sociogeographic shifts, rural schools still tend to serve large

minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations (Lichter et al. 2003; National

Center for Educational Statistics 2009b). Rural schools often face severe financial con-

straints and struggle to offer advanced courses, essential support resources and extracur-

ricular programs (National Center for Educational Statistics 2009a; Raywid and Schmerler

2003). Given small size and low faculty-to-student ratios, teachers often teach in multiple

subject areas, grades and ability levels, at relatively low compensation (Brown and

Swanson 2003; Colangelo et al. 1999), yet have less access to ongoing professional

development than in non-rural schools (Barley and Beesley 2007). Rural high school

dropout rates remain higher than in non-rural areas of otherwise similar risk factors

(National Center for Educational Statistics 2008; Rural School and Community Trust

2010). These historical risk factors for school engagement and achievement invite concern

about rural students’ motivation and their teachers’ motivating practices.

However, in spite of statistics that might portray them in a generally negative light, rural

schools and communities are also different in ways that offer potential advantages in

awareness and support (Hardre 2007; Hardre and Sullivan 2009; Howley 2009; McTavish

and Salamon 2003; Woodrum 2009), links to family values and careers (Barley and

Beesley 2007; Bush 2005; Flora et al. 2003), attention and close role modeling (Ballou and

Podgursky 1995; Fowler and Walberg 1991) and innovative programs adapted to local

cultures and resources (Faircloth 2009; Woodrum 2009). These factors support opportu-

nities for teaching to local contexts.

US government agencies, recognising the dearth of rural research, have called for an

emphasis on research in rural schools and communities (National Science Foundation

2001, 2009) To produce balanced and useful findings, rural research needs to generate an

understanding of how local differences influence teaching and learning (Howley et al.

2005) but also include features that help to meaningfully explain elements of effective

transfer to other contexts (Arnold et al. 2005; Hardre and Sullivan 2009). Among these

balance factors is the integration of consistent principles of human psychology and

motivation, as sensitive to the influences of local environments on one hand, and to

individual perceptions and responses on the other (Hardre and Hennessey 2010; Hardre and

Licuanen 2010).

Home, local and community values shape the identities of youth (Greenwood 2009), as

do the values messages communicated by teachers and schools (Hardre and Sullivan

2008a; Phelan et al. 1991), and those two sets of values often differ (Bush 2005; Corbett

2009; Faircloth 2009). Given the critical role of teachers in motivation, and of motivation

in education, researchers need to examine how teachers motivate students in the rural

context, in all of its authentic complexity (Hardre and Sullivan 2009; Holloway 2002).

Because rural contexts are not homogeneous or generic (Howley 2003; McTavish and

Salamon 2003), investigation that takes into account local characteristics and dynamics can

promote a more strategic understanding of how motivating strategies fit in practice (Hardre

and Sullivan 2009).

Learning Environ Res

123

Integrated view of motivation and environment

In this study, we conceptualised motivation as complex and integrative in its nature, and as

dynamic in human relationships and education. We understand motivation as an internal

process that is embedded within a complex of external conditions. Motivation helps to

shape people’s choices and behaviours both short-term and long-term (Dai and Sternberg

2004; Eccles and Roeser 2010). Choices drive behaviours, which iteratively influence

subsequent environmental interactions and motivations (Guay et al. 2003). These processes

are not explained by a single model, but by complex interactions of variables framed by

different theories (Dai and Sternberg 2004; Hardre et al. 2007). They are also deeply

situated in local contexts and interpreted by individual and social experiences (Schoenf-

elder 2006; Smith and Conrey 2009). Based on this framework, we used a set of variables

demonstrated as influential in teachers’ motivational dynamic and demonstrably related

across multiple studies (Eccles and Roeser 2010; Patrick et al. 2007; Schunk et al. 2007),

including studies in rural schools (Hardre 2008; Hardre and Sullivan 2008a, b, 2009).

Motivating students as a problem-solving task

Motivation is a positive and important influence on: students’ engagement and participa-

tion (Church et al. 2001; Greene et al. 2004; Patrick et al. 2007); achievement in terms of

classwork, grades and test scores (Guay et al. 2003; Liem et al. 2008); school attendance

and completion (Hardre and Reeve 2002); and factors that led toward their future devel-

opment and adult success (Dweck 1999; Linnenbrink and Pintrich 2002a). Given these

influences, lack of motivation is negative and a problem for teachers. People solve prob-

lems by strategic effort and they expend that effort when they believe that: (1) change for

the better is possible; (2) they can bring about change; and (3) they are equipped with the

tools to bring about that change effectively (Hardre et al. 2010; Hardre and Reeve 2009;

Fishbein and Ajzen 2010).

Even in secondary school, where students have many teachers each day, teachers spend

more time with students than any adults besides their parents (and in many cases including

their parents; Brophy 1998; Schoenfelder 2006). This contact time, plus their role as

academic content and skill experts and role models, uniquely positions teachers to influ-

ence students’ academic motivation (Hardre 2008). Thus, it is important to determine: (1)

if teachers are characterised by the three conditions to act with the goal of positively

influencing students’ motivation; and (2) how their internal characteristics and external

circumstances interact to influence their success in these efforts.

Teacher beliefs related to motivating students

Beliefs about motivation generally

People put forth effort to change things that they see as malleable, meaning that they

believe can be changed with the investment of effort and appropriate strategies (Reeve

1996). Thus, teachers are more likely to invest in motivating students if they view moti-

vation as a malleable characteristic which they can effectively change.

Because they have limited resources, people prioritise what they invest in, based on

their need, importance and likelihood of success (Fishbein and Ajzen 2010). They are less

likely to focus energy to change what they view as transient (believing it will change by

itself given time without their effort), but they work at changing what they see as stable,


123

because it requires effort to change (Deci 1995). Thus, if teachers view students’ lack of

motivation as transient, a passing phase rather than a stable state requiring intervention,

they are more likely to just overlook it and wait it out. Given these relationships between

general beliefs and action, teachers will be more likely to see and act on the need to

motivate students if they believe, first, that motivation itself is (to a degree at least)

malleable to their outside influence and, second, that it is intransient to the degree that it

requires intentional action to change.

Perceptions of their students’ motivation

Building on their beliefs about motivation in general, a set of more specific beliefs about

their students’ motivation can drive how teachers respond with efforts and strategies to

motivate. These beliefs centre on particular aspects of student motivation: (1) its nature

(strength and effects); and (2) its causes (internal or external and sources of influence;

Hardre et al. 2008).

As to the nature of motivation, critical beliefs focus on the locus of motivation and its

key features. These include, for example: (1) whether motivation comes from internal or

external origins; (2) whether motivation is linked to ability or effort to support success; (3)

the goals and values that students have (such as for learning or performance); and (4)

whether the content is interesting and useful to them (Hardre and Sullivan 2008a, 2009;

Kaplan and Maehr 2007; Maehr 1989). Other critical beliefs about students’ motivation are

its strength and its effects on learning and achievement. As to strength, a teacher might

perceive motivation as high or low, and make a judgement about what level is adequate for

students to progress, versus when low motivation disrupts learning and achievement for an

individual or class (Hardre 2007; Hardre et al. 2006). Given the role of teachers’ identi-

fication and judgements of student motivation, the indicators that they use to assess

motivation become important, and these range across multiple verbal and nonverbal cues

(Hardre 2008; Reeve 1996).

Beyond the nature of motivation, its strength, origin, indicators and effects, the reasons

to which teachers attribute student lack of motivation are critical (Hardre et al. 2008).

Diagnosing any problem has the two components of (1) identifying that a problem exists,

and (2) identifying a probable solution for it (Jonassen 2011; Smith and Ragan 2005).

Identifying the cause with some reasonable confidence of accuracy leads one to identify a

potentially effective solution (Andersen and Fagerhaug 2000). Having clear causal

assertions related to a controllable solution that promotes expectations of success is

important (Smith and Ragan 2005). If teachers attribute amotivation to factors that they

perceive as controllable, then they are more likely to take action on them but, if they

attribute it to factors outside their control, they are less likely to view acting on it as

productive (Deci 1995). Some teachers work to compensate for external factors like lack of

home support, while others consider it pointless (because of to beliefs or past experience)

and invest their energy elsewhere (Hardre and Sullivan 2008a, 2009).

Perceptions of themselves

Interacting with perceptions that teachers have of motivation generally and of their stu-

dents’ motivation specifically is a set of self-perceptions of themselves with regard to

motivating students. An important issue for teachers is whether they believe that they could

change or influence their students’ motivation for school, if they possessed the strategies to

do so. The discriminant quality of this perception is that it focuses on this teacher (vs. some


123

other teacher or other factor entirely). Teachers’ perception of their personal ability to

make a difference in students’ school-related motivation arises from their own perceived

knowledge and strategies for motivating, teaching competence and interpersonal related-

ness with students (Hardre et al. 2008). It further interacts with beliefs and perceptions of

students’ motivation, its nature and causes (Hardre and Sullivan 2009; Skinner and Bel-

mont 1993).

A critical characteristic related to belief in their ability to influence students’ motivation

is the teachers’ self-efficacy. Self-efficacy refers to a person’s belief that he or she can

successfully organise and perform certain behaviours, so that they produce a desired result

(Bandura 1977), even in the face of possible challenges or setbacks (Liem et al. 2008).

Self-efficacy predicts effort, choice and task performance across a host of behaviours

(Bandura 1997; Zimmerman and Schunk 2004). Greater self-efficacy enables people to

sustain energy and effort towards goals and initiate actions more readily, and persist longer

in the face of challenges, than they could with lower self-efficacy, other things being equal

(Zimmerman 2000).

Self-efficacy is linked to particular tasks, so that teachers’ efficacy can be significantly

different, even for closely related tasks (Tschannen-Moran et al. 1998) such as identifying

and addressing students’ motivation (Hardre and Sullivan 2009). Different levels of effi-

cacy can predict different practice and actions by teachers in their classrooms, such as

teaching in their familiar methods versus with new or innovative methods and tools

(Hardre et al. 2010), and teaching content versus motivating students to engage and learn

(Hardre 2010). Motivation is also reciprocal and synergistic so that, as they work to

motivate students and see success in doing it, teachers gain higher efficacy and success

expectations, which encourages them to continue and increase these efforts (Linnenbrink

and Pintrich 2002b; Radel et al. 2010).

Perceptions of the learning environment

The nature of the learning environment in a classroom influences student motivation (Greene

et al. 2004; Hardre et al. 2007; Hardre and Sullivan 2008b; Skinner and Belmont 1993).

Classroom learning environment influences key components of students’ motivational profile

(Church et al. 2001; Deci and Ryan 2002; Elliot et al. 2000; Ryan and Deci 2000), which in

turn predict school engagement, achievement and dropout intentions (Hardre et al. 2007;

Hardre and Reeve 2002). Motivation, in turn, influences cognition and learning, skill

development and retention, and transfer (Linnenbrink and Pintrich 2004; Midgley et al.

2001). Given this powerful impact of the learning environment on students’ motivation, it is

important to include it in studies of how teachers approach motivating them. Influential

features of the learning environment include teacher and peer support (Hardre et al. 2009;

Nelson and DeBacker 2008) and the teacher’s interpersonal style of interaction and com-

munication (Anderman and Wolters 2006; Black and Deci 2000; Deci and Ryan 2002).

Perceptions of motivational outcomes

Motivation influences a host of learning and development outcomes, from current

investment and achievement through to future success expectations and identity formation

(Maehr 1989; Vallerand et al. 1997). Interest, engagement and effort are common indi-

cators of motivation for learning and achievement (Reeve et al. 2002; Pintrich 2003;

Greene et al. 2004). Interest is the learner’s intrinsic attraction to a specific content, task or

area of learning or skills (Deci and Ryan 2002; Hidi and Harackiewicz 2000) and it


123

includes both cognitive and affective elements (Hidi et al. 2004). Engagement is the

learner’s cognitive focus on content and tasks, both in and outside school (Hardre et al.

2007; Hardre and Sullivan 2008a, b). Effort is the purposeful energy that a learner expends

towards learning and skill development (Wigfield and Eccles 2000; Reeve et al. 2002).

Using the logical framework model from reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen 2010),

ability in the content area is related to teachers’ motivating efforts through outcomes and

success expectations. Higher perceptions of student ability can interact with lower per-

ceived motivation to produce perceived need with outcome utility. (They can, but they

won’t.) In contrast, low ability perceptions with low perceived motivation can produce

need without utility and expected success. (Even if they wanted to, they couldn’t.) In the

former case, potential for motivating intervention to promote learning and achievement are

high, but less so in the latter case, generating lower perceived benefit from the teacher’s

effort invested to motivate.

Indicators and causes of lack of motivation

If students lack critical motivational characteristics, they are in danger of being unmotivated

and low achieving in school (Pintrich 2003; Schunk et al. 2007). As an invisible, internal

process, motivation can be difficult to identify and address (Hardre 2007). If teachers can

accurately identify their students’ motivational needs and address them, then they can remove

barriers to students’ motivation and teach more effectively, and students can learn more

effectively (Hidi and Harackiewicz 2000). For these reasons, it is important to investigate

how teachers are identifying motivational needs.

Further, the reasons that people attribute as causes for problems, such as lack of a

critical characteristic for success, often predict the strategies that they use to solve those

problems (Jonassen 2011). This is an intuitive and logical formula for generating problem

solutions, in an attempt to reverse the cause of a negative condition and to correct that

condition to a positive state (Hardre et al. 2008). Because perceived reasons for initial lack

of motivation can drive teachers’ motivating strategies, it is important for research to

systematically identify what factors teachers see as causing students’ demotivation (or

amotivation) and how these causal attributions relate to their efforts to correct the problem.

Research considerations

Based on the theoretical and empirical literature, we investigated the relationships among

what these teachers think and believe, what they know and feel confident in doing, and

what they actually do to strategically motivate their students. With this goal, we focused on

the apparent relationships between the following six sets of factors, as seen through the

eyes of the teachers:

1. the teachers’ beliefs about motivation generally (its malleability, transience, teachers’

power to change it);

2. their perceptions of their students’ motivational characteristics (goals, engagement,

effort, interest in class, reasons for lack of motivation) and ability in the content area;

3. their knowledge and self-efficacy for motivating (for identifying motivational needs

and for addressing those needs that they identify);

4. their classroom learning environment (teacher control, student control, negative

climate factors) and interpersonal style (autonomy–supportive vs. controlling);


123

5. the factors that they believe influence students’ motivation (in the classroom, school

and community);

6. the strategies that they use to motivate students (individual and instructional, implicit

and explicit).

Method

Participants

Participants were 13 teachers in three rural public high schools in two US states. Table 1

shows the demographic profile of teachers in the sample. Age range was 23–57 years

(M = 40); five were male and eight female. All taught multiple grade levels (9–12 or

10–12) in the following subject areas: Mathematics (3), Science (5), English (2), Social

sciences (1) and Technology (2). These teachers had from 1 to 35 years of experience in

teaching overall (M = 15); 1–35 years teaching in high schools (M = 13); and 1–35 years

in the same school where they are teaching now (M = 11). This profile is representative of

the teachers in the participating rural schools.

Rural schools and communities

Rural communities are diverse (Adams 2003) and identified by multiple labels (e.g. rural,

non-metro, non-urban) defined by a variety of factors (Brown and Swanson 2003; Yang

and Fetsch 2007). Therefore, it is necessary to specify how ‘rural’ school and communities

were defined and selected (Coladarci 2007; Howley et al. 2005; McTavish and Salamon

2003). Communities where these teachers’ schools were located were ‘rural’ as defined by

the United States Office of Management and Budget (Office of Management and Budget

2000), recognised as rural schools by their state Departments of Education, and located in

small and relatively isolated communities. By NCES urban-centric locale codes all were

classified as rural distant (locale code 42) or rural remote (locale code 43) (National Center

for Educational Statistics 2009a). [In 2005–2006, NCES supported work by the Census

Bureau to redesign the 1980 original locale codes to align with changes in the US popu-

lation and geographic shifts. The new locale codes are based on proximity to an urbanised

area (a densely settled core with densely settled surrounding areas), rather than to

metropolitan areas. Locale code 42 (rural distant) is Census-defined rural territory that is

more than 5 miles but less than or equal to 25 miles from an urbanised area, or more than

2.5 miles but less than or equal to 10 miles from an urban cluster. Locale code 43 (rural

remote) is rural territory that is more than 25 miles from an urbanised area and is also more

than 10 miles from an urban cluster.]

Procedures

With the goal of obtaining a sample of teachers from representative rural schools from

within these states, the researchers created a profile of rural schools within each state based

on the factors discussed above (i.e. SES, remoteness, school size, community population

and education, and geographic location within the state). From this list, eight candidate

schools were randomly selected and invited to participate. The three schools that agreed to

participate were representative on key profile characteristics for the population of interest


123

Ta

ble

1S

um

mar

yp

rofi

leo

fte

ach

ers

for

dem

og

rap

hic

san

dq

uan

tita

tiv

ein

stru

men

ts

Tch

rD

emog

rap

hic

sB

elie

fsab

ou

tm

oti

vat

ion

Tch

rM

oti

vch

ars

Per

c.ca

use

sS

trat

egie

s

Ag

e(y

ears

)G

end

Ex

p(y

ears

)S

ubj

Lev

elM

alea

Tra

ns

Go

als

Mo

tiv

Ab

ilM

ot

style

Effi

cd

iag

Effi

cM

ot

Inte

rnca

use

Ex

tern

cause

Inte

rnS

trat

Ex

tern

Str

at

14

0F

8S

ciA

dv

5.3

34

.00

3.1

64

.89

4.8

36

.75

5.0

05

.00

5.8

33

.66

6.0

53

.89

24

6F

25

En

gB

asic

6.0

05

.00

5.2

56

.11

5.7

16

.50

6.0

05

.00

5.8

35

.33

5.5

64

.89

33

7F

14

En

gB

oth

4.3

34

.00

4.3

35

.00

4.7

15

.88

5.0

05

.00

4.6

64

.00

5.0

03

.66

43

9M

15

Sci

Ad

v4

.00

4.0

03

.83

4.1

13

.57

5.1

24

.00

4.0

04

.00

4.3

34

.00

3.7

7

55

7M

35

Mat

hA

dv

2.3

34

.00

3.5

05

.44

5.1

45

.12

5.0

03

.00

4.1

63

.33

4.6

63

.00

64

1M

17

Mat

hB

asic

5.0

05

.00

4.4

14

.33

4.5

76

.25

5.0

04

.00

4.6

64

.66

5.0

04

.44

75

6M

35

Sci

Bas

ic6

.00

6.0

05

.50

5.3

35

.00

5.8

86

.00

5.0

06

.00

5.0

05

.33

5.0

0

82

3F

1M

ath

Bas

ic5

.00

4.0

01

.91

1.7

75

.00

5.8

85

.00

4.0

07

.00

6.0

05

.76

4.0

0

95

5F

15

Tec

hB

asic

5.6

74

.00

3.1

65

.44

5.7

16

.38

6.0

06

.00

4.1

63

.00

5.7

84

.44

10

27

F5

En

gB

oth

6.0

04

.00

4.6

75

.00

5.3

36

.50

6.0

04

.00

5.0

03

.00

5.7

93

.66

11

25

M1

So

cB

asic

5.3

35

.00

4.0

05

.33

6.0

06

.00

6.0

05

.00

4.0

04

.00

5.1

4.8

9

12

36

F1

0S

ciB

oth

6.3

34

.00

4.0

04

.22

4.2

95

.25

4.0

04

.00

5.0

05

.00

5.7

73

.77

13

46

F1

6T

ech

Bo

th6

.00

5.0

04

.00

6.3

35

.57

6.5

06

.00

6.0

04

.00

2.0

05

.90

3.3

3

Gen

dg

end

er,

Exp

yea

rso

fex

per

ien

cein

teac

hin

go

ver

all,

Su

bj

sub

ject

area

sta

ugh

t.K

eyto

Su

bje

ctA

reas

:m

ath

mat

hem

atic

s,E

ng

En

gli

sh,

Sci

Sci

ence

s,S

oc

So

cial

Stu

die

s,T

ech

com

pu

ters

,te

chno

log

y,

Lev

elte

ach

esat

bas

ico

rad

van

ced

lev

el,

or

bo

th,

Ma

lea

motv

asm

alle

able

,T

ran

sm

oti

vas

tran

sien

t,G

oa

lsst

ren

gth

of

stu

den

tg

oal

s,M

oti

vg

ener

alm

oti

vat

ion

sco

re,

Ab

ilst

ud

ents

’ab

ilit

y,

Mo

tSty

lete

ach

er’s

inte

rper

son

alm

oti

vat

ing

style

(IS

Q),

Effi

ctw

oty

pes

of

effi

cacy

for

dia

gn

osi

ng

and

for

mo

tiv

atin

g


123

reflected in the federal and state school profile data. We obtained administrative consent to

conduct the research in their schools and then recruited individual teachers to participate.

Questionnaires were administered via a secure online administration system, Survey-

Monkey�. Using this method, the teachers could complete the questionnaires during their

own time around the school’s regular schedule. The system collected access and time-on-

task data. The data were transmitted directly to researchers through the online system,

without being seen by peers or administrators. This method enabled the researchers to

ensure confidentiality for participant data. Teachers were asked to consider the charac-

teristics of the group of students whom they were teaching in the current school term,

across classes, and to respond to all instruments for that same group.

Measures

Teacher demographics included age, gender, ethnic group, years of teaching experience

(overall, in high school, in this school), subjects taught, grades taught and educational

background. One set of questionnaires assessed teachers’ perceptions of their students’

characteristics, including goal orientations, perceived ability, motivation and causes of lack

of motivation. Another set of questionnaires assessed teachers’ own perceptions of the

classroom learning environment, interpersonal motivating style, efficacy for diagnosing

and intervening for students’ motivation, and motivating strategies. Teachers also com-

pleted a set of open-ended items addressing how they identify and respond to students’

motivational needs.

Perceptions of students’ characteristics

For this set of constructs, teachers were instructed to indicate for each of the statements and

characteristics how they believed that most of their students would respond.

Achievement goals Teachers’ perceptions of three types of student achievement goals

were assessed: learning, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals. The

instrument was the Approaches to Learning (ATL) Questionnaire (1–5 Likert-type scale;

Greene et al. 2004). Sample items include the following: learning goals (‘‘I do my work in

this class because I want to understand the ideas’’), performance-approach (‘‘I do my work

in this class because I can show other people that I am smart’’), performance-avoidance (‘‘I

don’t do my work in this class so I can avoid looking stupid to others’’) (subscale alpha

reliabilities ranged from 0.72 to 0.91). We examined the individual scale scores, then

computed a mean of the two types of demonstrably more productive goals as a general

score for each teacher.

Perceived instrumentality An additional subscale of the ATL assessed teachers’ per-

ceptions of instrumentality of the class content. A sample item is: ‘‘I do my work in this

class because knowing the material will be useful in my future’’ (subscale alpha

reliability = 0.91).

Perceived ability Teachers’ perceptions of students’ ability in the course were assessed

with the perceived ability subscale of the ATL, which shared the design of its other

subscales (alpha reliability = 0.70). A sample item is: ‘‘I can do the work in this class.’’


123

General student motivation Teachers’ perceptions of students’ overall motivation for the

course were assessed using the general motivation subscale from the Perceptions of Stu-

dent Motivation (PSM) Questionnaire (Hardre et al. 2008; Hardre and Sullivan 2008b). It

assesses teachers’ perceptions of the degree and quality of students’ academic motivation

based on behaviors that teachers could observe in a particular class (7 items; alpha reli-

ability = 0.90). We utilised the mean score as a general indicator of each teacher’s per-

ception of student motivation.

Interpersonal style Teacher perceptions of the degree of their autonomy–supportive

interpersonal style, (viewed as students would) was assessed with the Interpersonal Style

Questionnaire (ISQ) (8 items; 1–7 Likert-type scale). A sample item is: ‘‘My teacher

encourages me to ask questions’’ (Hardre and Reeve 2002; Hardre et al. 2007); Cronbach’s

alpha coefficient = 0.86).

Teachers’ own beliefs and perceptions

For this set of constructs, teachers were instructed to indicate their own personal beliefs or

perceptions.

Classroom learning environment Two key elements of classroom environment are tea-

cher support and peer support for academic success. Both were measured using the teacher

support subscale of the In My Classroom (IMC) Questionnaire from Greene and Miller

(1996; 15 items; Likert-type 7-point scale). A sample item is: ‘‘In this class mistakes are

considered a normal part of learning’’. Peer support in the classroom learning environment

was assessed by a second subscale of the IMC (6 items). A sample item is: ‘‘In this class

students care about each other’’. This instrument was tested previously with similar pop-

ulations (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.96; Hardre et al. 2007, 2008).

Reasons for student lack of motivation A second subscale on the PSM assesses the

reasons that teachers believe explain students’ lack of motivation. It includes a list of 13

reasons which teachers are asked to endorse. The reasons sort into five clusters: home

factors (3 items; alpha = 0.83), relevance/value (3 items; alpha = 0.78), aspirations/

futures (3 items; alpha = 0.73), negative peer pressure (3 items; alpha = 0.62), and per-

sonal traits (lazy/don’t care) (3 items; alpha = 0.67). Sample items by subscale include:

home factors (‘‘Some of my students just have too many home problems to make school a

priority’’); relevance/value (‘‘When my students aren’t engaged in school, it’s because they

don’t see the value of what they are being asked to learn’’); aspirations/futures (‘‘Some of

my students aren’t motivated to work in school because education has no place in the

futures they see for themselves’’); negative peer pressure (‘‘Generally, the students in my

class who are not interested in learning are that way because of peer pressure to devalue

school’’); and personal traits (‘‘Some students are not motivated to learn because they are

just lazy’’).

Teacher efficacy for motivating students Teachers’ self-efficacy for motivating students

in their classrooms was assessed using the efficacy subscale of the Motivating Strategies

Questionnaire (MSQ; Hardre and Sullivan 2008a, 2009). It includes two subscales that

measure the teacher’s self-perception of efficacy for identifying students’ lack of moti-

vation (3 items; alpha = 0.75), and for motivating students in the classroom (4 items;


123

alpha = 0.92; a contextualised version of the Teacher Efficacy Scale, Tschannen-Moran

et al. 1998).

Teacher motivating strategies A second subscale of the MSQ assesses the strategies that

a teacher uses to intervene for students’ lack of motivation. It presents a list of 13 strategies

which teachers are asked to endorse. The strategies sort into five clusters that represent four

types of strategies plus a sense of helplessness to influence motivation. The clusters are:

relatedness and emotional support (2 items; alpha = 0.75), relevance and value (3 items;

alpha = 0.89), aspirations and futures (3 items; alpha = 0.79), acknowledge peer pressure

(2 items; alpha = 0.75), can’t influence (3 items; alpha = 0.74). Sample items by subscale

include: relatedness and emotional support (‘‘When students are unmotivated, I often try to

connect with them personally, use relatedness to bridge the gap’’); relevance/value (‘‘Many

times, I try to promote students’ motivation by showing them how what we are learning is

relevant to their lives’’); aspirations/futures (‘‘When students in my class are unmotivated, I

try promoting aspirations, like college and jobs, that connect with the ideas we are cov-

ering’’); acknowledge peer pressure (‘‘Motivating some students requires getting them

alone, away from their peers’’); and the general helplessness, or can’t influence, subscale

(‘‘With some students I just don’t waste my time trying to motivate them’’).

Motivating a disengaged student narrative The teacher’s detailed approach to motivating

a disengaged student in the class is reported using the motivating a disengaged student

narrative (MDS). This measure asks the teacher to share the story of when a particular student

in class was unmotivated, and how the teacher tried to promote that student’s motivation. It

begins with the instructions: ‘‘Recall a recent classroom experience in which you attempted to

motivate a disengaged student’’ and defines a disengaged student as one who ‘‘puts forth little

effort, seems passive or bored, and displays minimal attention and persistence in school’’. It

prompts the teacher to include the following details: ‘‘How did you approach and interact with

the student?’’, ‘‘What were you trying to accomplish?’’, ‘‘What did you say?’’ and ‘‘What did

you do?’’ This is the same measure used by Reeve et al. (1999), except that their study used a

numeric scoring rubric, while the present study used open-coded narratives and treated them

as qualitative information. Whereas the PSM and MSQ assess teachers’ perceptions and

strategies for motivating students generally, the MDS focuses on a specific incident, assessing

individually-focused and context-specific perceptions and motivating strategies. This

instrument, qualitatively analysed, is consistent with the Most Significant Incident or Most

Significant Change technique (Davies and Dart 2005; Willets and Crawford 2007) used in

numerous authentic applied development contexts (e.g. Hardre and Burris 2011).

Indicators, strategies and environmental influences A set of original motivational open-

ended questions (MOEQ) assessed: (1) teachers’ general reports of the indicators that they

use to indicate whether students are motivated; (2) the strategies that they use to address

needs that they identify; and (3) environmental factors that they believe influence students’

academic motivation at three levels (classroom, school and community). These general

reports were compared to the teachers’ narratives of how they motivated the individual

student, and the quantitative scales measuring classroom climate and interpersonal style.

This multi-method, dual-scope assessment strategy enables the researchers to compare

what participants say that they would do and in abstract claim to endorse with what they

say that they actually did in an authentic instance of interacting with an unmotivated

student.


123

Analysis

Data were analysed as individual case studies and then compared in parallel. The analysis

was mixed-method in that qualitative and quantitative data from various types of sys-

tematic assessments and data captured from naturalistic activity were integrated and

compared (triangulated) to promote both clarity and fuller understanding of the phenomena

under investigation (Creswell and Plano Clark 2007; Teddlie and Tashakkori 2009). Two

researchers independently analysed the data from the various sources and then met, dis-

cussed and negotiated findings, consistent with the research questions and attentive to

potential emergent findings. We analysed data at both whole-group and case levels.

Results

When looking across both the quantitative and qualitative data provided by these 13

teachers, a number of themes emerged. We have organised the results generally (albeit

with sensitivity to their overlap) by our three key issues of interest of what the teachers

believe, what they know, and what they do. Tables 1 and 2 show the summary profile data

for the 13 participant teachers, with Table 1 focusing on the demographics and quantitative

instruments and Table 2 focussing on the qualitative and open-ended measures.

What teachers believe

Malleability of motivation

Teachers reported strong beliefs that students’ motivation is malleable in nature

(M = 5.09; SD = 0.88). Nearly all of the teachers in this sample reported strong beliefs

about the malleability of motivation. Beyond their high subscale scores on the quantitative

questionnaires, these teachers shared narratives including beliefs that students’ motivation

can be changed. Consistent with the quantitative scales, their qualitative responses also

indicated that they believed that motivation is a factor that is important to learning and that

it is malleable and can be changed through environmental influences or direct intervention.

Just two teachers varied markedly from the group. They did see motivation as important to

learning and achievement, but indicated in their multiple responses that they felt helpless to

intervene and that they believed that students’ academic motivation neither was malleable

nor could change through intervention.

Transience of motivation

On the other hand, the teachers in our sample were less likely to have strong beliefs about

the transience of motivation (M = 4.46, SD = 0.90). Those with stronger transience

beliefs tended to see motivational difficulties as passing conditions which often correct

themselves over time. This belief in part could counterbalance the belief that it is mal-

leable, as teachers who believe that amotivation will self-correct often choose not to

intervene or invest energy to implement strategies. The low transience beliefs in this group

position these teachers as more likely to put forth effort to intervene for unmotivated

students.


123

Table 2 Summary profile of teachers on qualitative data sources

Tchr Indicators Generalstrategies

Specific strategies Local influences

1 Posture, participation,achievement,performance

Attention,relatedness

Relatedness,competence,structure

Class: interaction, variety,humour

School: sizeCommunity: location

2 Body language,participation, affect,engagement

Relevance Relatedness,competence,feedback

Class: structure, friendlinessSchool: negative peer

pressureCommunity: none

3 Attention, participation,behaviour,performance

Attention,engagement

Extrinsic, controlstructures

Class: fun, low homeworkload

School: extracurricularactivities

Community: parents don’tcare about education

4 None, vague None(assumes)

None Class: high workloadSchool: gradesCommunity: social

interaction

5 Affect, engagement,behaviour,verbalisations

Relatedness,affect

Supports, relatedness,persistence

Class: low homework load,relevance, utility

School: lack of relevance,curriculum lacks utility

Community: communityvalues education

6 Engagement, effort,vague

Vague Vague Class: equipment

7 Sleeping, effort,behaviour

Relatedness Engagement, externalbehavioural

Class: open learningenvironment, relatedness

School: administrativesupport

Community: parentinvolvement

8 Participation,engagement, attention

Individualcausal

Internal causal, long-term, relatedness

Class: accountabilitySchool: peer pressureCommunity: home

environments

9 Behaviour, vague Proximity Proximity, externalbehavioural

Class: disabilitiesSchool: rewards,

recognitionsCommunity: community

values education

10 Engagement, effort,performance,participation

Individualcausal

Relatedness,individual causal

Class: safe learningenvironment, acceptance,relatedness

School: organizational goalsCommunity: home life,

parents value education

11 Posture, engagement,behaviour, interest

External–individualbehavioral

External, behavioural,short-term

Class: well-lit classroomSchool: extracurricular

activitiesCommunity: school

activities supported


123

Beliefs about nature of their students’ motivation

In terms of perceived need for change or action to motivate aside from the general beliefs,

teachers’ perceptions of their own students’ existing motivational characteristics promoted or

reduced their profile to intervene. Overall, they rated their students’ motivation fairly high, in

terms of effort (M = 5.02; SD = 1.05) and engagement (M = 5.24; SD = 0.79), but they

rated students’ interest in the content markedly lower (M = 3.50; SD = 1.34). Even with

interest generally lower, these three indicators were correlated in terms of magnitude, so that a

shared mean reflected a coherent indicator. For this reason, we merged them into the

Motivation factor in Table 2. These numbers indicate that they perceived most of their

students as at least moderately and perhaps highly motivated, but they saw a gap between the

motivation that arises from individual students’ orientation towards school (and might be

promoted by teachers and peers) and that which arises from the interest value of the subjectmatter in school (and might be promoted by curriculum design and selection). Thus, they

view the content, rather than teacher style or peer influence, as the more motivationally

negative component of school for secondary students. All but two reported the need to

motivate some students regularly or strenuously, and these findings were consistent for the

MSQ and PSM and for one or both of the qualitative instruments. Consistent with both the

logic of reasoned action and self-efficacy, teachers who doubted the malleability of moti-

vation and had lower efficacy to intervene reported less effort to motivate their students.

As to students’ goals, teachers generally rated them higher on learning (M = 4.35;

SD = 1.19) than performance goals (M = 3.51; SD = 0.94), and higher on the more pro-

ductive performance approach than on less productive avoidance goals (M = 2.72;

SD = 1.23). High variability among goals indicates a wide range of teacher perceptions within

the group. These teachers perceived their students’ content area ability as high with low

variability (M = 5.99; SD = 0.66). This high ability perception positioned teachers with

potentially high learning and achievement effects from an effective motivational intervention.

Beliefs about causes of their students’ motivation

Another important set of teacher beliefs or perceptions is the reasons to which they

attribute students’ lack of motivation. When teachers can (and do) understand and identify

Table 2 continued

Tchr Indicators Generalstrategies

Specific strategies Local influences

12 Posture, engagement,participation

Attention,relevance

External, behavioural,attention

Class: technology, hands-onexperience, 8-period day

School: parents support andexpectations,extracurriculars

Community: student lack ofresponsibility

13 Engagement,participation

Proximity,interest,relatedness

Proximity,competence,relatedness, supports

Class: student attitudes,literacy

School: home values,extracurricular activities,

Community: lack of supportfor education, scholarships


123

reasons why they believe students are undermotivated or unmotivated, that understanding

should lead to a potential strategy for intervening in an attempt to reverse the condition that

reduced student motivation, to the extent that is possible within the teacher’s control. The

teachers in this study reported the following prevalence of reasons for their students’ lack

of motivation (PSM): relevance/value of the content (M = 5.0; SD = 1.07); aspirations/

futures (M = 4.52; SD = 1.39); home problems/parents (M = 4.45; SD = 1.26); personal

choice/laziness (M = 4.10; SD = 1.47); and negative peer pressure (M = 3.43;

SD = 1.11). In the narratives, because teachers reported examples that reflected similar

reasons for lack of motivation, the two types of data were consistent in terms of these

patterns as well. Interestingly, the two most prevalent causes to which they attributed

students’ motivation were internal (relevance/value, aspirations/futures), both individually

defined and both content-relevant, with both present and future implications. The third

strongest endorsement was external and outside teacher control (home problems/parents),

but the fourth strongest endorsement was internal and individual (personal choice/laziness)

and the fifth strongest (but much weaker) was external and other-focused (peer pressure).

These causal attributions (reasons) are consistent with their responses on the other

instruments: content ranks highest as negative motivationally, with related aspirations next,

which both are factors that teachers generally see as actionable. The other three (ranked

lower as causal) tend to be factors that teachers view as less within their control.

Beliefs about local influences on motivation

In addition to students’ individual characteristics and causal influences, teachers also

shared what they believed were influential factors in the surrounding context of classroom,

school and community. These systemic factors are important because they could exacer-

bate or mediate causal factors, and support or undermine teachers’ efforts to motivate a

class of students initially, or an unmotivated student individually. This is a key component

of research on rural schools, given often-limited resources and isolated rural locales.

At the class level, teachers’ responses focused on positives including their own

instructional strategies (interactivity, variety, humour, minimal homework) and classroom

environment (safety, acceptance, relatedness, accountability). Negatives were fewer, but

focused on organisational issues that were really more at the school level and with

implications for the classroom (eight-period day, workload, examination pressure), toge-

ther with some student limitations (disabilities, low literacy). At the school level, more of

the same organisational factors were seen as positive (extracurricular activities, awards and

recognitions), along with home and family factors (parent support and academic expec-

tations, home values). Negatives included organisational and curriculum factors (school

size, peer pressure, grade pressure, lack of content relevance). At the community level,

many of the same responses appeared, indicating consistency of influences that permeate

the culture of the school. Positives were mostly about parent and peer support (parent

involvement, parent value for education, social interactions) and rewards for academic

achievement (grants, scholarships, extracurricular activities) as well as a general value for

education in the community. Negatives were socioeconomic (low SES, low college

expectations). Just one teacher cited district isolation as a negative influence. It is notable

that so few responses focused on the school’s rurality and that, as in previous studies, the

rural locale emerged as central in teachers’ perceptions of challenges to motivation (e.g.

Hardre 2008, 2010; Hardre and Sullivan 2009).

Teachers’ beliefs about motivation generally (expressed in the multiple qualitative

assessments) were divided concerning whether motivation is (1) more internal or externally


123

influenced and (2) more the student’s or the teacher’s responsibility to initiate and sustain.

The teachers’ beliefs about their students’ motivation, its nature and causes were mostly

consistent with respect to malleability and transience (with some exceptions). However,

they varied on goals, ability and overall motivation (with the largest range on motivation).

Taking the whole of their perceived influences, positive and negative, these teachers did

not communicate that their rurality was an important factor either way. They noted factors

that could have been influential in nearly any school, whether urban, suburban or rural. In

short, historical rural issues did not emerge as important motivational issues for this group

of teachers overall.

What they know

Indicators and efficacy for diagnosing versus changing students’ motivation

Most of the teachers reported that they were able to identify motivational difficulties

among their students. Teachers said that they felt capable of changing students’ motivation

when they could accurately identify the causes. In general, teachers in this sample reported

multiple indicators along with high levels of efficacy regarding their abilities to identify

unmotivated students (M = 5.33; SD = 0.75). Ten (teachers) exhibited very high efficacy

for identifying lack of motivation, relying on observations of student behaviors and

classroom participation. Primary diagnostic indicators that teachers articulated using

included (1) on-task and off-task behaviors, (2) attention, engagement and effort on work,

(3) participation and involvement in group and individual work, (4) verbalizations or

emotionality and (5) performance. The first three types of indicators were much more

frequent than the last two. The way in which they described these indicators was divided

between somewhat vague/abstract and very concrete/specific.

Knowledge and efficacy to intervene

Teachers reported much lower efficacy for actually intervening with strategies for motivating

unmotivated students (M = 4.62; SD = 0.84). In qualitative narratives, most teachers

reported that often they neither know how to motivate students effectively nor feel that they

are able to change students’ school-related motivation. These teachers have a range of reasons

that they believe influence student motivation generally, and they are confident that they can

tell when students are unmotivated. However, they lack confidence in accurately identifying

the reasons for individual students’ lack of motivation, and only about half expressed con-

fidence about intervening effectively to address student motivation, either for individuals or

for a class.

Where and how they learned to motivate

Part of the context for what these teachers know is where and how they learned about

motivation and motivating students. One open-ended item in the MOEQ asked for this

information directly (an individual could give one or more sources in responding). The

teachers responded that what they knew about motivation came from the sources of school/

education course (6), trial and error/experience (7), professional development (4) and

supervising teacher/mentor (1). Two teachers sidestepped this question with defensive

statements (e.g. ‘‘I concentrate on doing the best I can, not on what is happening in the


123

minds of everyone around me’’). These researchers couldn’t help but wonder how teachers

could do their best work teaching without considering what is happening in the minds of

their students.

What they do

Motivating style

In terms of their interpersonal style for motivating students, teachers reported a range of more

autonomy–supportive to controlling styles of interactions and strategies, but generally they

were on the positive (more autonomy–supportive) side (M = 5.88; SD = 0.68). These

reports of overall style were generally consistent with their direct reports on both the MOEQ

and the MSQ narratives. Fewer teachers evidenced using long-term and pedagogical strat-

egies to change students’ motivation in their classroom. Of the 10 teachers who reported high

efficacy for diagnosing motivational difficulties, only five also reported high efficacy for

addressing these problems.

As to general types of strategies, it was notable that the teachers endorsed fewer

externally-focused and controlling strategies (rewards, constraints) than more internally-

focused strategies to use with their students. This pattern of internally-focused versus

externally-focused strategies was consistent with the teachers’ score on autonomy-sup-

portive interpersonal style (M = 5.88; SD = 0.69) are theoretically consistent with the

tenets of self-determination theory (Reeve et al. 2003; Ryan and Deci 2000).

Motivating strategies: prevalence

Teachers with more autonomy–supportive interpersonal style also tended to have higher

efficacy for diagnosing and motivating, and they tended to choose more internally-focused

and longer-term strategies (both endorsed and generatively reported). Teachers reported the

following prevalence of strategy use for intervening in their students’ lack of motivation

(MSQ): relevance/value of the content (M = 5.52; SD = 0.84); aspirations/futures

(M = 5.45; SD = 0.71); relatedness/emotional support (M = 4.86; SD = 0.66); extrinsic

rewards (M = 4.52; SD = 0.84); extrinsic constraints (M = 3.81; SD = 1.15); and

acknowledging negative peer pressure (M = 3.57; SD = 0.76).

Teachers’ reports about quantitative and qualitative questions concerning how they

would influence students’ motivation varied widely and, in many cases, were not consistent

for a single teacher. Two teachers reported high use of the pedagogical strategies of

appeals to relevance and future aspirations in quantitative data, but only reported using

short-term and external strategies (such as proximity) when asked for exemplars of how

they address students’ motivation. Two other teachers who reported high efficacy for

diagnosing and correcting motivational difficulties failed to report high use of any strategy

in the quantitative data and reported only the use of short-term strategies (i.e. wake up

student, requiring on-task behaviour) in the qualitative data. Only three teachers both

endorsed using substantive pedagogical strategies (such as appeals to students’ abilities,

future aspirations and material relevance) for the quantitative instruments, and reported

using these same strategies in the applied exemplar narratives.

The same teachers who reported perceptions of low efficacy for intervening also scored

low on the helplessness response (‘‘just can’t make a difference’’). However, this apparent

contradiction could reflect the belief that, if they had appropriate strategies, they could


123

make a difference (low helplessness), but the recognition that they currently lack those

effective strategies (resulting in low efficacy for success).

Motivating strategies: relation to causes

Overall, the ordering of the strategies, in terms of prevalence of use, were consistent with the

reasons that the teachers identified to explain their students’ existing lack of motivation. This

finding indicates that the teachers recognise the logic of intervening with strategies to address

what they perceive to be the causal factors of students’ lack of motivation. Their problem-

solving logic at this level is clear.

Though the specific match is important, in order to simplify comparison, we distilled the

subscale scores to two types of reasons and strategies: more internally-focused and more

externally-focused. As is apparent in Table 1, the two sets of scores are fairly consistent

within individual teachers’ motivational reasoning (the low scores for perceived causes are

generally consistent with low scores for general strategies). Strength of three characteristics

(beliefs in malleability of motivation, autonomy–supportive interpersonal motivational style,

and self-efficacy) are consistent with higher use of internally-focused strategies (for both the

quantitative and qualitative measures).

Strategies: short-term and long-term efforts

In addition to whether teachers were internally or externally focused, we found range in

whether teachers used short-term (attention and behaviour management) or long-term

(causal solution) strategies. Teacher strategies tended to be divided between jump-starting

(gaining or regaining attention then moving on), and long-term change efforts (addressing

internal factors that they viewed as causing students’ lack of motivation). These differences

were apparent in the quantitative strategy selection measure (MSQ) and style (ISQ), as well

as in the qualitative data, both from the general responses (MOEQ) and from the specific

student narrative (MSQ).

Teachers’ narratives included two types of reasons for the choice of short-term strat-

egies: (1) the belief that they couldn’t really change this student’s motivation long term;

and (2) pressure to proceed based on factors such as class size and administrative pressure

(such as to cover content for curriculum requirements and end-of-instruction tests). Across

the group, half of the teachers (6 of 13) reported using more externally-oriented indicators

and external and short-term strategies, while the other half of the teachers (6 of 13)

reported using more internally-oriented indicators and internal and long-term strategies.

(One teacher explicitly reported ‘none’ for indicators and strategies.)

Strategies: consistency of general and specific reported strategies

In most cases (10 of 13 teachers), there was consistency of what teachers said they do in

general (‘for unmotivated students’) and what they reported doing in an actual instance

(‘for one unmotivated student’), specifically. However, in a few cases (3 of 13 teachers),

there was a stark contrast between what the teachers who reported that they ‘would do’ (in

abstract) and what they ‘actually did and said’ for one student. These differences were not

explained simply by differences in individual students’ needs or cases, but in the more

global philosophy and style evidenced in their actions, which was antithetical to their self-

reported general philosophy, approach and style.


123

Integrating beliefs and knowledge

Teachers reported beliefs about motivation that positioned them to act to motivate students.

Across all types of change efforts, when people believe that things can be changed, identify

them as needing changing, and believe that they can make a difference, then they will try to

do it, and are more likely to do it successfully. Thus, to be high on all of these factors

means that teachers are positioned to act to motivate students. However, the missing piece

for these teachers is that they feel that they lack the knowledge and skill to effectively

motivate their less motivated students. Because teachers’ knowledge of motivation actually

can be very limited, they have few strategies to begin with. Or teachers might have found

through experience (over repeated attempts) that the strategies that they have do not meet

their students’ needs. Alternately, their perceptions of ineffectiveness could stem from the

reasons to which the teachers attribute students’ lack of motivation to factors outside their

control (e.g. bad home life, maybe a single mom or single dad, no money). One teacher

said that she tried to compensate for those uncontrollable motivational difficulties by

appealing to a student on a personal level, although admitting that she lacked control over

the initial causes.

Brief look at cases

Some cases within this sample stand out as exemplars to illustrate how these factors

position teachers with regard to motivating students. Case #4 has been teaching science for

15 years and currently teaches advanced science. He has the most pessimistic and

unproductive motivating profile in the group, with low belief in the malleability of

motivation, perceptions of low students’ motivation, low efficacy for both identifying and

motivating, low causal perceptions and few strategies. Consistent with these profile

characteristics, this teacher’s qualitative and narrative responses showed no indicators, no

strategies, no perception of need, only negative local influences (all 3 levels) and explicitly

no interest in motivating students.

Case #1 also teaches advanced science and has done for 8 years. However, she has a

very different profile, with high malleability beliefs, low transience beliefs and perceptions

of low to moderate students’ existing motivation, but with perceptions of moderate ability

(translating into high perceived need and value to motivate). This teacher’s highly

autonomy–supportive style is associated with high efficacy for both identifying and

intervening with effort and persistence. Perceived causes are largely internal and general

strategies (also internal) align with these causal perceptions. This teacher has a range of

indicators in use and features internally-focused strategies for both long-term and short-

term outcomes, for both instructional (group) and intervention (individual) needs.

Case #8 is a second-year teacher in basic mathematics. His beliefs about motivation are

moderately high on malleability and low on transience about students’ ability are high, and

about goals and overall motivation are very low. This positions him with similarly high

value for motivating as Case #1, with an even greater perceived need. His style is highly

autonomy–supportive, his efficacy to identify is high, and his efficacy to intervene is

notably lower. He sees all types of causes strongly, but uses internal strategies where

possible, consistent with his style and goal of motivating for the long term (rather than

short term). He bases his choice of strategy on each student’s motivational needs. This

young teacher has all of the passion, motivation and style to succeed, but could benefit

from professional development in motivation to enhance his strategy use and improve his

efficacy to intervene.


123

A final example is Case #5, who teaches advanced mathematics and has taught math-

ematics for 35 years. This teacher has very low malleability beliefs and moderately low

transience (and so he sees motivation as very stable and difficult for teachers to influence).

His perceptions of students’ motivation are mixed, featuring less productive goals, high

general motivation and high ability (which give him a low perceived need to motivate,

which adds to low perceived potential effects). He has high efficacy to identify lack of

motivation, but he has very low efficacy to intervene, few causes identified and few general

strategies endorsed. He reports abundant indicators and strategies to use if he felt the need.

He reports that he includes motivational elements into instruction (relevance, utility, value)

which directly respond to his perception of school-level negative influences (lack of rel-

evance of content and curricular lack of utility).

Limitations

Given the small and specialised participant group, these findings cannot be generalised to

all teachers, not even all rural teachers, but that was not our intent.

Discussion

Our goal was to examine closely the complex relationships among these integrated factors

and to build a foundation for understanding how teachers formulate and carry out moti-

vational strategies. More specifically, we wanted to see how well teachers’ actual thinking

and practice fit a logic model based on reasoned action within the integrated framework of

human cognition and motivation. This framework attempts to explain what motivates

teachers to motivate students.

The responses of these teachers are consistent with the theoretical and logical frame-

works of human motivation and action on which the study was designed, including self-

efficacy theory, self-determination theory and the theory of reasoned action. Further, these

teachers’ strategies were largely consistent with their own interpersonal style, beliefs and

perceptions across factors within the motivational dynamic. The multiple instruments and

indicators produced consistent results, supporting the strength of these patterns in findings.

General style and choice of strategies usually were matched with the prevalence of

causal attributions matching the prevalence of solutions. This has been demonstrated in

some previous studies of rural teachers (e.g. Hardre 2008), but not in all previous studies,

including those using the same instruments (e.g. Hardre and Sullivan 2008a, b, 2009). Most

teachers reported that their strategy use was consistent with their strategy endorsement, but

general and specific strategies that were reported diverged in a number of cases. This

comparison of endorsed (or general) and responsive (applied, specific) motivational

strategies has not previously been done. The causes and strategies at the three levels varied

markedly across teachers, even those in the same schools, subject areas or grade levels of

students. This degree of discrimination underscores the degree of contextualisation in what

factors teachers attend to what factors they attribute the power to influence their students’

academic motivation.

There were convergent and divergent patterns of relationships, even within this rela-

tively small group, which were revealed in the multiple types and sources of data. These

findings inform future research on such patterns of relationships between beliefs, knowl-

edge and strategic action. Consistent with the theoretically specific nature of efficacy, these

teachers demonstrated very different levels of self-efficacy for the separate tasks of


123

identifying lack of motivation, diagnosing its causes, and effectively addressing it to

academically motivate students. By extending previous studies in Oklahoma (Hardre and

Sullivan 2009) to two different states, with both similar and different outcomes of note, our

research informs the ongoing rural teacher research.

We used a design framework that is theoretically and logically sound, psychometrically-

tested tools, multiple data types, and the principles of the MSI/MSC Technique for applied

program research, which invites further extension. This complex design integrated the

theoretical and pragmatic tested in an authentic context, rather than a neat, sterile con-

trolled design. No previous studies have utilised a logic model to illuminate these rela-

tionships with all of these factors among a similar group of teachers.

As in a number of previous studies, these teachers recognised their lack of knowledge

and effective strategies to motivate students, indicating that it could benefit them to have

more professional attention given to the ever-changing knowledge and skill base of

motivation. Few of these teachers responded that they had learned about motivation sys-

tematically, especially since leaving college. In a field of research and practice that is

changing because of new research and must be responsive to social and cultural changes,

this casts doubt on the currency and accuracy of these teachers’ motivating knowledge and

strategies. The teachers believe that they lack current, effective knowledge and strategies,

and they are undoubtedly correct. Yet most of these schools and districts do more pro-

fessional development related to improving test scores and classroom control than to

academic motivation. This finding raises questions about why schools (rural and other) are

not attending to teachers’ professional developmental needs with regard to motivating

students.

Given our intentional choice to seek out rural teachers, based on previous work that

underscores rural differences, it is important to consider the lack of a perceived role of

rurality as important for these participants. In previous studies, teachers identified

important, even dominant, roles of rurality and rural issues (e.g. isolation, long bus rides,

lack of community resources) as critical motivational influences at the school and com-

munity levels. However, this group did not report rural-specific factors as quite so pre-

dominant. If these schools and districts had been relatively more proximate to population

centres, location might be viewed as less rural, but all of the districts in this study were

rural distant or remote (the two most isolated rural locale codes). Perhaps digital systems

and virtual access have reduced perceptions of isolation. Questions regarding this shift in

perceptions of the influence of rural location on student motivation deserve further

investigation. One question is whether this shift is more widespread among rural teachers

beyond this group. Another is its origins and causes. An alternative reading of this contrast

is that it represents not an historic shift but a geographic contrast. From this perspective, it

could bolster (among teachers) the state-level differences among rural schools that were

previously observed among students (e.g. Hardre and Hennessey 2010). These initial

assertions of state-level differences could be tested by further and broader multi-state

research on rural teachers.

These findings underscore the meaningfulness of an integrative dynamic of cognitive

and motivational elements of teaching for teachers, especially in the light of not only

intuitive and logical frameworks, but increasingly consistent relationships demonstrated by

data-driven studies. It further revealed what could be a critical performance gap in that

teachers lack motivating knowledge and strategies and have relatively low efficacy to

motivate students, whether in groups or as individuals.


123

Implications for future research

Further studies could benefit from examining these integrative relationships across diverse

school and community contexts (urban, suburban and more diverse rural settings). Ongoing

and future research in this area could include examining what teachers are taught in their

postsecondary courses and professional development about motivation (initial professional

preparation and ongoing professional development). This research might investigate if

preparation in motivation specifically equips teachers to effectively meet the students’

needs that they encounter in authentic professional practice. Additional information could

also be provided from more extensive and detailed examination of teacher efforts and

student responses across a range of motivating situations and strategies (beyond the dual-

source exemplars used here), in order to see the effects of individual student differences

and teachers’ judgements for specific cases. Finally, a more refined understanding might be

afforded by examining teachers’ motivating strategies explicitly for whole classes and

individual students, and as general instructional methods in contrast to direct intervention

for identified lack of motivation.

Acknowledgments Special thanks to the schools and teachers who participated in this study. Its findingsare directly attributable to your generosity of time and energy.

References

Adams, J. (Ed.). (2003). Fighting for the farm: Rural America transformed. Philadelphia, PA: University ofPennsylvania Press.

Anderman, E. M., & Wolters, C. (2006). Goals, values and affect: Influences on student motivation. In P.Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 369–389). Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Andersen, B., & Fagerhaug, T. (2000). Root cause analysis: Simplified tools and techniques. Milwaukee,MN: ASQ Quality Press.

Arnold, M. L., Newman, J. H., Gaddy, B. B., & Dean, C. B. (2005). A look at the condition of ruraleducation research: Setting a difference for future research. Journal of Research in Rural Education,20(8). Retrieved from http://www.umaine.edu/jrre/20-6.pdf.

Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (1995). Rural schools: Fewer trained teachers and special programs, but betterlearning environment. Rural Development Perspectives, 10, 6–16.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,84, 191–215.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Barley, Z. A., & Beesley, A. D. (2007). Rural school success: What can we learn? Journal of Research in

Rural Education, 22(1). Retrieved from http://www.jrre.psu.edu/articles/22-1.pdf.Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous

motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education,84, 740–756.

Brophy, J. (1998). Motivating students to learn. New York: McGraw Hill.Brown, D. L., & Swanson, L. E. (2003). Rural America enters the new millennium. In D. L. Brown & L.

E. Swanson (Eds.), Challenges for rural America in the twenty-first century. University Park, PA:Pennsylvania State University Press.

Bush, W. S. (2005). Improving research on mathematics learning and teaching in rural contexts. Journal ofResearch in Rural Education, 20(8). Retrieved from http://jrre.psu.edu/articles/20-8pdf.

Church, M. A., Elliot, A. J., & Gable, S. L. (2001). Perceptions of classroom environment, achievementgoals, and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 43–54.

Coladarci, T. (2007). Improving the yield of rural education research: An editor’s swan song. Journal ofResearch in Rural Education, 22(3). Retrieved from http://www.jrre.psu.edu/articles/22-3.pdf.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & New, J. K. (1999). Gifted education in rural schools: A nationalassessment. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa Press.


123

http://www.umaine.edu/jrre/20-6.pdf

http://www.jrre.psu.edu/articles/22-1.pdf

http://jrre.psu.edu/articles/20-8pdf


Corbett, M. (2009). Rural schooling in mobile modernity: Returning to the places I’ve been. Journal ofResearch in Rural Education, 24(7), 1–13.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Dai, D. Y., & Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Beyond cognitivism: Toward an integrated understanding of intel-lectual functioning and development. In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion andcognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual development and functioning (pp. 3–40). Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Davies, R., & Dart, J. (2005). The most significant change (MSC) technique: A guide to its use. Papersponsored by Care International and OXFAM International. Accessed August 18, 2007. http://www.mande.co,.k/docs/MSCguide.htm.

Deci, E. L. (1995). Why we do what we do: Understanding self-motivation. New York: Putnam.Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). The paradox of achievement: The harder you push, the worse it gets. In J.

Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic achievement: Contributions of social psychology (pp. 59–85).New York: Academic Press.

Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Ann Arbor, MI:Taylor & Francis.

Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2010). Schools, academic motivation and stage-environment fit. InR. W. Roeser, J. S. Eccles, & A. J. Sameroff (Eds.), An ecological view of schools and their impact ondevelopment during adolescence (pp. 6–22). New York: Routledge.

Elliot, A. J., Faler, J., McGregor, H. A., Campbell, K. W., Sedikides, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000).Competence valuation as a strategic intrinsic motivation process. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 26, 780–794.

Faircloth, S. C. (2009). Re-visioning the future of education for native youth in rural schools and com-munities. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 19(1). Retrieved from http://jrre.psu.edu/articles/24-9.pdf.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. NewYork: Taylor & Francis.

Flora, C. B., Flora, J. L., & Fey, S. (2003). Rural communities: Legacy and change (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO:Westview Press.

Fowler, Jr., W. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1991). School size, characteristics, and outcomes. EducationalEvaluation and Policy Analysis, 13, 189–202.

Freeman, T. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2005). Changes in mastery goals in urban and rural middle schoolstudents. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 20(1). Retrieved from http://jrre.psu.edu/articles/20-1pdf.

Gandara, P., Gutierrez, D., & O’Hara, S. (2001). Planning for the future in rural and urban high schools.Journal of Education for Students Placed At-Risk, 6(1), 73–93.

Greene, B. A., & Miller, R. B. (1996). Influences on course achievement: Goals, perceived ability, andcognitive engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 181–192.

Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, H. M., Duke, B. L., & Akey, K. L. (2004). Predicting high school students’cognitive engagement and achievement: Contributions of classroom perceptions and motivation.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 462–482.

Greenwood, D. A. (2009). Place, survivance, and white remembrance: A decolonizing challenge to ruraleducation in mobile modernity. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 24(10). Retrieved fromhttp://jrre.psu.edu/articles/24-10.pdf.

Guay, F., Marsh, H. W., & Boivin, M. (2003). Academic self-concept and academic achievement: Adevelopmental perspective on their causal ordering. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 124–136.

Hardre, P. L. (2007). Preventing motivational dropout: A systemic analysis in four rural high schools.Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6, 231–265.

Hardre, P. L. (2008). Taking on the motivating challenge: Rural high school teachers’ perceptions andpractice. Teacher Education and Practice, 21, 72–88.

Hardre, P. L. (2010). Examining high school teacher characteristics and motivating strategies. TeacherEducation and Practice, 23, 226–253.

Hardre, P. L., & Burris, A. (2011). What contributes to TA development: Differential perceptions of, andresponses to, key design features in training and development. Instructional Science, 40, 93–118.

Hardre, P. L., Crowson, H. M., DeBacker, T., & White, D. (2007a). A multi-theory study of high schoolstudents’ beliefs, perceptions, goals and academic motivation. Journal of Experimental Education, 75,247–269.


123

http://jrre.psu.edu/articles/24-9.pdf





Hardre, P. L., Crowson, H. M., Ly, C., & Xie, K. (2007b). Testing differential effects of computer-based,web-based, and paper-based administration of questionnaire research instruments. British Journal ofEducational Technology, 38, 5–22.

Hardre, P. L., Davis, K. A., & Sullivan, D. W. (2008a). Measuring teacher perceptions of the ‘‘how’’ and‘‘why’’ of student motivation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 14, 155–179.

Hardre, P. L., & Hennessey, M. (2010). Two rural worlds: Differences of rural high school students’motivational profiles in Indiana and Colorado. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 25(8), 1–32.

Hardre, P. L., Huang, S. H., Chen, C. H., Chiang, C. T., Jen, F. L., & Warden, L. (2006). High schoolteachers’ motivational perceptions and strategies in an East Asian nation. Asia-Pacific Journal ofTeacher Education, 34, 199–221.

Hardre, P. L., & Licuanen, B. (2010). Motivational characteristics of native and non-native students in rural,public high schools. Journal of American Indian Education, 49(3), 41–64.

Hardre, P. L., Nanny, M., Refai, H., Ling, C., & Slater, J. (2010). Re-engineering a dynamic science learningenvironment for K–12 teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37, 157–178.

Hardre, P. L., & Reeve, J. (2002). A motivational model of rural students’ intentions to persist in, versusdrop out of, high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 347–356.

Hardre, P. L., & Reeve, J. (2009). Benefits of training corporate managers to adopt a more autonomy-supportive motivating style toward employees. International Journal of Training and Development, 13,165–184.

Hardre, P. L., & Sullivan, D. W. (2008a). Teachers’ perceptions and individual differences: How theyinfluence teachers’ motivating strategies. Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 2059–2075.

Hardre, P. L., & Sullivan, D. W. (2008b). Classroom environments and student differences: How theycontribute to student motivation in rural high schools. Learning and Individual Differences, 18,471–485.

Hardre, P. L., & Sullivan, D. W. (2009). Motivating adolescents: Teachers’ beliefs, perceptions andclassroom practices. Teacher Development, 13, 1–16.

Hardre, P. L., Sullivan, D., & Crowson, H. M. (2009). Student characteristics and motivation in rural highschools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 24(16), 1–19.

Hardre, P. L., Sullivan, D. W., & Roberts, N. (2008b). Rural high school teachers’ best motivating practices.The Rural Educator, 30(1), 19–31.

Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151–179.

Hidi, S., Renninger, K. A., & Knapp, A. (2004). Interest, a motivational variable that combines affective andcognitive functioning. In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion and cognition:Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 89–118). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Holloway, D. L. (2002). Using research to ensure quality teaching in rural schools. Journal of Research inRural Education, 17(3), 138–153.

Howley, C. B. (2003). Math education in rural communities: An essay on the parameters of respectfulresearch. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 18(1), 45–51.

Howley, C. B. (2009). Critique and fiction: Doing science right in rural education research. Journal ofResearch in Rural Education, 24(15), 45–51.

Howley, C. B., Theobald, P., & Howley, A. A. (2005). What rural education research is of most worth? Areply to Arnold, Newman, Gaddy, and Dean. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 20(18).Retrieved from http://www.jrre.psu.edu/articles/20-18.pdf.

Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learningenvironments. New York: Routledge.

Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory. EducationalPsychology Review, 19, 141–184.

Lichter, D. T., Roscigno, V. J., & Condron, D. J. (2003). Rural children and youth at risk. In D. L. Brown &L. E. Swanson (Eds.), Challenges for rural America in the twenty-first century (pp. 97–108). UniversityPark, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Liem, A. D., Lau, S., & Nie, Y. (2008). The role of self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals inpredicting learning strategies, task disengagement, peer relationship and English achievement out-come. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 486–512.

Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002a). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. SchoolPsychology Review, 31, 313–327.

Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002b). Achievement goal theory and affect: An asymmetricalbidirectional model. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 69–78.


123


Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2004). Role of affect in cognitive processing in academic contexts. InD. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion and cognition: Integrative perspectives onintellectual development and functioning (pp. 57–88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Maehr, M. L. (1989). Thoughts about motivation. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation ineducation: Goals and cognitions (Vol. 3, pp. 299–315). New York: Academic Press.

McTavish, K., & Salamon, S. (2003). What do rural families look like today? In D. L. Brown & L.E. Swanson (Eds.), Challenges for rural America in the twenty-first century (pp. 73–85). UniversityPark, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. J. (2001). Performance approach goals: Good for what, for whom,under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 77–86.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2008). Digest of educational statistics 2008. Retrieved Sep-tember 28, 2010 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2009a). Common core of data (CCD). Retrieved 1 October 2010from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2009b). What’s rural? Retrieved August 12, 2010 fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ruraled/definitions.asp.

National Science Foundation. (2001). Rural systemic initiatives in science, mathematics and technologyeducation (RSI). (NSF 01-57). Retrieved February 2, 2011 from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2001/nsf0157.

National Science Foundation. (2009). FY 2009 report on the NSF’s merit review process. Available at:http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2010/nsb1027.pdf.

Nelson, R., & DeBacker, T. (2008). Achievement motivation in adolescents: The role of peer climate andbest friends. Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 170–189.

Office of Management and Budget. (2000). Standards for defining metropolitan and micropolitan statisticalareas; notice (OMB doc # 0032997). Federal Register, 65 249.

Patrick, H., Ryan, A., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents’ perceptions of the classroom socialenvironment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 83–98.

Phelan, P., Davidson, A. L., Cao, H. T., & Educational Resources Information Center (U.S.). (1991).Students’ multiple worlds: Negotiating the boundaries of family, peer, and school cultures. Stanford,CA: Center for Research on the Context of Secondary Teaching, School of Education, StanfordUniversity.

Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning andteaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.

Radel, R., Sarrazin, P., Legrain, P., & Wild, T. (2010). Social contagion of motivation between teacher andstudent: Analyzing underlying processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 577–587.

Raywid, M., & Schmerler, G. (2003). Not so easy going. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural andSmall Schools.

Reeve, J. M. (1996). Motivating others: Nurturing inner motivational resources. New York: Allyn & Bacon.Reeve, J. M., Bolt, E., & Cai, Y. (1999). Autonomy-supportive teachers: How they teach and motivate

students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 537–548.Reeve, J., Jang, H., Hardre, P., & Omura, M. (2002). Providing a rationale in an autonomy-supportive way

as a strategy to motivate others during an uninteresting activity. Motivation and Emotion, 26, 183–207.Reeve, J., Jang, H., Hardre, P., & Omura, M. (2003). Providing a rationale in an autonomy-supportive way

as a strategy to motivate others during an uninteresting activity. Motivation and Emotion, 26, 183–207.Rural School and Community Trust. (2010). Why rural matters 2010. Arlington, VA: Rural School and

Community Trust.Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,

social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.Schoenfelder, E. (2006). Classroom effects on student motivation: Goal structures, social relationships, and

competence beliefs. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 331–349.Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2007). Motivation in education: Theory, research and

applications (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher

behaviour and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85,571–581.

Smith, E. R., & Conrey, F. R. (2009). The social context of cognition. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.),The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 454–466). New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


123

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ruraled/definitions.asp

http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2001/nsf0157

http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2001/nsf0157

http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2010/nsb1027.pdf

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative andqualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning andmeasure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248.

Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., & Guay, F. (1997). Self-determination and persistence in a real-life setting:Toward a motivational model of high school dropout. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,72, 1161–1176.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 25, 68–81.

Willets, J., & Crawford, P. (2007). The most significant lessons about the most significant change technique.Development in Practice, 17, 367–379.

Woodrum, A. (2009). Cultural identity and schooling in rural New Mexico. Journal of Research in RuralEducation, 24(8). Retrieved July 5, 2010 from http://jrre.psu.edu/articles/24-8.pdf.

Yang, R. K., & Fetsch, R. J. (2007). The self-esteem of rural children. Journal of Research in RuralEducation, 22(5). Retrieved from http://www.jrre.psu.edu/articles/22-5.pdf.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary EducationalPsychology, 25, 82–91.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2004). Self-regulating intellectual processes and outcomes: A socialcognitive perspective. In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion and cognition:Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 89–118). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.


123



what they think, what they know, what they do: rural secondary teachers’ motivational beliefs and...

Documents