The good the bad and the ugly

The good, the bad, and the ugly of pre-service teachers’ motivation

and emotions

Lia M. DanielsAssociate Professor

Department of Educational Psychology

Big IdeasWhat motivates

someone to teach?What makes a good

teacher?

Big IdeasWhat motivates

someone to teach?Differences in types of

motivationAchievement goal

theory

What makes a good teacher?Positive emotionsFeels confidentCommitted Prepared

Achievement Goal TheoryPersonal 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 others

Examples “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.”

Elliot, 1999; Elliot & McGregor, 2001

Achievement Goal TheoryPersonal 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 others

Empirical Evidence

Elliot, 1999; Elliot & McGregor, 2001

Students’ mastery

goals

enjoyment, efficacy, effort,

persistence

boredom, procrastination,

cheating

Achievement Goal TheoryClassroom 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.

Examples “I plan on giving students

opportunities for revision before grading.”

“I plan on comparing student performance.”

TARGET System Task Autonomy Recognition Grouping Evaluation Timing

Ames, 1992; Linnenbrink, 2005; Urdan, 2004

Achievement Goal TheoryClassroom 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.

Empirical Evidence

Ames, 1992; Linnenbrink, 2005; Urdan, 2004

Mastery goal structures

efficacy, effort, persistence, belonging

cheating, avoidance coping,

withdrawal

Relationships

Mastery goal structures

efficacy, effort, persistence, belonging

cheating, avoidance coping,

withdrawal

Students’ mastery

goals

enjoyment, efficacy, effort,

persistence

boredom, procrastination,

cheating

Teachers’ personal

goals

help-seeking, efficacy,

interest, PD

burnout, sick days

Pre-service teachers’ personal

goals

?

?

Butler, 1997; Fasching et al., 2010; Lau & Nie, 2008; Nitsche et al., 2013; Retelsdorf et al., 2010; Wolters, 2004

Data SourcesParticipants: 579 pre-service teachers

Manitoba, n = 140 followed into practice n = 53Alberta, n = 439; 194 elementary; 229 secondary

Common measuresGoal 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

The Good

Classroom dynamics

Curriculum, Instruction,

and Assessment

Intrapersonal reflection

Ethics of teaching

Professional learning

community

Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their education program influence their sense of readiness to teach

Five Program Factors

Indicators of readiness to teach

Daniels et al., 2011

The Good

Classroom dynamics


and Assessment


Ethics of teaching


community



Efficacy


β= .23, p < .05

The Good

Classroom dynamics


and Assessment


Ethics of teaching


community



Commitment to teaching


β=.23, p < .05

β=.21, p < .05

The Good

Classroom dynamics


and Assessment


Ethics of teaching


community



Anxiety


β= -.24, p < .05

β= -.26, p < .05

β= .23, p < .05

The Good2. Pre-service teachers tend to hold adaptive

personal motivation beliefs

Mastery-app Perform-app Mastery-avd Performan-avd02468

101214

Elementary Secondary

Daniels, 2013

The Good

Motivation Commit Efficacy Enjoyment

Boredom Anxiety

Mastery-app

.10* .34** .34** -.14** .09

Mastery-avd

-.07 .13** .10* .01 .14**

Perform-app -.03 .15** .15** .05 .10*

Perf-avd -.04 .08 .03 .07 .10*

3. This adaptive motivation tends to be related to positive emotions and cognitions

**p < .01, *p < .05

Daniels, 2013

The Good4. Pre-service teachers have good intentions to

create optimally motivating classrooms for their students

Mastery structures Performance structures0

5

10

15

20

ElementarySecondary

Daniels, 2013

The Good

Intention Commit Efficacy Enjoyment

Boredom Anxiety

Mastery Practices

.13** .39** .36** -.17** .09

Performance Practices

.05 .01 -.06 .20** .14**

5. These intentions tend to be related to positive emotions and cognitions

Daniels, 2013

**p < .01, *p < .05

The Good6. Differences in pre-service teachers’ levels of

personal motivation lead to different predictions of their intended classroom mastery goals

Intended classroom mastery

goals

Personal mastery-approach

goalsβ = .98, p < .001

Elementary > High school

β = .53, p < .05

Daniels, Frenzel, et al., 2013

How do we increase pre-service teachers’

personal mastery-approach?

The Bad1. Pre-service teachers’ feel little responsibility for

motivation of their future students

Motivation Achievement Relationship Teaching0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Daniels, Radil, & Wagner, 2013

The Bad2. Pre-service teachers appear to not know what

to do to fulfill their responsibilities

Responsibility

Evidence Suggests My Results

Mastery Practices


Mastery Practices


Motivation + -

Achievement + +

Relationships + -

Teaching + -


**p < .01, *p < .05



Responsibility


Mastery Practices


Mastery Practices


Motivation + - .05 -.41**

Achievement + + -.29* .16

Relationships + - .26* .14

Teaching + - .05 -.13


**p < .01, *p < .05



Responsibility


Mastery Practices


Mastery Practices


Motivation .05 -.41**

Achievement -.29* .16

Relationships .26* .14

Teaching .05 -.13


**p < .01, *p < .05

How do we increase pre-service teachers’

responsibility for motivation and equip them with practices?

The Ugly1. Pre-service teachers struggle to enact their

good intentions once they start practicing

7/53 participated in focus groups as well

B.Ed. Program

Consent to follow-up

Completed follow-up

Percent

Elementary

66 37 23 38% of original

Secondary 74 49 30 62% of consented

Total 140 86 53

Daniels, 2013

The Ugly

During B.Ed. During teaching14

15

16

17

18

During B.Ed. During Teaching9

10

11

12

13

14

Elementary Secondary

F (1,41) = 3.76 p = .06

Mastery Structures Performance Structures

F (1,41) = 6.31, p = .02

Daniels, 2013

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.”

How do we sustain pre-service teachers’ good intentions once they start teaching?

Opportunities for Intervention

Sustain during

practice

Equip with practices

Increase responsibility

Promote personal mastery

Pre-testMastery GoalsPerformance Goals

AR

No AR

Post-testMastery GoalsPerformance Goals

Haynes, Daniels, et al., 2008

Sustain during

practice




Pre-test Post-test16

17

18

19

ARNo AR

Haynes, Daniels, et al., 2008

Mast

ery


F (1,334) = 8.31, p < .01

Sustain during

practice




Pre-testResponsible for mot.Autonomy-support

Intervention

Control

Post-testResponsible for mot.Autonomy-support

Radil & Daniels, 2012



Resp

. fo

r M

ot

Sustain during

practice




Pre-test Post-test10

11

12

13

14

ExperimentalControl


F (1,75) = 2.31, p = .13


Sustain during

practice




Pre-test Post-test2.5

2.75

3

3.25

3.5

ExperimentalControl

Auto

nom

y


F (1,60) = 8.07, p = .01

Daniels, 2006

Sustain during

practice




Pre-practicum Post-practicum5.5

5.75

6

6.25

6.5

Secondary

Middle

ElementaryRig

ht

Deci

sion


F (2,179) = 7.42, p < .01

Fit with literatur

e

Observed

teacher practices

Self-reported teacher

practices

Good intentions

Lack specific practices

Low responsibilit

y

Pre-service teacher current

state

Motivation Intervention

Student identified

motivating classroom

High stakes

Low stakes

Other outcomes:

Classroom observation

tool

Teachers’ motivational practices questionnaire

(TMPQ)

Pedagogical resource videos

Sustain intentions

Gain specific

practices

Increase responsibilit

y

Pre-service teacher outcomes

Com

mit

ment,

Em

oti

ons,

Eng

agem

ent

Thank youFor more information email me:

[email protected] the ACME websitehttp://albertacentre4me.wordpress.com/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

The good the bad and the ugly

Education

Transcript of The good the bad and the ugly