Walden University

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

This is to certify that the doctoral study by

Michael Anderson

has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects,

and that any and all revisions required by
the review committee have been made.

Review Committee
Dr. James Mitchell, Committee Chairperson, Education Faculty
Dr. Donald Wattam, Committee Member, Education Faculty

Chief Academic Officer

Denise DeZolt, Ph.D.

Walden University
2008
 ABSTRACT

The Correlation Between Choices, Motivation, and Writing Scores in Elementary School
Students

by

Dr. Michael Anderson, Ed.D.

Ed.D., Walden University, 2008

M.A., City University, 1996
B.A., Northwest Nazarene University, 1990

Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
Walden University

Walden University
May 2008
 ABSTRACT

More pressure than ever is placed on standardized test scores. Writing scores are

generally the lowest among content areas tested. This correlational mixed-methods study

explored the relationship between prompt choices, student engagement, and standardized

writing test scores of intermediate-level students from a suburban elementary school. The

study examined whether students (a) are more motivated when provided with choices, (b)

perform at a higher level when more engaged or provided with choices, and 9c) what role

gender plays in both writing scores and engagement variables associated with writing.

The researcher used concurrent triangulation strategy for data collection on student

perceptions of engagement when provided varied levels of options during writing tests.

The study integrated data from student surveys, interviews, and writing test scores

conducted over a three-month period. Only 24 of the 73-student population met the

criteria for participation in the study. Due to the small sample size, and based on

recommendations from the doctoral study committee members, the researcher used

randomized test-retest measures. The measure of effect was determined using the Pearson

correlation while ANOVA provided for the analysis of means and engagement levels.

The study indicated relationships between writing prompts, student achievement, and

perceived levels of engagement, which added new information for social change by

illuminating characteristics important to student engagement for the promotion of lifelong

learning across both genders. Improved test scores positively impact the community,

school, and student. Increased student engagement reinforces the development of life

long learning. Studying what both genders associated with favorable and nonfavorable

writing experiences contributed to closing the gap on gender-based academic proficiency.

The Correlation Between Choices, Motivation, and Writing Scores in Elementary School
Students

by

Dr. Michael Anderson, Ed.D.

Ed.D., Walden University, 2008

M.A., City University, 1996
B.A., Northwest Nazarene University, 1990

Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
Walden University

Walden University
MAY 2008
 DEDICATION

This is dedicated to Sandra Anderson. She encouraged the pursuit of this venture,

helped edit along the way, and she is the only person who can understand what it took to

complete this study

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................................v
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................vi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY…………................................……...1

Introduction………………………………………………………........................………..1
Problem Statement…………………………………………........................……………...2
Nature of the Study………………………………………………........................………..3
Research Questions..............................................................................................................3
Purpose Statement…………………………………………….......................………….…4
Social Change......................................................................................................................5
Assumptions.........................................................................................................................5
Limitations...........................................................................................................................5
Delimitations……………………........................................................................................6
Validity................................................................................................................................6
Summary and Transition......................................................................................................8

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW………………..……..……….......................…..9

Issues Related to Performance of Writing Assessments…………..…………..............…..9
Introduction………………………………………………..…………..................…....9
Standardized Writing Tests ...........................................................................................9
Gender…………………………………………………………..................…..……..12
Theories of Motivation………………………………………………..........…...……….15
Introduction………………………………………………………...............…...........15
Behavioral Views of Motivation…………………………………......................…....16
Social Learning Theory ……………………………………................……....…..….19
Cognitive Views of Motivation . ……………............................................................21
Humanistic Views of Motivation ………………………………….................……...25
The Impact of Cooperative Grouping on Motivation..................................................32
Other People’s Expectations …...................................................................................34
Introduction of Roles………………………………………….……...............….…..35
Atmosphere: Creating the Right Environment………………..……...............….…..36
Student Choice: Tapping into Interests and Arousing Curiosity…................…..…...36

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...............................................................39

Introduction: Quantitative and Qualitative Design ……………...…………...........….…39
Setting..........................................................................................................................40
Sample..........................................................................................................................41
Quantitative Design...........................................................................................................43
Research Question One................................................................................................43
Question One Hypotheses............................................................................................43
Research Question Two...............................................................................................44
Question Two Hypotheses...........................................................................................44
Research Question Three.............................................................................................45
Question Three Hypotheses.........................................................................................45

ii
 Data Collection............................................................................................................45
Data Analysis...............................................................................................................47
Qualitative Design.............................................................................................................47
Qualitative Research Questions...................................................................................49
Purpose.........................................................................................................................49
Method.........................................................................................................................50
Data Collection............................................................................................................50
Data Analysis...............................................................................................................51
Summary............................................................................................................................51

CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA......................................52

Quantitative Design...........................................................................................................52
Research Question One................................................................................................54
Research Question Two...............................................................................................56
Research Question Three.............................................................................................59
Summary......................................................................................................................61
Qualitative design..............................................................................................................62
Qualitative Research Questions...................................................................................62
Qualitative Data Analysis............................................................................................64
Summary......................................................................................................................66
Triangulation......................................................................................................................68

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............70

Introduction........................................................................................................................70
Conclusions........................................................................................................................71
No-Choice Writing Prompts........................................................................................72
Multiple-Choice Writing Prompts...............................................................................72
Open-Choice Writing Prompts....................................................................................72
Recommendations..............................................................................................................73
Summary............................................................................................................................75

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………….…..……...78

APPENDIX A: LETTER...................................................................................................83

APPENDIX B: SURVEY PERMISSION.........................................................................84

APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW PERMISSION...................................................................86

APPENDIX D: SURVEY..................................................................................................88

APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS.....................................................................90

APPENDIX F: ORAL CONSENT....................................................................................92

iii
APPENDIX G: INTERVIEW ASSENT...........................................................................93

APPENDIX H: SURVEY ASSENT..................................................................................95

APPENDIX I: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT....................................................................97

CURRICULUM VITAE..................................................................................................120

iv
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. ANOVA Results Between Writing Prompts and Engagement Levels................59

Table 2. ANOVA Results Between Prompt Choices and Gender-Based Engagement

Levels ................................................................................................................................61

Table 3. Comparison of Commonality Between Two Established Qualitative Analysis

Approaches .......................................................................................................................65

Table 4. Categorical Interviewee Responses.....................................................................67

v
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Bar graph showing reported levels of student engagement during writing

prompts of different levels of choice.................................................................................57

Figure 2. Bar graph showing reported levels of student engagement when matched with

gender during writing prompts of different levels of choice.............................................60

vi
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

Introduction

This is a day and age where a student’s test scores influence the perception of an

educator’s professional competence. If a teacher has a group who score well on the

writing, reading, and mathematical portions of a state test, the teacher receives

commendation for having done a good job with the students assigned to them. If a group

of students fails to meet the established standard, the teacher or school responsible for the

students receives repercussions from the community, administrators, or the state board of

education because the students have not performed in an acceptable manner. High-stakes,

standardized test scores are even having a direct impact on property values. Hevesi

(2004) stated, “There is no question that property values are directly correlated with

schools' test scores” (p.1). According to Dougherty, Harrelson, Maloney, Murphy, Smith,

Snow, and Zannoni, D. (2007),

Our findings indicate that elementary school test scores are significantly and
positively correlated with single-family home prices, controlling for house
characteristics and neighborhood effects. For homes located in geographically
similar neighborhoods and very close to school attendance boundaries, a 12
percentage point increase (or one standard deviation) in the number of fourth-
graders meeting the state achievement test goal is associated with a 2.81% (or
$5,065 increase) in the price of an average home. (p. 2)

Often test standards escalate each year, based on the previous year’s group scores. This

practice does not take the specific needs of the current group into consideration, nor does

it factor in any unusual circumstances, such as the implementation of a new curriculum or

changes in the staffing at a school. Regardless, accountability for student performance on

standardized tests ultimately falls on the teacher and the school.

 2

With the increased pressure to produce a class of students who can perform well

on the state’s standardized test, states, districts, and local schools have spent many hours

reviewing how the students have done in the past, what has worked, and what has not.

Marzano (2003) stated that there is a clear connection between a student’s engagement

and her or his level of achievement; and that if a student is engaged in his or her learning,

that student will have a greater likelihood of content mastery (p. 144). Stiggins (2001)

stated, “We cannot separate affect and achievement from one another in the classroom”

(p. 328). Hawley and Rollie (2001) agree that the engaged student has a better chance of

being successful; and propose that a teacher can help facilitate a high degree of

motivation by utilizing a student’s knowledge base (previous knowledge based on

learning or experiences), things that the student perceives as interesting, and choices

made by the student (p. 17). Chapter two of this document examines standardized testing

and theories of motivation in detail.

Problem Statement

There is a problem in elementary schools across the United States related to

intermediate-level students consistently scoring lower on standardized writing tests than

in other academic areas (National Center, 2002). According to Connell and Guzelmann

(2004), the average intermediate level student is two years behind the standard in the

academic areas of reading and writing. The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction

(OSPI) for Washington state published results for 2005-2006 stating that 57.7% of

fourth-grade students met the writing proficiency standard, compared to 62.1% who met

the math standard, and 82.4% who met the reading standard.
 3

Nature of the Study

This mixed-methods study used a concurrent triangulation strategy to collect

data on student perceptions of engaged writing, when the students were provided with

varying levels of options during writing prompts, and compared these data to the

standardized test scores of the same students. The study integrated data from student

surveys, interviews, and writing test scores conducted concurrently over a three-month

period. The use of the Pearson correlation coefficient established whether there is a

relationship between level of choice and level of student engagement. One-way analysis

of variance (ANOVA) provided for the analysis of group means and attitude levels

between male and female students when the participants received varying levels of

prompt options or choices on writing assignments. ANOVA also provided for the

analysis between writing-test scores when compared to levels of student engagement. The

data collected from the interviews was coded, synthesized, and triangulated with the data

collected via the surveys and writing assessments.

Research questions

1. Is there a relationship between a student’s perceived level of engagement and

standardized writing-test scores for intermediate-level students in suburban elementary

schools (quantitative)?

2. Do students perceive themselves as being more motivated or engaged in writing

assignments when provided with choice of content (quantitative)?

 4

3. Is there a difference in the student’s perceived level of engagement between

intermediate-level girls and boys when presented with writing assignments of varied

degrees of choice pertaining to content (quantitative)?

4. What variables do students associate with favorable and nonfavorable writing

experiences (qualitative)?

5. How do perceptions of favorable and nonfavorable writing experiences

compare between boys and girls (qualitative)?

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this mixed-methods correlational study was to explore the

relationship among choice, motivation/engagement, student perceptions, and standardized

writing test scores of intermediate-level students attending a suburban elementary school.

A mixed-methods approach allowed for the collection of qualitative data that supported

the statistical data while adding new perspectives to the area of study. One mixed-

methods approach is the concurrent triangulation strategy. A concurrent triangulation

strategy provided a method of verifying and supporting the validity of the data collected

during this study. Additionally, this methodology was superior due to the limited range of

time the study ran. These strengths led to the selection of a mixed-methods approach.

According to Creswell (2003), concurrent triangulation strategy “can result in well-

validated and substantiated findings. In addition, the concurrent data collection results in

a shorter data collection time period as compared to one of the sequential approaches” (p.

217).
 5

Social Change

This study influenced social change through improved student writing test scores

and defined factors for raising student motivation for male and female students. Improved

test scores positively impact the community, school, and student. Increased student

engagement on school related activities reinforce the development of life long learning of

the student. Additionally, studying what both genders associated with favorable and

nonfavorable writing experiences, contributed to closing the gap on gender-based

academic proficiency.

Assumptions

The researcher made certain assumptions about the data collection and

authenticity of the results of the study. First was the assumption that students would

answer survey and interview questions honestly. There was concern due to a prior

working relationship with the participants of the study. The researcher was a classroom

teacher in the grade-level and school where the study took place. The specific concern

was that the prior relationship carried potential bias, leading to students answering survey

questions based on the perception of wanting to please the researcher or their classroom

teacher.

Limitations

Limiting factors of this study included the size of the population and sample

group, in addition to the length of the study. With such a small group and with data

collected over a three-month period, clear trends could have been difficult to identify.

Sampling based on convenience decreases the generalizability of findings (Creswell,

 6

2003). Another limitation of this study arrived by the creation of the surveys. Because the

surveys have no history of prior usage, the validity has yet to be established. Moreover,

there were potential limitations based on unforeseeable events outside the researcher’s

control. These events might have included, but were not limited to, the participants’ home

life (sleep habits, dietary factors, conflicts within the home, etc.), and unrelated life

events.

Delimitations

Initially, this study gathered data on student perspectives about choice,

engagement, and writing assignments at the intermediate level of a suburban elementary

school. As the study progressed, the scope was expanded to include statistical data

obtained via standardized writing tests completed by a smaller sample group.

Validity

One quality control method was peer debriefing. Peer debriefing can, according to

Creswell (2003), “enhance the accuracy of the account” (p. 196). Throughout the study,

the researcher reviewed the ongoing process with a team of preselected peers. This

method began with a prestudy conference in an effort to control the quality of the study

through a question-and-answer session with peers who were also in the field of education,

but who had no vested interest in this study. These meetings occurred periodically to

check for consistency in both methods and results. The first peer debriefing was an

opportunity to present the components of the proposed study. At this stage, the group

reviewed the data collection materials, including surveys, writing prompts, and interview

questions. A second collaborative meeting occurred after completion of the surveys to

review the group’s perception of the effectiveness and validity of the survey results. The
 7

interviews required two more discussions. The first concerned a review of interview

protocol, content, and participant eligibility. The second involved a post-interview

review. The next peer debriefing occurred after the transcribing and codification of the

interviews. Its purpose was to insure accuracy of the reporting. The final peer gathering

took place after the data analysis was complete, as a last check for any irregularities or

threats to the validity of the study.

Concurrent triangulation

The use of concurrent triangulation strategy also provided a method of verifying

and supporting the validity of the data. Concurrent triangulation strategy took place

throughout the data analysis stage. Concurrent triangulation strategy can result in well-

validated and substantiated findings, and is preferred when a study has a limited range of

time (Creswell, 2003).

Member checking

Member checking provided an additional quality-control method. Member checks

involved the researcher checking findings, interpretations, and conclusions with the

participants of the study. Member checks transpired with the participants after the

transcription and coding of the interviews. According to Creswell (1998), the member

check method is a means to check the credibility of a researcher’s findings and

interpretations (p. 202). Hatch (2002) lists both triangulation and member-checking as

methods for verifying or extending data collected during a qualitative study (p. 92). In

addition, triangulation in conjunction with member checking is the recommended

approach to establishing the validity of a study (Creswell, 1998, p. 216).

 8

Summary and Transition

There has been pressure for students to perform well on standardized writing

tests. The pressure is at the national, state, local community, and individual student

levels. There has also been a disparity among the writing test scores of males and female

students. The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship among choice,

engagement, student perceptions, and standardized writing test scores of intermediate-

level elementary school students. The second chapter of this document contains further

references to relevant scholarly professional literature. Chapter three identifies, defines,

and defends methodology and research design used for this study. The researcher reports

the study’s findings in chapter four and based on the data in chapter four, conclusions are

drawn and research-based recommendations are presented in chapter five.

 9

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Issues Related to Performance of Writing Assessments

Introduction

Chapter one established the importance of standardized test scores beyond the

basic implications of the No Child Left Behind legislation. How well students perform on

standardized tests may impact a large number of people and businesses. An entire

community may experience a reaction to the published scores. Many researchers have

stated that the level of student motivation or engagement on school related assignments

and activities directly relate to the students’ performance on school related assessments.

Chapter two of this document outlines current research in the areas of standardized

writing test scores and theories on motivation. The researcher gathered literature

pertaining to research findings in the areas of standardized writing tests, issues involved

with standardized writing assessments, and student motivation through exhaustive

database searches.

Standardized Writing Tests

The arguments for and against standardized testing have been voiced for years.

One stance is that standardized testing provides a way to hold students and teachers

accountable for student learning and improvement. The other side of the argument is

concerned with potential negative impacting on students and educational systems. In the

mid 1970s, the Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI) called for

discontinuing standardized testing in elementary schools. Their position paper led to a

nationwide debate over potential adverse effects of standardized testing. During that
 10

period educators began looking for alternatives to standardized testing that were

adaptable to student needs and open to student creativity and choice (Perrone, 1991). In

1983, the U.S. Department of Education's National Commission on Excellence in

Education published the report, A Nation at Risk, which expressed concern about the

educational performance of public schools in America. The release of this document led

to a refocusing of attention on implementing and maintaining standardized tests (Perrone,

1991). The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 created legal mandate to measure

student achievement via standardized testing at the state level. The NCLB Act sets

deadlines for states to develop and implement student testing, revamp accountability

systems, and insure that every teacher is highly qualified in the subject area the teacher

teaches. NCLB also requires annual demonstration of progress in raising the percentage

of students meeting proficiency standards in reading and math (U.S. Department of

Education, 2002). Both sides of the argument for and against standardized writing tests

proclaim their primary focus is improving student learning and wellbeing in the academic

arena.

Newkirk (2002) made a strong point for those who believe that society is doing

more harm than good in its attempt to make students focus their reading, writing,

mathematic, and content areas skills in an attempt to meet state standards, instead of

learning for the joy of knowledge. Newkirk asserted that being a lifelong learner requires

more than following writing prompts and grading work according to rubrics. In addition,

the topics students are writing about tend to be restricted to our current system of

expectations. An example of an exemplary practice that Newkirk takes from Educational

 11

Leadership magazine (2000, p. 39) is a lesson done with kindergarteners that involved

scoring according to a rubric. In the lesson, the teacher directed students to draw a picture

of what they see outside the classroom window. Afterwards she identifies the things she

sees outside and then drew a picture that represents those things. Next, the students’

helped the teacher assign a numbered score of 1-4 to the student samples. The numbered

score represented the scale of “same” things the student samples contained that the

teacher also drew. Newkirk (2002) said that he finds it difficult to imagine a more

developmentally inappropriate task. “At an age where the children’s art is wonderfully

idiosyncratic, this instruction pushes them into a conventionalized, schematic, pattern” (p.

188).

Hillocks (2002) drew a similar conclusion as Newkirk (2002), however Hillocks’

(2002) research was limited to a focus on standardized writing tests. After a study that

involved K-12 writing assessments in five states Hillock (2002) concludes, “Not only do

most standardized tests fail to improve writing, they actually have harmful implications”

(p.5). It was Hillock’s observation that when presented with high-stakes standardized

writing tests, teachers and/or schools tend to “teach to the test.” According to Hillock

(2002), teaching to the test “encourages the learning of vacuous thinking, thinking

without substance” (p.6).

Harwayne (2001) took a different approach when it comes to standardized writing

tests. While acknowledging the impact scores from standardized tests have, Harwayne

(2001) encourages an outlook that incorporates both choice and non-choice options in

writing instruction.
 12

Today, with so many high-stakes pressures surrounding them, teachers need to

maintain their sense of ownership and creativity and not become swallowed up by
outsiders’ agendas. Yes, we must prepare our children to do the kind of writing
that helps them pass the required standardized tests, but we must maintain control
of the amount of time we devote to such preparations, never allowing test
preparations to become the mainstay of out teaching lives. We cannot allow the
movement toward standardization of teaching to eliminate energizing
possibilities. Then too, when standardized testing requires specific genres, we
must hold to the theory that when life gives you lemons you make lemonade. (p.
286)

Bowers (1989) suggested the use of performance-based assessment, such as

portfolios or a cumulative collection of work samples, as an alternative to standardized

testing. Bowers (1989) stated that alternatives to standardized writing tests should be

sought because, “When tests are constructed in this [standardized] manner, active skills,

such as creative writing, speaking, acting, drawing, constructing, repairing, and thinking

creatively are automatically relegated to a second-class status” (p.1). Due to the nature of

this study, the researcher will collect writing test data from both standardized and

nonstandardized writing assessments.

Gender

According to both Woolfolk (1987) and Forsyth et al. (1993), there are no overall

differences between the scores of elementary aged girls and boys on standardized tests

designed to measure general intelligence. However, during the test design stage,

developers insure gender-neutrality. This might mean eliminating an item that seems to

favor one gender over the other, or it might mean adding items that favor the other gender

in an attempt to balance the assessment. On the other hand, though there is not a

significant difference in IQ, there does tend to be a gap in the types of questions on which

girls and boys excel. In particular, girls test better when the item relates to verbal ability
 13

and boys tend to favor the items that have to do with visual and special tasks (Maccoby &

Jacklin, 1974). It is possible that there are biologically based gender differences in

specific mental abilities (Woolfolk, 1987). Connell and Guzelmann (2004) state that

research has shown a significant difference in the way boys and girls use the different

hemispheres of their brains:

In short, many girls have an advantage by being able to use their left-hemisphere
strengths in the early grades by speaking, reading, and writing. The right-
hemisphere strengths of girls enable them to feel empathy and to better
understand and reflect the feelings of their teachers and peers. On the other hand,
boys tend to have an advantage in their left-hemisphere by being able to recall
facts and rules and categories. Their right-brain strengths encompass visual-
spatial and visual-motor skills, which enable boys to excel in topics like
geography, science, and math. (p. 2)

This indicates there is a biological factor that influences how boys and girls score

on standardized tests. There are those, however, who believe this gap is more closely

related to society’s influence on gender identities and sex-role stereotypes than it is to

actual biological ability (Huston, 1983). These influences include cultural stereotypes and

influences that children experience while growing up. Though it is clear that a child’s

primary caregiver(s) and peers play a direct role in how that child perceives his or her

gender-based expectations there have been studies that suggest the gender gap is due, at

least in part, to gender roles portrayed in movies, video game, music, books, and on

television. Virtually every study of the content of television programs in particular has

found disparity between the genders and that roles and behavior are stereotyped (Huston,

1983). Even toy commercials reinforce gender differences and expectations. “High levels

of inanimate action, frequent changes to new scenes, rapid cuts, sound effects, and loud
 14

lively music typify boys’ ads. Moderate levels of action, few scene changes, fades,

dissolves, and soft tinkle music typify girls’ ads” (Huston, 1983, p.1).

Research has indicated that most elementary-school curriculum emphasizes the

left-brained skills of reading, writing, and speaking, which tends to develop at a slower

rate with boys than with girls, and that often boys are expected to be successful on

standards that favor girls (Connell and Guzelmann, 2004). “Boys are expected to sit still,

speak articulately, write legibly, work in groups, color between the lines, and be neat and

organized” (p. 2). According to Pollack (1999), society has placed a code of expectations

upon boys concerning how they act, how they display their emotions, and how they learn.

This code, reinforced by peers, parents, and teachers, requires that boys do not show their

true feelings, and act cool. The way most of our school culture is established leads to

problems for boys who feel pressured to follow this code. It makes it very difficult for

them to seek help if they need it, especially if it is in a content area and they are having

trouble comprehending the subject matter. Instead of asking their teacher for help, they

become frustrated, distracted, restless, and eventually end up getting reprimanded

(Pollack, 1999). Over time, and with repeated instances, boys who follow this unwritten

code begin to believe that they cannot be successful, and that school is not a fun and

enriching place. Many of these boys become depressed and develop a low self-esteem

before they even have a chance to realize their strong points. This could lead to a

continued pattern of failure (Pollack, 1999).

Another problem that occurs involves inequities of teacher attention. According to

Gender Gaps: Where Schools Still Fail Our Children (1998), teacher’s generally view

girls as having good behavior and a desire to please their teacher, which can lead to less
 15

one-on-one teacher-student contact time. On the other hand, boys received more attention

than girls did on average, because teachers considered boys more likely to have discipline

problems or poor work habits (p. 46-47). Newkirk (2002) said that this additional

attention from the teacher is counter-productive for boys. He makes the claim that it

reinforces negative behavior and that the results is a rewarding of the “troublemaker or

clown” by providing them with an audience (p.33). Based on this information it looks as

if educators are expecting quite a bit of conformity from the boys in the classroom, while

not necessarily meeting their gender specific needs. Moreover, in some cases the system

may even be perpetuating a cycle of poor performance, behavior, and a lack of drive for

school related success.

Theories of Motivation

Introduction

Many factors influence whether students in a classroom will or will not be

motivated to learn. It is clear that no single theory or interpretation of motivation explains

all characteristics of student motivation or engagement. Different theories, however,

present understanding as to why some students, in a given learning situation, are more

likely to want to learn than other students are in the same environment. Similarly, each

theory presented in this section may add to an overall understanding of motivating

students in the classroom.

The typical definition of motivation is something that initiates, invigorates, or

directs an individual’s behavior towards action (Weber, 1984). Because this definition is

so general, researchers have focused on three basic questions. First, what is it that causes
 16

a person to initiate action? Second, what causes a person to progress toward a specific

goal? Third, what causes a person to continue their attempts to achieve a given goal?

There are two main schools of thought when it comes to explaining the questions

as to how or why people are motivated. The first general category argues that motivation

comes from extrinsic forces (those outside a person); typically meaning external

consequences, incentives, or rewards. The second school of thought proposes that the

source of motivation for a person is intrinsic, or comes from within. These two broad

schools of thought, pertaining to motivation, fall into one of three classifications that are

more specific: behavioral, cognitive, and humanistic views of motivation (Woolfolk,

1987).

Behavioral Views of Motivation

According to the behavioral view, learning is an observable change in behavior

that is relatively permanent (Forsyth, Hansen, Schickedanz & Schickedanz, 1993). These

changes are generally believed to take place through four different learning processes:

contiguity (learning through simple associations), classical conditioning (automatic

responses to stimuli), operant conditioning (controlling the consequences of behavior),

and observational learning (learning through observing others). These four learning

processes involve varying degrees of stimuli, from simple associations and observations

to positive and negative reinforcements, in an attempt to produce a desired action,

reaction, or behavioral outcome. The behaviorist’s theory, based on the concept that

people have basic physiological needs that motivate us, asserts that learning occurs best

with the use of extrinsic rewards and/or consequences. Two main branches stem from the

category of behaviorism; classical and operant conditioning (Forsyth, et al., 1993).

 17

Classical conditioning. Classical Conditioning is a type of learning made famous

by the Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936). Through a series of experiments

with canines, Pavlov showed that under certain circumstances these animals could learn

to provide a desired response to external stimuli. The gist of the experiment is this:

Pavlov presented dogs with food, and measured their salivary response. Then he began

ringing a bell just before presenting the food to the dogs. After repeating this process

numerous times, the dogs began to salivate when the bell sounded, even if the food was

not present. In this regard, the subjects learned to associate the sound of the bell with the

presentation of the food and this manifested the same physiological responses as if the

food had in fact been present (Forsyth, et al., 1993). The result of this form of

conditioning is that responses associated with certain stimuli can be used to direct

behavior. According to Corpus and Wilson (2001), applications of classical conditioning

can involve making activities fun, so that students associate learning experiences with

positive responses. However, in contrast to the positive potential, the authors point out

that if the student becomes conditioned to associate negative experiences with school

related activities, it can lead to the developing of fears or phobias for that student. If a

student perceives that a given activity or environment is producing undesirable stimuli

they will be inclined to evoke a negative response. An example of this phenomenon may

be a student who develops chronic stomachaches during test taking. Regardless of his or

her ability or skill level in a given area, the student may perceive the discomfort based

upon previous negative experiences associated with testing or increased levels of stress.

Operant conditioning. Skinner (1953) believed that the principles of classical

conditioning could only account for a certain amount of learned behaviors. For example,
 18

classical conditioning may describe how existing behaviors is paired with new stimuli,

but not how new behaviors are learned. It was Skinner’s observation that many behaviors

are not simply responses to stimuli; but in fact were deliberate actions. What this means

is that while Pavlov and classical conditioning is concerned with stimuli that occurred

before the behavior, Skinner researched the possibility that sometimes the stimuli that

occurs after the behavior is the influencing factor. Operant conditioning involves control

of the consequences of, as opposed to controlling the stimuli leading up to, the behavior.

During his studies, Skinner observed that consequences brought on by a specific behavior

could be pleasant (positive reinforcement) or negative (negative reinforcement). The

application of these reinforcements provided incentive to either increase a desired

behavior, or decrease an undesired behavior. This process of reinforcing behaviors based

on desired outcomes is shaping (Forsyth et al., 1993).

Many behavioral learning theorists developed methods of behavior modification

under the theory that students are motivated to complete tasks based on the promise of a

reward (Corpus & Wilson, 2001). Some examples of different rewards include grades,

tokens, and special privileges. In the classroom setting, the teacher may use this system

of motivation to condition students to exhibit specific behaviors by reinforcing those

desired behaviors with rewards. This might involve a certificate of achievement, free

choice time after the completion of a designated assignment, or even the acquiring of

points used toward the receiving of a larger reward, like a pizza party or lunch with the

teacher.

Some researchers are saying that the problem with operant conditioning is when a

person is conditioned to respond to external stimuli in one area, that same person may not
 19

respond as desired in other areas, unless similar rewards are offered (Corpus & Wilson,

2001; Johnson, 1999; Woolfolk, 1987). For example, though this does not apply to every

situation, if a student is consistently reinforced with money, praise, or privileges for

doing well in sports, but receives little or no recognition for their academic work, the

student will likely put more effort into his or her pursuit of playing sports than that

student will apply towards schoolwork. Every individual circumstance may involve

multiple factors that play a role in effecting the student’s motivation. Motivation based on

external rewards, that have little or nothing to do with the learning process itself, are

considered extrinsic in nature.

This is not to imply that the behavioral view of motivation only focuses on

reinforcement and consequences. The work of Bandura (1977, 1986) and social learning

theorists broadened the traditional view of behavioral motivation to include some

flexibility for cognitive factors. Some examples of these include such cognitive

influences as avoidance, self-efficacy, and personal expectations (Corpus & Wilson,

2001; Hawley, 2002; Woolfolk, 1997). This change in views led to the development of

the social learning theory.

Social Learning Theory

Bandura (1977, 1986) called attention to the importance of observation, imitation,

and the expectation of reinforcement, which a person receives when that person sees

someone else receiving rewards for a particular behavior. While studying the way people

self manage, Bandura developed the theory of social learning and self-efficacy (Corpus &

Wilson, 2001). This theory suggested that there are several basic sources of motivation.

Additionally, one factor in determining the motivational level of an individual toward a

 20

given task is bias on the part of the subject as to whether or not they can be successful at

completing said task. Hawley (2002) supports this theory by stating, “The students’

beliefs about their ability to achieve some goal or execute some task-related activity are

at least as influential in learning outcomes as their actual abilities” (p. 17).

Another source of motivation, according to Bandura (1993), is personal goal-

setting. The goals that people set become their standards for assessing personal abilities.

This relates to self-efficacy, which plays a role in determining the goals that a person will

attempt to reach. As a person progresses toward achieving a goal, he or she may envision

the positive outcomes of completion, or the negative outcomes of failure. Whether or not

the individual achieves their envisioned goal causes them to adjust their perception of

their abilities in a given area. This leads to a circular system where by a person’s

perceptions of their abilities affect their goal-setting, and in turn, a person’s outcome with

their attempts to achieve their goals affect their perception of their abilities, and the cycle

repeats. Woolfolk (1987) adds an important point to this by stating that, “Goals that are

specific, moderately difficult, and likely to be reached in the near future tend to enhance

motivation and persistence” (p. 314).

Finally, social learning theory states that a person might be motivated to achieve

based upon admiration and respect for someone held in high regard. In addition, a person

who observes other people (older siblings, classmates, or friends) obtaining benefits or

rewards for behaving in a certain way may be motivated to imitate those actions to

receive a similar reinforcement. Likewise, a person may feel a sense of discouragement

or disdain by observing the success of others, if the person is unable to be successful.

Ames (1992) pointed out that both vicarious reinforcement and direct reinforcement can
 21

raise or lower an individual’s sense of self-efficacy in regards to a specific task or area,

which in turn leads to a higher or lower degree of motivation.

Cognitive Views of Motivation

Cognitive views emphasize that the way people think about themselves and their

environment influences their behavior. Stipek (1988) suggested that the behavioral

choices a person makes fall into one of four categories: a person’s beliefs concerning the

nature of cognitive ability, the need to create an ordered and reasonable knowledge base,

a person’s expectations for success at a given task, and the factors that a person believes

will account for success, or failure. One of the central beliefs in the cognitive view of

motivation is that people do not only behave in response to external and physical stimuli,

but that individuals also behave based on personal perception of the stimuli. For example,

the individual's thought process is a factor in determining the level of motivation and the

goals that a person sets. This is in contrast to the behavioral point of view because it

proposes that there are intrinsic (internal) factors in a person’s motivation. Some

examples of these intrinsic forces are curiosity, the satisfaction of learning for learning’s

sake, and a person’s sense of accomplishment. This leads to a theory of behavior based

on intrinsic motivation, in order to search out understanding, causes, and balance in the

perceived environment of the individual, even if the course of action results in the

forgoing of physical needs or desires, such as hunger or sex.

Some cognitive theorists propose that people have a basic need to understand their

environment. This leads to the intrinsic drive to be competent when coping with said

environment (Woolfolk, 1987). The inherent desire for proficiency in an environment

relates to Piaget’s (1969) theory of equilibration, which stated that people are motivated
 22

by a desire for balance between new knowledge and established perceptions. Piaget

proposed that a person might reach this balance either by a process of assimilation,

relating a new experience to an existing scheme, or by accommodation, modifying an

existing scheme to adjust for the new experience (Forsyth et al., 2005). Along similar

lines, Festiner (1957) developed his theory of cognitive dissonance, which stated that if a

person has a conflict between two schemes, beliefs, or actions, the individual will be

motivated to resolve the clash or inconsistency. What this implies is that if there is an

appropriate amount of disequilibrium a person will be motivated to change something

due to their need for maintaining balance within his or her environment.

Another cognitive model, or approach, is expectancy theory (Huitt, 2001). This

theory uses the following formula: Motivation equals expectancy multiplied by

instrumentality multiplied by value. Expectancy is a persons’ perceived probability of

success; instrumentality is when the person has perceived connection between success

and reward; and value (or valance) is the worth the individual places on obtaining a goal.

Because these factors multiply with each other to arrive at common product, this theory

proposes that a low integer in one area will result in a lower level of motivation.

Consequently, all three factors must be present for motivation to occur. In other words, if

a person believes that he or she cannot be successful in a course of action, or if the person

does not perceive a connection between action and success, or if the person does not

perceive a value resulting from successful completion of the activity, then the persons’

motivation to engage in the given task is diminished. Likewise, according to this theory,

in order to have a high level of motivation on a given task, all three values must be

present for the individual. The individual therefore must perceive the possibility of
 23

success, the connection between their actions and the potential successful outcome, and a

value to the assignment to have a high level of motivation. A teacher can accomplish this

by helping students choose goals that are of value to the student, clearly stated, and have

a reasonable chance of being successfully completed. In addition to this, students should

experience being successful on a regular basis in order for them to maintain the

perception that they can be successful learners.

A different cognitive theory that deals with motivation is that of attribution theory

(Heider, 1958; Weiner, 1985). Attribution theory describes how a person’s excuses,

justifications, and explanations influence motivation. This theory proposes that everyone

tries to explain causes for success or failure using certain attributions. These attributions

are internal or external, and either under the person’s control, or not under personal

control. For example, innate ability is an internal cause that is uncontrollable. Effort is an

internal cause that an individual can control, whereas the difficulty of a given task has an

external locus of control and is an uncontrollable cause of success or failure for the

individual. According to Woolfolk (1987), people will usually try to justify their failures

or their success to themselves. This may mean that a person attributes the cause of their

failure to either internal or external factors; and people who attribute their failures to a

lack of effort usually focus on building strategies for future success. Ames (1985) drew

the same conclusion and adds to it that, “This is a positive, adaptive response, one likely

to lead to achievement, pride, and a greater sense of control” (p. 268). The potential for

problems arise, however, when people attribute failure to internal and uncontrollable

causes. This can lead to the person believing that he or she is incapable of being

successful in a given area or on a specific task. If this course of action continues, the
 24

person can even develop a learned helplessness. This is the sense that nothing the

individual does will matter, and is destined to fail in achieving personal goals (Ames,

1985). When applying the attribution theory of motivation to the classroom Huitt (2001)

stated:

In a teaching/learning environment, it is important to assist the learner to develop

a self-attribution explanation of effort (internal, control). If the person has an
attribution of ability (internal, no control) as soon as the individual has trouble in
the learning process, he or she will decrease appropriate learning behavior. If the
person has an external attribution, then nothing the person can do will help that
individual in a learning situation. In this case, there is nothing to be done by the
individual when learning problems occur. (p. 4)

Because the notion of individual perception is at the heart of attribution theory, it is

important to help people believe that they can be successful. When people believe that

they can successfully complete a given task, even if they do not have the ability to do so,

people will act on that belief. On the other hand, if a person believes that he or she cannot

be successful, the person will have little or no motivation to try at an attempt toward goal

completion. According to Woolfolk (1987) there is no substitute for continuing success,

and that in order to keep making attempts towards the successful completion of difficult

goals, a person must be successful a good portion of the time. In addition to the reward of

succeeding, an individual needs to be able to attribute some of that success to his or her

own efforts (p. 317). One strategy that helps some people with their motivational needs

on certain tasks involves emphasizing a persons’ progress to date on a specific task or in

a particular area. For example, even if a student has not achieved his or her end goal of

memorizing multiplication tables to a certain point, a teacher may have the student reflect

upon the facts the student has memorized. Doing this, while stressing the connections
 25

between past efforts and past accomplishments, presents that student with examples of

previous successes in order to help the student set goals for new challenges. During this

process, the student has the opportunity to reflect upon successes, even if the main goals

have not yet been met (Woolfolk, 1987).

Humanistic Views of Motivation

Humanism is a broad category of philosophies that avow the worth of people,

based on the capacity to determine right and wrong by appeal to reason (Weber, 1984).

The humanistic views of motivation stress personal freedom, self-determination, and

choice. As with the cognitive views of motivation, the humanistic models emphasis

intrinsic motivation. Many humanistic theorists stress the role of needs as being central to

a persons’ motivation. According to Kolesnik (1978) a need is defined as “any type of

deficiency in the human organism or the absence of anything the person requires, or

thinks he requires, for his overall well-being” (p. 149). From this perspective, people are

always moving towards goals that they perceive as being helpful in meeting their needs.

The individualistic nature of these needs provides the opportunity for the constructivist

approach in the classroom. Constructivism emphasizes the importance of the knowledge,

skills, needs, and desires that the individual learner bring to the learning environment.

Constructivism is the theory that the construction of new learning is a combination of

new information, prior knowledge, and the readiness of the individual. According to the

constructivist approach, the individual student chooses what new learning to accept and

how the new ideas will fit into their established view of the world (Brooks & Brooks,

1993).
 26

Maslow (1968) referred to need gratification as the most important factor in

determining a persons’ motivation. Maslow stated, “The single, holistic principle that

binds together the multiplicity of human motives is the tendency for a new and higher

need to emerge as the lower need fulfills itself by being sufficiently gratified” (p. 55).

Maslow added to his conclusion by developing a hierarchy of needs that consists of five

levels. In this list, the needs at the bottom are more crucial for a persons’ survival and an

individual will meet them first. A person will only move onto higher-level needs after

meeting the lower-level needs. If a person is not meeting the most basic needs for

survival, there will not be motivation to address needs that are less crucial. According to

this theory, the individual is in a continuing state of flux in an attempt to find a balance or

equilibrium. If at any point a lower need ceases to be satisfied, a person will abandon the

higher needs and adjust efforts towards satisfying the lower one. The first four needs in

ascending order are physiological, safety, love, and belonging. Maslow referred to these

needs as deficiency needs, because a person is only motivated to satisfy them when the

needs are unmet to some degree. Self-actualization (self-fulfillment) is the fifth need in

this theory. By contrast, Maslow (1968) considered self-actualization a growth need,

because people are constantly trying to satisfy it. In addition to the five basic needs,

Maslow (1968) contends that there are cognitive (the need to learn and understand) and

aesthetic (the need for order or accord) needs which play a critical role in satisfying the

needs of the hierarchy. He emphasizes this point by stressing that such environmental

conditions as the freedom to learn, fairness, consistency, and order are crucial because

their deficiency makes satisfying the five basic needs more difficult (Maslow, 1968).
 27

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory has significant implications for motivation in

the educational setting. According to Maslow’s theory, if a student comes to school sick,

hungry, or hurt that the student is less likely to be motivated towards learning, than if the

student comes to school having had those needs met. Maslow’s theory also stresses that if

the student finds the classroom to be a fearful and unpredictable place the student is more

likely to be more concerned with safely and security than with education. In addition,

Maslow’s (1968) hierarchy can offer insight into the choices a student makes. Their drive

to satisfy low-level needs may come into conflict with their teachers’ expectations.

Woolfolk (1987) said that one way to cope with this is to “consider the factors that

influence motivation at different times in the learning process itself” (p. 319).

Wlodkowski (1981) suggested that by asking questions prior to beginning any learning

activity a teacher can plan to meet the students’ needs. Questions, such as how can I

foster a positive attitude towards learning during this activity; or what special needs do

my students have at this time, can help facilitate a learning environment that meets

students’ needs and cuts down on conflicts related to expectations. Fetterman &

Rohrkemper (1986) suggested that teachers can “create a psychologically safer class

environment where wrong answers and mistakes can become occasions for learning, for

probing the thinking behind the answers, instead of simply occasions for criticism” (p. 2).

Achievement motivation theory. Atkinson (1964) was one of the first theorists to

concentrate on the study of why some people are motivated to achieve for the purpose of

achievement itself. Atkinson noted that people have two drives (motivating forces) in the

area of achievement, and that these two drives are always at odds with one another. These

opposing areas are, the endeavor to be successful and the fear (or avoidance) of failure.
 28

Because these factors are always competing, a person’s behavior or course of action can

differ from one situation to the next. For example, if an individuals’ need to achieve in a

particular activity is greater than the need to avoid failure, the resultant motivation will be

to take risks in an attempt to be successful at the activity. On the other hand, if the

individuals’ need to avoid failure is greater, the activity becomes threatening, which

results in behavior (motivation) to avoid the activity.

According to Atkinson (1964), people who have a high need for achievement

expect to be successful with a more consistent rate that those who are failure avoidant.

Most of these (high-need) people expect, or anticipate, a feeling of satisfaction in

achievement prior to having completed a task. When given a choice, these people with a

high-need for achievement, will pursue reasonably challenging tasks as those types of

tasks present a sense of balance between challenge and the expectation of success.

In contrast, the person who has a low-need for achievement will avoid those tasks

that are moderately challenging because fear of failure offsets the expectation of success.

Failure-avoidant people choose tasks that either offer a high likelihood of success, due to

a low level of challenge, or are difficult enough that there is very little probability for

success. For these people the goal itself is an intimidating factor.

According to Huitt (2001), achievement motivation theory involves three separate

types of goal-based theories. He referred to them as mastery, performance, and social

goals. Mastery goals are learning goals that apply to a persons’ motivation to improve

proficiency in a given area. Mastery goals can also describe an individual’s drive to

master new knowledge or skills. Performance goals (also called ego-involvement goals)

apply to a persons’ motivation to achieve, or be successful at, standards-based activities.

 29

This might manifest as a competitive nature or as a drive to do better than others might.

Social goals are those tasks where people are motivated to focus on relationships with

other people (p. 6).

People who are motivated by a mastery goal orientation are usually successful and

see themselves as capable. These people fall into the high-need for achievement category,

and typically take risks or choose relatively challenging goals (Woolfolk, 1987). Huitt

(2001) said, “In the context of school learning, which involves operating in a relatively

structured environment, students with mastery goals outperform students with either

performance or social goals” (p. 6). However, Huitt made the point that it is “important

for people to have a balance of all three types of goals if they are to be highly successful

in life” (p. 7).

In contrast, performance goals are ones where the purpose is to achieve or

demonstrate one’s proficiency or ability on a task or in a given area. The person who is

motivated towards performance goals defines their success based upon comparing the

results of their achievement against that of their peers. In this regard, people will avoid

tasks that give them too great a challenge because they are motivated to appear more

competent than their comparison group. This can eventually lead to academic struggles

and failure avoidance (Ames, 1992).

Social goals represent a person's perceptions about the social factors for trying (or

not trying) to achieve a task. According to Ames (1992), people strive to be successful in

a given task in order to be a productive member of society; bring pride and honor to their

family unit, or gain the approval (respect) of peers or people the individual respects.

Thus, the focus of social goals can vary from person to person. In addition to this, the
 30

result of an individual’s effort or ability might not correlate with their degree of success

due to the external nature of the determining factors’ locus of control.

Control theory and locus of control. Most classroom management systems

indicate that the control over how and what students learn stems from the classroom

teacher (Corpus & Wilson, 2001). In these settings, the teacher attempts to control the

students and the learning process. Recent studies have shown, however, that student

motivation and achievement increases when students have choices or options as a way to

meet their educational needs (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Glasser, 1990; Corpus & Wilson,

2001).

Glasser (1986) contended that intrinsic stimuli cause a person’s behavior. His

theory (choice theory) stated that the motivation behind a person’s behavior is the wants

or needs of the individual at any given time. Glasser (1990) added to the theory by stating

that if we are to “understand what motivation actually is, it is necessary first to

understand that control theory contends that all human beings are born with five basic

needs built into their genetic structure: survival, love, power, fun, and freedom” (p. 43).

Glasser (1990) stressed that no matter what extrinsic motivators are used, some people

will exercise their need for power or control and may lack motivation if those people do

not agree with the value of the given goal. When a person perceives to be in control over

their learning, it increases their belief in their own ability to be successful. In this regard,

the focal point, or locus of control, is the motivating factor for a person. If the individual

perceives that the motivating force is intrinsic, the person might believe that they were

successful or failed due to his or her effort or ability. If a student perceives the force
 31

behind the motivation as external, the person might believe that any success or failure

experienced was not due to his or her effort or ability, but to some outside force (Glasser,

1990).

The important factor here is the perceptions of the cause for success or failure.

Stiggins (2001) suggested that this aspect of motivation is “a sufficiently important part

of academic success to justify considering separately” (p. 328). According to this theory,

one way to assist a person with the level of motivation is to work with the individual in a

noncoercive manner. Glasser (1990) referred to this as being a lead-manager as opposed

to being a boss when attempting to direct a person’s course of action. He proposes that

the lead-manager type of motivator assists by helping the individual see the connection

between efforts and level of success. In contrast to this is the boss-manager motivator

who relies on external stimuli in an attempt to motivate or coerce others into taking a

desired action.

Corpus and Wilson (2001), said that while many people still use external stimuli

in an attempt to motivate, the result is usually “a short term positive effect with possible

long-term negative results” (p. 3). However, the argument many current researchers are

making is that those people who perceive themselves as being in control of their own

outcomes, are more inclined to be successful (Glasser, 1990; Schlechty, 2002; Stiggins,

2001). According to this theory, when individuals are appropriately challenged, view a

goal as worthwhile, believe that they have a choice in the setting of the goal, and perceive

that their efforts will have a direct influence on the outcome, they will have increased

intrinsic motivation, perseverance, and confidence that they can be successful.

 32

The Impact of Cooperative Grouping on Motivation

Cooperative grouping is a model where by people put effort towards

accomplishing shared goals. In this situation, what is beneficial for one person in the

group is beneficial for the whole, and vice versa. Cooperative arrangements lead people

to utilize effort and cooperation as the primary focus of motivation. In a cooperative

atmosphere, people are motivated out of a sense of obligation to the group with whom

they are working. This leads to a system of motivation characterized by positive

interdependence due to the outcome for the individual being the same as, and dependent

upon, the outcome for the other members of the group. According to Glasser (1990),

motivation and achievement tend to be highest for activities that require a team effort.

A problem that can arise when using cooperative grouping is that it can lead to

competitive motivation between groups. Johnson and Johnson (1995) drew the

conclusions that competitive goal arrangements can result in a situation of negative

interdependence. Situations where people are motivated to accomplish something at the

expense of someone else, characterize the problem. Typically, this occurs when people

view the failure of other people as the successful outcome to a task. These perceptions

may lead some people toward a failure avoidance approach when working in competitive

groups (Ames, 1985). One way to counteract the negative effects of cooperative

competition, according to Linnenbrink (2005), is to focus goals “around relative

improvements between groups rather than relative performance” (p. 16). A strategy to

accomplish this involves the utilization of tasks that have multiple solutions, which grant

competitive groups a sense of autonomy. In this regard, cooperative groups are not
 33

benefiting from another group’s failure, and the success or failure of their group is

independent of the accomplishments of other groups.

Another problematic situation that has potential to occur with cooperative

grouping is that of inequity amongst the group members that might occur in two distinct

areas. The first is the potential problem that involves equality of effort. The perception

that some group members are putting forth greater effort than other group members can

lead to resentments within the group and or a decrease in effort on the part of those who

felt they were working harder. The second problem is that, even though a group can be

successful as a whole, it does not mean that every member of the group benefits equally

(Woolfolk, 1987). This stems from the individualistic nature of the learners in any given

learning situation. There are precautions, however, that teachers can take in an effort to

counteract these potential issues. An attempt to remedy the first condition by pre-

assigning sub-tasks within the group has been a solution offered by some researchers

(Woolfolk, 1987). Another way to assist group members in this area is to monitor their

progress and levels of individual effort to make sure that each person is contributing

equally. Finally, if the individuals within the collaborative grouping have separate but

interconnected learning goals, a person can benefit based upon their own needs.

Slavin (1995) developed a system called Student Teams-Achievement Division

(STAD) that addresses both of these issues. STAD is a system based on predefined teams

with a mix of abilities, gender, and background experiences. Within this system, a

motivator calculates a score for each individual in the group, based on their ability and

expected level of participation towards the group’s achievement goal. This is similar to a

tiered system where group members have differing levels of expectations (or goals) even
 34

though the group’s final goal is cooperative in nature. In this way, those members with

less ability can still be successful members of the team; and goes toward addressing the

inequities listed above, as well as the issue of individual benefit. As long as the approach

to cooperative grouping involves a system where the individual members still have a

perception of choice and appropriate goals that can be achieved, the value for the

individual has the potential to remain intrinsic.

Other People’s Expectations

Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) conducted landmark research pertaining to the

study of causal relationships between teacher expectations and student achievement. For

this study, the researchers selected students at random and created nonfactual learning

profiles for the students that either said the student would do well or poorly on their

schoolwork. Teachers, not having had any prior experience with the individual students,

where then presented with this biased information. The breakthrough discovery was, that

if teachers believed students would make significant academic gains, then the students

had an increased potential for doing so. This led to the presentation of data that suggested

a nature of self-fulfilling actions, based upon the teacher’s predefined expectations. One

of the problems with a causal relationship of this nature is that it may, or may not, be

based upon a person’s actual ability. According to Woolfolk (1987), this means, “a

teacher’s incorrect beliefs about students’ abilities or behaviors in some way bring the

very behaviors the teacher expects” (p. 331).

Brophy (1998) suggested that there are two types of expectation, which have an

effect upon a person’s motivation. The first one is the self-fulfilling expectation

mentioned above, where the bias of expectation may be incorrect. The other is the
 35

expectation drawn after sufficient assessment pertaining to the individual and the

situation has occurred. This second type has a greater chance of accurately assessing an

individual’s abilities, and needs. One potential problem can occur when the person

forming the expectations has not maintained pace with the individual’s actual progress.

For a teacher this could mean that a student’s goals are no longer appropriate. Brophy

(1998) stresses that this inconsistency in evaluation has the potential to lead back to

maintaining an inaccurate expectation, which can become self-fulfilling.

Introduction of Roles

Motivation is the inner drive, arousal, selection, intention, or direction that moves

a person towards action or causes them to act in a certain way. When using these criteria

to judge whether a student is motivated one needs to remember that as long as a student

sets goals and puts forth a measurable amount of effort towards achieving those goals,

that the student is, by definition, motivated. The problem arises when the mental image a

student’s teacher has of how that motivation should look, and in which direction the

action should be taking place, is different from the choices made by the student. This

means that in a given situation a student may not be motivated to behave the way the

teacher would prefer.

Because educators are encouraged to promote motivation that is intrinsic in

nature, the teacher in the above situation cannot directly control the student’s motivation.

What the teacher can do, with the help of the various motivational theories covered in this

paper, is to develop a purposeful plan with the intention of influencing the student.

Ultimately, the teacher must attempt to guide the student’s actions towards a desirable

result. This is similar to the way a rudder works on a sailboat. The wind provides the
 36

force (the power to move toward action) and the rudder helps by steering the boat in the

desired direction. Some ways a teacher can accomplish this is by creating an atmosphere

that fosters curiosity, student choice, and cooperation, by helping students set their own

goals that they perceive as both attainable and valuable, and by providing clear

expectations related to the individual needs of the student. Both teachers (Ames, 1992)

and researchers (Corpus and Wilson, 2001) advocate that motivating students toward

appropriate goals is one of the most important and critical roles of a teacher.

Atmosphere: Creating the Right Environment

Many decisions a teacher makes may have an effect on student motivation. For

example, the method a teacher uses for grading can motivate students to try harder or to

give up (Woolfolk, 1987). Choices the students make and groupings that allow students

to work collaboratively at various times throughout the day may have an effect. Even the

classroom materials, chosen with student interest and ability in mind, may help motivate

students to learn. Hawley (2002) said that, “Students are driven or motivated by their

deep-seated interests” (p. 17). This would imply that the environment the teacher creates

and the relationship the teacher has with the student, are crucial in determining which

factors characterize the force behind a student’s drive toward learning. Glasser (1990)

said, “If we attempt to manage people without taking their needs into account, we will

ask them to do things without considering whether or not those things are need-satisfying

either now or later” (p. 48).

Student Choice: Tapping into Interests and Arousing Curiosity

Effective educators attempt to create a learning environment that relates to the

interests of the students (Hawley, 2002; Glasser, 1990; Woolfolk, 1987). Granted there
 37

will be times when students need to master basic skills or complete tasks that hold no

intrinsic interest for them. Not every student will be motivated by the same activity or

influencing stimuli. On the other hand, Woolfolk (1987) pointed out that, “If a teacher

knows what students’ interests are, these can be part of many teaching strategies” (p.

324). One way to do this is to provide students with choices. Hawley (2002) made the

statement that “teachers should acknowledge students’ goals and interests and cultivate

an academic climate that is supportive and encouraging of students’ individual interests

and goals to the extent that students’ goals further the desired instructional goals” (p. 17).

In addition to this he stresses that “Student choice and self-determination can also

enhance motivation” (p. 17). A teacher can provide students with choices at the onset of

almost any given task or assignment simply by allowing them to have a voice in how the

students would choose to prove subject mastery. This might mean giving options for a

final project, or even choices pertaining to procedural steps during the activity.

Schlechty (2001) stated that, “Individuals who have choice are empowered.

Empowerment increases the likelihood of commitment” (p. 125). Schlechty (2002) adds a

new dimension to the perspective that motivation and engagement increase when an

individual receives choices, by asserting that student engagement is scalable. The

assessment rubric for this scale covers five descriptions of engagement. These categories

include Engaged, Strategically Compliant, Ritually Compliant, Retreatism, and Rebellion

(Schlechty, 2002, p.12). According to Schlechty, student learning stems from the efforts

of the student, while the “level and type of engagement” a task produces, determine a

student’s effort (p. 38). Schlechty’s scale will be the standard for measuring the
 38

engagement of the participants in this study. Section three of this document will detail the

scale at greater length.

 39

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

Introduction: Quantitative and qualitative design

Intermediate-level students are consistently scoring lower on standardized writing

tests than in other academic areas (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2002).

According to Connell and Guzelmann, (2004) the average intermediate level student is

two years behind the standard in the academic areas of reading and writing. The Office of

Superintendent of Public Instruction for Washington State published results for 2004-

2005. The results from statewide testing showed a mean 57.7% of fourth-grade students

meeting the writing proficiency standard. The 57.7% passing rate for the state writing

assessment was the lowest percentage of passing students compared to 60.8% that meet

the math standard and 79.5% that meet the reading standard that same year (OSPI, 2006).

This mixed-methods correlational study explored a potential relationship between

choice, motivation/engagement, and standardized writing test scores of intermediate-level

students attending a suburban elementary school. The study integrated quantitative

(surveys and writing test scores) with qualitative (interviews and observations) data. The

priority between the methods was equal. Integration of the two types of data occurred at

two stages in the research process. The first integration occurred during data collection;

the participants addressed open-ended and closed-ended questions via a survey. The

second stage where integration of data from both the quantitative and qualitative portions

of the study took place for comparison, and analysis happened during the interpretation

phase.
 40

The researcher selected the mixed-methods approach for its strengths in this type

of study. Quantitative and qualitative methodologies offer unique answers to research

questions. According to Reichardt and Cook (1979), there are three reasons to use

quantitative and qualitative data together; for multiple purposes, to use each type of

method to build on the other, and for triangulation of data. Whereas quantitative research

answers the what questions, qualitative research addresses how and why questions. It is

due to this separate nature of both methodologies that the mixed-method approach was

selected for this study.

Concurrent triangulation strategy provided a method of verifying and supporting

the validity of the data that is superior due to the limited range of time the study ran.

According to Creswell (2003), Concurrent triangulation strategy “can result in well-

validated and substantiated findings. In addition, the concurrent data collection results in

a shorter data collection time period as compared to one of the sequential approaches” (p.

217).

Setting

This study ran for three months. All three fifth-grade classrooms from a single

elementary school, serving a lower-middle class neighborhood, participated in this study.

A different teacher taught each of the three classes. All of the participants completed

surveys pertaining to their perceptions on choice, writing, and engagement. A smaller

group of students participated in interviews and three writing tests. The interviewees

were selected according to established criteria.

The sample for this study consisted of students who returned signed permission

slips and assented to participating in the study. The students were enrolled in a suburban
 41

elementary school in southwest Washington State. The neighborhood that the school

resides in was a middle to lower-middle class suburb of a city with a population of 157,

493 (City Data, 2006). According to OSPI (2006) the school served approximately 552

students; with roughly 250 students falling into the intermediate (3rd – 5th) grade-level

population. The three fifth-grade classrooms were comprised of 73 students in all.

Statistically, 51.6% of the student body were male and 48.4% were female. The ethnicity

of school comprised a student body that was 81.3% white, 7.8% Hispanic, 3.8% Asian,

3.8% Black, and 0.7% Native American/Alaskan Native. There were 36 classroom

teachers, 61.1% of which had at least a Master’s degree and an average of 12.8 years of

teaching experience at the school. The total number of teachers who teach core academic

classes was 27 and the total number of core academic classes taught was 70. One hundred

percent of the teachers at the school where the data collection occurred met the NCLB

highly qualified teacher definition. 44.8% of the student body received free or reduced-

price meals, 7.4% of the student body was transitional bilingual, and 12.7% of the student

body qualified for special education. The unexcused absence rate at the school was 0.1%

for the 2006 school year.

Sample

The sampling for the surveys was single-staged and based on convenience. The

target group consisted of 62 fifth-grade students, which provided for a 95% confidence

level for a total population of 73 (Pearson Assessments, 2006). The participants who met

the established criteria completed surveys based upon their level of engagement while

participating in writing assignments with prompts of varied levels of content choice. The
 42

sample group was dependent upon the number of students willing to participate in the

study and required both student assent and a signed parental permission form (Appendix

B). The measure of effect was determined using the Pearson correlation. Gravetter &

Wallnau (2005) stated that the Pearson correlation is the most commonly used correlation

in behavioral science statistics and that the Pearson correlation, “measures the degree and

direction of the linear relationship between two variables” (p. 415).

The sampling for the interviews was multi-staged and involved six randomly

selected participants from the larger survey sample group. The justification for this

approach was that it provided greater opportunity for testing methods and data collection

in a limited amount of time (Creswell, 2003). The sample size was based on one

participant each (high, medium, and low academic achievement students) representing

both boys and girls. The classroom teachers selected students based on the academic

criteria and student willingness to participate.

The researcher mailed a recruitment letter (Appendix A) with an included consent

form (Appendix C) to the homes of the fifth-grade students selected by the teachers. The

researcher provided a self-addressed stamped envelope to facilitate the return mailing of

the forms. At that time, the researcher was available to answer questions about the study,

and a two-week deadline for returning the consent forms began. As students returned

their consent forms, they received a coded identification, based on the conversion of the

letters of their first and last name. The coded names protected the identity of the

participants and insured confidentiality of the interviewees (Mills, 2003, p. 64).

Only 24 of the 73-student population met the above criteria by returning all

permission and assent signed by both them and a parent or guardian. This provided a
 43

sample group of n = 22 with a reliability score close to 1.0. Due to the small sample size,

the researcher used randomized test-retest measures.

Quantitative design

Research Question One

Is there a relationship between a student’s perceived level of engagement and

standardized writing-test scores for intermediate level students in suburban elementary

schools? The review of literature in chapter two indicated that current research suggested

students who are more engaged in an activity would perform better on the activity.

However, there is a lack of literature pertaining to studies involving student engagement

and writing assessments for intermediate level students. Surveys were used to measure

the independent variable of student engagement level while students participated in

writing assessments. The dependent variable was writing test scores of the students who

completed surveys. The controlled variables included standardized writing prompts, the

setting for the writing tests, the surveys, and administration of both the tests and the

surveys.

Question One Hypotheses

Null: There is not a significant relationship between perceived level of

engagement and standardized writing-test scores for intermediate level students in

a suburban elementary school.

Alternative: There is a significant relationship between perceived level of

engagement and standardized writing-test scores for intermediate level students in

a suburban elementary school.

 44

Research Question Two

Do students perceive themselves as being more motivated or engaged in writing

assignments when provided with choice of content? The review of literature presented

documentation of a correlation between choice and engagement in activities, but there is

a lack of evidence indicating a connection between choices of writing content and

engagement. Writing assignments with varying levels of prompt options or choices

provided for the independent variable. The dependent variable for question two was

participant levels of engagement, as reflected by the students on survey answers. The

controlled variables included the setting for the writing tests, the surveys, and the

administration of the surveys and the writing tests.

Question Two Hypotheses

Null: There is not a significant relationship between writing prompt choice and

levels of motivation or engagement for intermediate level students in a suburban

elementary school.

Alternative: There is a significant relationship between writing prompt choice and

levels of motivation or engagement for intermediate level students in a suburban

elementary school.

Research Question Three

Is there a difference in the self-perceived levels of engagement between

intermediate-level girls and boys when presented with writing assignments of varied

degrees of choice pertaining to content? The review of literature provided evidence of

gender differences and similarities. Some of the reported discrepancies between the

genders are social and some are academic. Gender based writing scores have been studied
 45

for years (Connell & Guzelmann, 2004; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Pollack, 1999). An

area not addressed is gender-based motivation when facing differing degrees of choice on

writing prompts. Gender and writing assignments of varied degrees of choice pertaining

to content were the independent variables. The dependent variables were participant self-

perceived levels of engagement as recorded on surveys during the various writing

prompts.

Question Three Hypotheses

Null: There is not a significant difference between the levels of motivation or

engagement for male and female intermediate level students when presented with

different writing prompt choices.

Alternative: There is a significant difference between the levels of motivation or

engagement of male and female intermediate level students when presented with

different writing prompt choices.

Data collection

The data collection occurred over a three-month period. Each participant

completed a survey based on their perception of themselves as students, the writing

process, and varying degrees of choice on writing assignments. The survey process took

place inside the school. The researcher chose this method of collection in order to ensure

internal consistency. This way of examining reliability required the researcher to test the

variable multiple times with each participant. If the measures were reliable, a pattern of

scores would be consistent across the assessments (Wadsworth, 2006). The purpose was

to document the participants’ perceived level of engagement, while experiencing varying

writing prompt formats, for comparison with the writing test scores. The writing prompt
 46

format variables consisted of writing prompts with no choice or option allowed and

prompts that were open and allowed the participant to write about whatever they chose in

an expository mode. The researcher conducted concurrent interviews during the writing

prompt stage of the study. Details of the interviews are located in the qualitative section

of this document.

The researcher used a survey based on a combination of the Likert scale and a

rubric of engagement developed by Schlechty (2002) for the quantitative method portion

of this study, (Appendix D). The engagement-level rubric covered five descriptions of

engagement. The levels of engagement for the rubric, based on the work of Schlechty,

were engaged, strategically compliant, ritually compliant, retreatism, and rebellion.

According to Schlechty (2002), Merton (1968) supported the ideas for the varying

degrees of engagement levels, including many of the terms used in the rubric.

Furthermore, the members of the peer-debriefing group agreed upon the validity of the

engagement-level rubric during the prestudy component check meeting. The Likert scale

addressed participant engagement towards varying levels of writing-prompt options, and

general academic attitudes ranged from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The purpose

of the surveys was to document the participants’ level of engagement when provided with

choices and no choices on writing prompts.

The researcher facilitated the distribution and collection of the survey materials.

The participants returned the completed surveys as soon as they finished the assigned

writing prompt. Afterwards, the participants continued normal classroom activities.

 47

Participants, who missed a surveyed writing prompt, received time to make up the

writing assessment and follow-up survey, when they returned to school.

Data analysis

The researcher used Pearson correlation coefficient to establish whether there is

a relationship between level of choice, level of student engagement, and standardized

writing-test scores. The researcher used two-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the

analysis of group means and attitude levels when the participants received varying levels

of prompt options or choices on writing assignments. The data collected from the

interviews was coded, synthesized, and triangulated with the data collected via the

surveys and writing assessments.

Qualitative design

For the qualitative portion of this study, the researcher followed the semi-

structured interview approach. The researcher used a tape-recorder to record responses to

open-ended interview questions. The interviews lasted approximately 20 minutes each,

and took place inside the school. Interview questions were topical to previous writing

experiences of the interviewee. According to Creswell (2003), case studies are the

strategies “in which the researcher explores in depth a program, an event, an activity a

process, on one or more individuals” (p. 15).

The qualitative approach of interviewing is useful for investigating topics

involving perceptions of events. According to Rubin and Rubin (2005), “the depth, detail,

and richness sought in interviews, are rooted in the interviewees’ first-hand experiences,
 48

and form the material that researchers gather and synthesize” (p. 13). Hatch (2002), stated

that “interviewers enter interview settings with questions in mind but generate questions

during the interview in response to informants’ responses, the social contexts being

discussed, and the degree of rapport established” (p. 23). Rubin and Rubin elaborate on

the questions interviewers enter the interview setting with, by proposing that in order to

reach a significant level of depth and focus, interviewers approach topical interviews with

three specific levels of questions in mind; “main questions, probes, and follow-ups” (p.

13).

Main questions start the interview process in the desired direction, with

appropriate contextual focus. The interviewer, to gather a greater level of detail, depth, or

breadth from the interviewee’s responses, uses probing and follow-up questions. Probing

questions are standardized questions, used for gaining greater depth and detail from the

interviewee’s response. Follow-up questions provide a prompt for the interviewee to

elaborate on responses that the interviewer felt was relevant to the topic, in an attempt for

a response that has greater breadth (Rubin & Rubin, 2005, p. 13).

The challenges of the interview approach may involve respondents who dominate

the conversation and fail to remain on topic, shy interviewees who provide inadequate

data, technical difficulty with recording devices, and uncomfortable interview settings

(Creswell, 1998). Creswell (1998) suggested that developing and maintaining an

interview protocol would address most of the potential difficulties presented by the

interview approach (p. 124). According to Creswell (1998), protocols provide the

researcher with a form for planning the interview setting, recording responses from the

interviewee, and remaining on topic (p. 126). Though using protocols may address the
 49

topical, technical, and setting challenges, it does not insure adequate responses from the

interviewees. Wool (1994) rectified a specific situation involving a student who was

reticent to speak by removing the interviewee from the participant group, and adding a

new interviewee from the larger pool of candidates meeting the established criteria (p.

58). The key to conducting good interviews is remaining at least partially flexible and

being a good listener (Creswell, 1998; Hatch, 2002; Rubin & Rubin, 2005).

Qualitative Research Questions

1: What variables do intermediate-level students perceive as relating to favorable

and nonfavorable writing experiences?

2: How do perceptions of favorable and nonfavorable writing experiences

compare between intermediate-level boys and girls?

Purpose

The purpose of the qualitative portion of this study was to document the

participants’ perception of past engagement while experiencing varying writing prompt

formats. The research data documented the opinions, attitudes, and perceptions of the

participants toward past school related writing experiences that the students remembered

as favorable.

Method

The researcher created an open-ended questionnaire (Appendix E), for use during

the interviews. The questions covered aspects of how the participants perceived

themselves as students, their perceived effort, and their perceptions of former writing

experiences. The interviews occurred throughout the course of the study with a sample

group selected by the individual classroom teachers based on the following criteria:
 50

• Three girls: one each of high, medium, and low academic achievement;

three boys: one each of high, medium, and low academic achievement

• Willingness of the student to participate

• Willingness of the student to talk to interviewer

• Signed and returned parental consent form

Data collection

The interviews ran concurrently with the surveys and writing assessments. The

researcher conducted, tape recorded, and transcribed the interviews. The focus of the

interviews was to document with more depth and detail how the participants responded to

choices when participating in writing assessments and to look for correlations or patterns

in favored past writing experiences. Participant agreement was by verbal response to a

statement read by the interviewer (Appendix F).

Data analysis

By utilizing quantitative and qualitative design methods, the researcher

investigated the correlation between levels of student engagement, writing scores, and

perceptions of favorable writing experiences when presented with distinct levels of

choice on writing prompts. The researcher analyzed similarities, differences, and themes

by logical induction. The researcher also used data reduction and display. The data

collected from the interviews triangulated with the data collected via the surveys and

writing assessments. Conclusions were drawn.

 51

Summary

This three-month, correlational, mixed-methods study explored the relationship

between choice, motivation/engagement, and standardized writing test scores of

intermediate-level students attending a suburban elementary school. The researcher

utilized both quantitative and qualitative methods for data collection and analysis due to

the strength of the mixed-methods approach. All of the participants completed surveys

that addressed their self-perceived level of engagement when presented with writing

prompts of varying option-level degrees. A subsample of students participated in

interviews. The semi-structured tape-recorded interviews covered the participants’

perceptions of past favorable and nonfavorable writing experiences. Triangulation

between the quantitative and qualitative measures provided a method of verifying and

supporting the validity of the data.

 52

CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

Quantitative design

This study used statistical and qualitative analysis. The researcher examined,

correlated, and analyzed the data from the surveys, interviews, and observations. The data

collected from the surveys showed the varied levels of engagement when participants

encountered the previously identified options for writing prompts. The researcher

compared the collected data to the participant test scores to explore possible correlations

between both choice options and assessment scores, and choice option and perceived

levels of participant engagement. Pearson correlation coefficient established whether

there was a relationship between level of choice and level of student engagement (Fink,

2006). One-way ANOVA allowed for the analysis of group means and attitude levels

between participant groups when the participants received varying levels of prompt

options or choices on writing assignments.

Randomized test-retest measures allowed for combined reliability estimates from

two surveys completed by each participant in the sample group for each of the different

writing prompt variables that provided a composite reliability score. While the survey

tool remained the same for all measures, different writing prompts were used for each of

the three choice levels to avoid violating the assumption of independent cases. The

researcher checked to ensure both conclusive and internal validity. The nature of the

study called for two distinct approaches to addressing the study’s validity. One of the

primary questions involved conclusion validity: Does having a choice on writing

prompts/topics increase student motivation and engagement? The second research

 53

question dealt with internal validity by asking if there is a causal relationship between

levels of motivation/engagement and test scores: Do students perceive themselves as

being more motivated or engaged in writing assignments when provided with choice of

content?

In 2007, 24 fifth-grade students from three fifth-grade classrooms in a suburban

elementary school participated in completing surveys as they finished writing

assessments. The surveys addressed the level of engagement in the activity, as perceived

by the participants. When compared to the writing scores received on the assignments,

the data pertaining to three distinct types of writing prompt variables, used as

independent variables, tested the hypotheses concerning a relationship between degree of

choice, levels of engagement, and writing-test scores for the participants. In addition to

the surveys, the researcher conducted interviews and observations for the purpose of

triangulation with the data gathered via the surveys. The interviews and observations ran

concurrent with the surveys during the three-month period of the study.

Only 22 of the 24 participants produced reliable survey results. This provided a

sample group of n = 22 with a reliability score close to 1.0. Due to the small sample size,

the researcher administered the writing test prompt types and response survey twice, in a

random order, with 6 weeks in between the first and second set of tests. By utilizing the

test-retest approach, the sample group data doubled, providing for participant data of n =

44. The following data represent a low rate of return, as the sample for the survey and

writing tests are substantially smaller than the target group proposed for the study.
 54

Research Question One

Is there a relationship between a student’s perceived level of engagement and

standardized writing-test scores for intermediate level students in suburban elementary

schools?

Independent variable: Level of student engagement, while participating in writing

assessments.

Dependent variable: Standardized writing test scores.

Question one hypotheses. Null hypothesis: There is not a significant relationship

between perceived level of engagement and standardized writing-test scores for

intermediate level students. Alternative hypothesis: There is a significant relationship

between perceived level of engagement and standardized writing-test scores for

intermediate level students.

Question one data analysis. The sample group (n = 44) produced a mean score of

6.7 with a standard deviation of 1.34 on the writing prompt with the no-choice variable.

The mean for the sample groups’ perceived level of engagement was 4.5 with a standard

deviation of .506. The sample group’s Pearson correlation for the no-choice variable (r =

.309) is greater than the critical value level of .296 for a df = n – 2 (42) at a 95%

confidence level. This indicates that there is significant correlation between the subjects’

perceived level of engagement and writing scores for no-choice writing prompts to reject

the null hypothesis.

The sample group (n = 44) produced a mean score of 7.25 with a standard

deviation of 1.22 on the writing prompt with the multiple-choice variable. The mean for

the sample groups’ perceived level of engagement was 4.73 with a standard deviation of
 55

.451. The sample group’s Pearson correlation for the multiple-choice variable (r = .445)

is greater than the critical value level of .250 for a df = n – 2 (42) at a 99% confidence

level. The data indicates that there is significant correlation between the subjects’

perceived level of engagement and writing scores for multiple-choice writing prompts to

reject the null hypothesis.

The sample group (n = 44) produced a mean score of 7.0 with a standard

deviation of 1.51 on the writing prompt with the open-choice variable. The mean for the

sample groups’ perceived level of engagement was 4.5 with a standard deviation of .591.

The sample group’s Pearson correlation for the multiple-choice variable (r = .026) is less

than the critical value level of .296 for a df = n – 2 (42) at a 95% confidence level. This

indicates that there is not significant correlation between the subjects’ perceived level of

engagement and writing scores for open choice writing prompts to reject the null

hypothesis.

For two out of three measures, the data indicated a significant relationship

between the participants’ perceived level of engagement and standardized writing-test

scores. There was sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis for the first research

question in regard to no choice and multiple-choice writing prompts. However, there was

not sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis where open or free choice writing

prompts are concerned. The variance between the writing prompt options also appears in

and correlates with the qualitative data presented later in the study.

Research question one conclusion. There is not a significant relationship between

perceived level of engagement and standardized writing-test scores for intermediate level

students in a suburban elementary school.

 56

Research Question Two

Do students perceive themselves as being more motivated or engaged in writing

assignments when provided with choice of content?

Independent variable: Writing assignments with varying levels of prompt options

or choices.

Dependent variable: Participant attitudes toward self-perceived levels of

motivation and engagement when presented with varying levels of choice in

writing prompts.

Question two hypotheses. Null hypothesis: There is not a significant relationship

between writing prompt choice and levels of motivation or engagement for intermediate

level students. Alternative hypothesis: There is a significant relationship between writing

prompt choice and levels of motivation or engagement for intermediate level students.

Question two data analysis. The researcher ran a frequency distribution to obtain

basic descriptive statistics for the variables degree of writing prompt options and the

subject’s perceived level of engagement. The data showed that the frequency of the level

of engagement for the subjects, when presented with no options for their writing prompt,

has a normal distribution. The mean level of engagement for the subject, when presented

with no options for their writing prompt was 4.5, with an equal distribution of reported

perceived levels of engagement falling at four or five out of five. For perceived level of

engagement during the no-choice writing prompts the standard deviation equaled 0.506

for the sample group (n = 44). The frequency distribution for levels of engagement

pertaining to the multiple-choice writing prompt indicated a level of engagement mean of

4.73, a standard deviation of 0.451, and a negatively skewed distribution. The mode
 57

average for the participant perceived engagement levels during the multiple-choice

writing prompts was level five out of five. The frequency distribution for levels of

engagement pertaining to the open choice writing prompt indicated a level of engagement

mean of 4.5, a standard deviation equal to 0.591, and a negatively skewed distribution.

The mode average for the participant perceived engagement levels during the no-choice

writing prompts was also level five out of five. The graph below represents the reported

frequency (Y-axis) of participant engagement levels (X-axis) given the three writing

prompt scenarios.

35
30
25
20 Level 3
15 Level 4
Level 5
10
5
0
No-choice Multiple-choice Open-choice

Figure 1. Bar graph showing reported levels of student engagement during writing
prompts of different levels of choice.

The variable concerning the level of student choice in regards to the writing

prompt that received the highest mean in regard to student perception of engagement

levels was the multiple choices writing prompt option. Both of the other writing prompt

scenarios shared a mean of 4.5, but varied in their distributions. The participants

indicated an equal split between engagement level four and engagement level five when
 58

provided with the no choice writing prompt. Both treatments that included a level of

choice had a mode average of five, indicating more students perceived themselves as

more engaged on writing assignments when provided with choices. The open choice

treatment was the only scenario where students responded with a self-perceived

engagement level less than four. The distribution across the larger range accounted for

the mean score of 4.5 during the open choice writing prompt. The data presented above

matches the qualitative data presented later in this document, indicating a connection

between multiple choice prompts and levels of engagement for a majority of the

participants. As treatments moved away from the central multiple-choice variable,

participant opinions became stronger in their opinions concerning preferences for open or

no-choice prompt scenarios.

To find out if the correlation between degree of writing prompt option and

perceived level of engagement is significant enough to void the null hypothesis, the

researcher ran comparison tests. When comparing the data from the three test variables

using a One-way ANOVA, the data comparing the three test variables with the sample

group mean at an F distribution of F (2,41) = 1.629 does not exceed the critical value of

3.22 at a 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, the data indicate there was not significant

difference between writing prompt choices and perceived levels of engagement to reject

the null hypothesis.

 59

Table 1

ANOVA Results Between Writing Prompts and Engagement Levels

_____Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig._______

Between Groups .810 2 .405 1.629 .209

Within Groups 10.190 41 .249

Total 11.000 43

Next, the researcher used the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) to measure the

strength of the association between the variables (Wadsworth, 2006). The sample

correlation r = 0.128 is less than the critical value level of 0.304 for a df = n – 2 (42) at a

95% confidence level. This also indicates that there was not significant correlation

between choices in writing prompts and subject’s perceived level of engagement to reject

the null hypothesis. With this information, the researcher finds that the data indicate there

is not significance evidence to reject the null hypothesis for the second research question.

Research question two conclusion. There is not a significant relationship between writing

prompt choice and levels of motivation or engagement for intermediate level students in a

low socio-economic public elementary school.

Research Question Three

Is there a difference in the self-perceived levels of engagement between

intermediate-level girls and boys when presented with writing assignments of varied

degrees of choice pertaining to content?

Independent variables: Gender and writing assignments of varied degrees of

choice pertaining to content.

 60

Dependent variables: Participant attitudes toward self-perceived levels of

engagement.

Question three hypotheses. Null hypothesis: There is not a significant difference

between the levels of motivation or engagement for male and female intermediate level

students when presented with different writing prompt choices. Alternative hypothesis:

There is a significant difference between the levels of motivation or engagement of male

and female intermediate level students when presented with different writing prompt

choices.

Question three data analysis. The male and female participants reported equal

levels of engagement during the no choice writing prompt treatment. Both genders

averaged a mean 4.5 self-perceived level of engagement. In both scenarios, when

presented with choices, the female participants averaged higher self-perceived level of

engagement means than the male participants did.

5
4.8
4.6
4.4 Males
Females
4.2
4
3.8
No Choice Multiple Choice Open Choice

Figure 2. Bar graph showing reported levels of student engagement when matched with
gender during writing prompts of different levels of choice.
 61

The data compared using a One-way ANOVA with the sample group mean at an

F distribution of F (1,42) = 8.286 exceeds the critical value of 4.07 at a 0.05 level of

significance. Therefore, the data indicate there was significant correlation between

gender-based perceived levels of engagement and writing prompt options to reject the

null hypothesis for the treatment.

Table 2

ANOVA Results Between Prompt Choices and Gender-Based Engagement Levels

_____ Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.___

Between Groups 2.048 1 2.048 8.286 .006

Within Groups 10.383 42 .247

Total ____________12.432 43 _________

Research question three conclusion. There is a significant difference between the

levels of motivation or engagement of male and female intermediate level students in a

low socio-economic public elementary school, when presented with different writing

prompt choices.

Summary

For two out of three measures of the first question, Is there a relationship between

level of engagement and standardized writing-test scores for intermediate level students

in a suburban elementary school?, the data collected from the participant surveys

indicate that there is significant evidence to reject the null hypothesis. The data collected

from the participant surveys also indicate that there is significant evidence to reject the

null hypothesis for the third research question, Is there a difference in the self-perceived

levels of engagement between girls and boys when presented with writing assignments of
 62

varied degrees of choice pertaining to content?. Conversely, the data collected for the

second research question, Do students perceive themselves as being more motivated or

engaged in writing assignments when provided with choice of content?, indicated that

though there is a difference between the level of student engagement and choice in

writing content it is not a significant relationship. Both of the treatments that involved a

level of choice above the no choice option showed an increase in level-five engagement

levels, but using a One-way ANOVA and the Pearson correlation coefficient revealed

that there is not a significant relationship between levels of student engagement and

degrees of writing prompt choice to void the null hypothesis.

Qualitative design

Qualitative Research Questions

• What variables do students perceive as relating to favorable and nonfavorable

writing experiences?

• How do perceptions of favorable and nonfavorable writing experiences compare

between boys and girls?

The participant selection was multi-staged; based on convenience, the academic

achievement level of the student, and gender. The justification for an approach to

selection based on convenience was that it provided greater opportunity for testing

methods and data collection in a limited amount of time (Creswell, 2003). Academic

achievement levels and gender diversity provided for potential data correlation between

low, medium, and high scoring students; and boys and girls. The criteria for selection

involved current enrollment as a fifth-grade student, regular participation in classroom-

based writing assignments, a history of earning low, moderate, or high scores on writing
 63

assignments, participation in the quantitative portion of the study, and a willingness to

participate in an interview.

The researcher sent a cover letter and a parental permission form home to one boy

and one girl from each academic level who met the above criteria; providing for a sample

group of six interviewees. The researcher arranged a time during the participants’ school

day for the interviews to take place that would not interfere with the students’ regular

learning time. The tape-recorded interviews took place in the schools’ computer lab. The

computer lab provided a secure and private location in an area that is viewable by passing

people. After securing written and verbal assent, the researcher conducted a semi-

structured interview with each of the six participants. The researcher utilized open-ended

questions from the questionnaire (Appendix E). The questions covered aspects of how the

participants perceived former writing experiences. The interviews ranged from 7 to 12

minutes, depending on the conciseness of the participant. Interview questions were

topical to previous writing experiences of the interviewee.

The qualitative approach of interviewing is useful for investigating topics

involving perceptions of events. According to Rubin and Rubin (2005), “the depth, detail,

and richness sought in interviews, are rooted in the interviewees’ first-hand experiences,

and form the material that researchers gather and synthesize” (p. 13). Hatch (2002), stated

that “interviewers enter interview settings with questions in mind but generate questions

during the interview in response to informants’ responses, the social contexts being

discussed, and the degree of rapport established” (p. 23). Rubin and Rubin (2005)

elaborate on the questions interviewers enter the interview setting with, by proposing that

in order to reach a significant level of depth and focus, interviewers approach topical
 64

interviews with three specific levels of questions in mind; “main questions, probes, and

follow-ups” (p. 13). The focus of the interviews was to document with more depth and

detail how participants responded to choices when participating in writing assessments

and to look for correlations or patterns in favorable and unfavorable writing experiences.

To reach this end, the researcher transcribed and coded the tape-recorded interviews

(Appendix I).

Qualitative Data Analysis

According to Mills (2003), “data analysis is an attempt by the teacher researcher

to summarize the data that have been collected in a dependable, accurate, reliable, and

correct manner” (p. 104). The researcher used interpretive analysis, as described by

Hatch (2002) to analyze the data collected during the interview. Hatch stated, “Data

analysis is a systematic search for meaning” (p. 148). The Interpretive Analysis strategy

presented by Hatch, involved a process that allows for the interpretation of participant-

constructed data (p. 189). The qualitative question for the study focused on the

perceptions and views of the student participant. In that way, the interviewee constructed

the meaning. The researcher collected and analyzed the data in an attempt to find patterns

and discover meaning. Interpretive Analysis worked within the confines of the Data

Analysis Spiral, as presented by Creswell (1998).

 65

Table 3

Comparison of Commonality Between Two Established Qualitative Analysis Approaches

Interpretive Analysis Data Analysis Spiral___________

Read the data for a sense of the whole Data managing

Review impressions previously recorded in Reading and memoing

research journals and record in memos

Read the data, identify impressions, and Reading, memoing, and describing
record impressions in memos

Study memos for salient interpretations Classifying

Reread data, code where interpretations are Interpreting

supported or challenged

Write a draft summary Representing

Review interpretations with participants Member checking

Write a revised summary and identify Representation and visualization

excerpts that support interpretations__________________________________________
(Creswell, 1998, p. 148. and Hatch, 2002, p. 181.)

The research question, interview questions, and interviewee responses factored

into the codes developed for these interview transcripts. The researcher used member

checking to ensure the validity of the researcher’s interpretation during the code

development process. The codes cover the components of the study while incorporating

the unique nature of qualitative interview responses. For example, the researcher

purposefully asked questions pertaining to the impact scoring had, or did not have, on the

interviewee’s perceived level of engagement, so the researcher developed codes to

indicate various responses to prompts related to scoring. On the other hand, a few ideas,

like setting paraphernalia (e.g., writing desk or journal) potentially influencing a student’s
 66

level of engagement, came to light if an interviewee introduced the concept during a

response to an interview question. These were unanticipated factors, and the researcher

modified the codes to include these types of variables when introduced during the

interview process.

After coding the transcripts, the researcher arranged the data according to

categories. This process provided the basis for a summarization of the content. Multiple

sorting identified trends and themes between the gender and academic achievement level

of the interviewees. According to Rubin and Rubin (2005), “Weighing and combining

help you synthesize different version of the same event or separate explanations of the

same concept or theme, allowing you to pull together different events into a single

descriptive narrative” (p. 227).

Summary

The data collected from the interview presented a number of recurring themes.

The table below shows the positive (+), negative (-), and neutral (0) responses the

interviewees provided during the interviews. The table arrangement shows correlations,

trends, and patterns between the gender and reading level of the participants. Multiple

responses are recorded when the participant expressed contradictory opinions during the

interview. For example, three out of six participants indicated that score both had and did

not have an impact on their level of engagement. To ensure validity, in addition to using

member checks during code development, the researcher used member checks a second
 67

time during the development of the post qualitative summary. The following codes were

developed based on the interview transcripts:

I. Mode
a. ME: Expository
b. MNR: Realistic narrative
c. MNF: Fantasy narrative
II. Setting
a. SL: Location
b. SF: Furniture
c. SP: paraphernalia
III. Choice
a. CL: Limited
b. CU: Unlimited
c. CSL: Semi-limited (multiple choice)
IV. Knowledge base
a. KBA: Awareness or prior knowledge of context
b. KBN: No prior knowledge
V. SC: Score, grade, or recognition

Table 4

Categorical Interviewee Responses

ME MNR MNF SL SF SP CL CU CSL KBA KBN SC

FL + + - + + - +/0

FM + - +/- - + + 0

FH - + + + + - + +/- +/0

ML + + + - + 0

MM + +/- + + + + + + - - +/0

MH + + + + + + - +

The data indicate a perception of a correlation between realistic narrative writing

semi-limited choices, and setting location with higher levels of student engagement. The

difference in choice and mode preference almost divided equally between the two

genders. Whereas two out of three males preferred expository writing and limited
 68

choices, the female participants associated limited choices with nonfavorable writing

experiences across the board and the one female to mention expository writing did so in a

negative inclination. All of the females indicated higher levels of engagement when

choices where unlimited and writing realistic narratives. Four out of six interviewees

consistently reported preferring writing stories where anything could happen compared to

writing essays that address a set prompt. One participant made connections with semi-

limited choice as having a relation to both favorable and nonfavorable writing. Four

participants noted semi-limited choices as favorable. All participants mentioned the

location of the setting when discussing favorable writing environments. The settings

varied from the classroom to the bedroom. Only one participant addressed the issue of

knowledge base where writing engagement is concerned. In this case, knowledge of the

writing topic seemed to be the biggest factor for the interviewees’ perceived level of

engagement.

Triangulation

The interview participants spilt based on gender, concerning the no-choice writing

prompt scenario. The data collected from the surveys indicated an equal perception

between males and females when presented with no-choice writing prompts. According

to the survey data, 4.5 was the mean level of engagement for both genders. The interview

data does not match the data collected via the surveys in regard to perceived levels of

engagement and writing preferences during the no-choice writing prompts.

For the multiple-choice writing prompt option, five out of six interview

participants associated multiple choice writing prompts with writing experiences.

Likewise, the survey and test data support these statements. The mean perceived level of
 69

engagement was 4.73 out of five. Both genders reported increased levels engagement on

multiple choice writing prompts and during the interviews.

The interview data triangulates with the data collected by the surveys. Four out of

six interviewees reported preferring open writing prompts to no-choice prompts. All of

the females interviewed stated higher levels of engagement when choices where open.

One out of three males indicated a preference to open choice writing prompts during the

interviews. On the surveys, the open choice writing prompt had the largest gender-based

gap between male and female perceptions of engagement. The survey data showed the

lowest level of engagement for the males (4.25), the females reported their second

highest level (4.8), when presented with open choice writing prompts.
 70

CHAPTER 5:

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND COMMENTARY

Introduction

This mixed-methods correlational study explored a potential relationship among

choice, motivation/engagement, and standardized writing test scores of intermediate-level

students attending a suburban elementary school. The study integrated quantitative

(surveys and writing test scores) with qualitative (interviews and observations) data. The

priority between the methods was equal. The interviews ran concurrently with the

surveys and writing assessments. By employing quantitative and qualitative design

methods, the researcher investigated the correlation between levels of student

engagement, writing scores when presented with distinct levels of choice on writing

prompts, and perceptions of favorable and nonfavorable writing experiences. The data

collected from the interviews triangulated with the data collected via the surveys and

writing assessments. The researcher analyzed similarities, differences, and themes by

logical induction. The researcher also used data reduction and display. Integration of the

two types of data occurred at two stages in the research process. The first integration

occurred during data collection; the participants addressed open-ended and closed-ended

questions via a survey. The second integration of data from both the quantitative and

qualitative portions of the study took place for comparison, analysis, and triangulation

during the interpretation phase. The mixed-methods approach, utilizing both quantitative

and qualitative methodologies, offered unique connections to the research questions.

 71

Conclusions

For two out of three measures of the first and the third quantitative research

questions, Is there a relationship between level of engagement and standardized writing-

test scores for intermediate level students in a suburban elementary school? and Is there

a difference in the self-perceived levels of engagement between girls and boys when

presented with writing assignments of varied degrees of choice pertaining to content?,

the data collected from the participant surveys indicate that there is significant evidence

to reject the null hypothesis. However, one out of the three treatments for research

question one, Is there a relationship between level of engagement and standardized

writing-test scores for intermediate level students in a suburban elementary school?, did

not indicate a significant relationship between the variables, but instead provided mixed

results based on the level of choice. Since the dividing line between significant and

insignificant relationships falls along the type of writing prompt, the researcher has

outlined the outcomes based on prompt options below.

For the second research question, Are students more motivated or engaged in

writing assignments when provided with choice of content?, the data collected indicated

that though there is a difference between the level of student engagement and choice in

writing content, it is not a significant relationship. Even though both of the treatments

that involved a level of choice above the no choice option showed an increase in level

five engagement levels, there was not a significant relationship between levels of student

engagement levels and degrees of writing prompt choice.

 72

No-Choice Writing Prompts

Some students prefer the scenarios where a second party tells them what to write

about. Two of the six interviewees clearly stated a preference for no-choice writing

prompts. The Pearson correlation indicated that there is a significant correlation between

the subjects’ perceived level of engagement and writing scores for no-choice writing

prompts at a 95% confidence level. However, the no-choice writing prompt, along with

the open choice writing prompt, scored the lowest level of perceived engagement (4.5), as

reported on the surveys. Additionally, with a mean writing test score of 6.7 out of 10, the

no-choice variable also received the lowest test score average among the three writing

prompt variables.

Multiple-Choice Writing Prompts

The mean writing test score during the multiple-choice writing prompt was the

highest of the three scenarios at 7.25 out of 10. The multiple-choice prompts also

produced the highest engagement-level mean (4.73 out of 5). Pearson correlation (r =

.445) greater than critical value .250 for a df = n – 2 (42) at a 99% confidence level. In

addition, five out of six interview participants associated multiple choice writing prompts

with writing experiences. This indicates that there is a significant correlation between the

subjects’ perceived level of engagement and writing scores for multiple-choice writing

prompts.

Open-Choice Writing Prompts

Though the open-choice writing prompt, where students could explain or describe

anything they wanted in an expository mode, generated the second highest writing test

score mean (7 out of 10), the option showed the largest disparity between the perceived
 73

level of engagement for the students. Likewise, comments in favor of or against

unlimited choice were prevalent in all six of the interviews. Students either preferred or

dreaded freedom of choice at this level, associating open choice writing options with both

favorable and nonfavorable writing experiences. The research showed that while the total

number of participants responding with level-five engagement levels increased, there was

also an increase in the lower level-three responses. As a whole, the sample group reported

a mean engagement level of 4.5, the same as the no-choice engagement mean. The largest

correlation appears to be along gender lines. The survey data produced the lowest level of

engagement for the males (4.25), while the females reported their second highest level

(4.8), when presented with open choice writing prompts. However, a Pearson correlation

of less than the critical value level at a 95% confidence level indicates that there is not a

significant correlation between the subjects’ perceived level of engagement and writing

scores for open choice writing prompts.

Recommendations

Based on the data, the researcher recommends the use of multiple-choice writing

prompts whenever increased levels of student engagement or increased writing scores are

sought. In both areas of engagement and test scores, and across genders, students scored

the highest mean on writing test scores and perceived engagement levels when presented

with multiple choice writing prompts. A note of interest to the researcher is that the

writing prompt with the most difference in gender-based self-perceived levels of

engagement (open choice) was the treatment that failed to indicate a significant

relationship between writing prompt scores and levels of engagement as presented in the
 74

data analysis for research question one. The connection may be coincidental, or there is

the possibility that a connection exists, requiring further research for substantiating

evidence.

There was a disparity between the reported perceived level of engagement for no-

choice writing prompts during the interviews and during the writing tests. It is possible

that the difference between verbally stated preferences and the preferences recorded on

the survey during the writing test could be due to the sample size of the interview

subjects. The issue could also be the age of the participants. A follow-up study should

address the research questions with an older group of students. There is the potential that

fifth graders have a limited enough background with the various prompt levels to make

an experiential statement invalid or inconsistent. As with the first and third research

questions, research questions two and three shared an equal balance between levels of

engagement (four and five) and gender-based level of engagement means (4.5) for the no-

choice writing prompt treatment. The connections may be coincidental or substantial,

requiring further research for substantiating evidence.

Along with the disparity mentioned above, the research noticed a disproportionate

number of participants scoring four or five for their self-perceived level in all three

choice-level writing prompt scenarios. Only during the open-choice situation were scores

as low as three reported. Never in the course of the study did any of the participants rate

their perceived level of engagement as low as one or two. The researcher recommends

further study to address these phenomena. Third party observations of the participants

could add evidence either substantiating or challenging the self-recorded levels. It is

 75

possible that intermediate-level students do not have sufficient background experience to

relate well concerning the question of engagement on classroom based assignments.

Two additional factors came to light during the interviews. Both the level of

emphasis the interviewees placed on narrative writing, and the lack of weight the

interviewees gave to writing scores and/or grades surprised the researcher. There is the

possibility that a greater relationship lays with writing mode and engagement levels than

lies with level of choice and engagement. Again, the introduction of these factors could

also be age related. An older group of participants could potentially value grades and or

scores at a higher level or they may have a different perception regarding writing modes

and choices. Likewise, a larger sample group would potentially support or challenge the

findings of this study.

Social Change

The data collected during this study indicating relationships between multiple-

choice writing prompts and both increased student achievement and student-perceived

levels of engagement on writing prompts, which added new information for social change

by illuminating characteristics important to student engagement for the promotion of

lifelong learning across both genders. Improved test scores positively impact the

community, school, and student. Increased student engagement on school related

activities reinforce the development of life long learning of the student. Additionally,

studying what both genders associated with favorable and nonfavorable writing

experiences, contributed to closing the gap on gender-based academic proficiency.

The researcher will share the results of this study with fellow educators and

cohorts within the author’s sphere of influence. This study will be significant for teachers
 76

who are working with students in the intermediate grade level (grades 3-6). The findings

will also be beneficial to teachers attempting to raise writing scores or student

engagement levels.

Summary

This three-month correlational mixed-methods study exploring the relationship

between choice, motivation/engagement, and standardized writing test scores of male and

female intermediate-level students attending a suburban elementary school produced

mixed results.

For two out of three measures of the first and the third research questions, the data

collected from the participant surveys indicate that there is significant evidence to reject

the null hypothesis. The data collected for the second research question indicated that

though there is a difference between the level of student engagement and choice in

writing content, it is not a significant relationship. Both of the treatments that involved a

level of choice above the no choice option showed increased reports of level five

engagement. However, using a One-way ANOVA and the Pearson correlation coefficient

revealed that there is not a significant relationship between levels of student engagement

and degrees of writing prompt choice to void the null hypothesis for the second research

question.

The qualitative data indicated a perception of correlation between realistic

narrative writing, semi-limited choices, and setting location with higher levels of student

engagement. The difference in choice and mode preference divided between males and

females. Two out of three males preferred expository writing and limited choices,

whereas the female participants associated limited choices with nonfavorable writing
 77

experiences across the board. However, all of the females interviewed indicated higher

levels of engagement when choices where unlimited and writing realistic narratives.
 REFERENCES

Ames, C. (1985). Attributions and cognition in motivation theory. Washington, DC:

ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.

Ames, C., & Ames, R. (1984). Goal structures and motivation. The Elementary School
Journal, 85, 39-52.

Atkinson, John W. (1964). An Introduction to motivation. New York: D.Van Nostrand

Company.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.

Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148.

Brooks, J., & Brooks, M. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist
classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Brophy, J. (1998). Motivating students to learn. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Cook, T. D. & Reichardt, C. S. (1979). Qualitative and quantitative methods in

evaluation research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Connell, D. & Guzelmann, B. (2004). The new gender gap. Instructor, 133(6), 14-18.

Corpus, D. & Wilson, L. (2001). The effects of reward systems on academic

performance. Retrieved May 11, 2005, from
http://www.nmsa.org/research/res_articles_sept2001.htm

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dougherty, J., Harrelson, J., Maloney, L., Murphy, D., Smith, R., Snow, M., and
Zannoni, D. (2007). School choice in suburbia: Public school testing and private
real estate markets. American Educational Research Association. Retrieved
February 10, 2008, from
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/educ/CSS/research/SchChoiceSuburb_AERA2007.
pdf.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

Fetterman, N., & Rohrkemper, M. (1986). The utilization of failure: A look at one
social/instructional environment. San Francisco: American Educational Research
Association.

Fink, A. (2006). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Forsyth, P., Hansen, K., Schickedanz, D. & Schickedanz, J. (1993). Understanding

children. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Gender Gaps: Where schools still fail our children (1998). Washington, DC: The
American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.

Glasser, W. (1986). Control theory in the classroom. New York: Harper & Row.

Glasser, W. (1990). The quality school: Managing students without coercion. New York:
Harper & Row.

Gravetter, F., & Wallnau, L. (2005). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences
(5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning.

Harwayne, S. (2001). Writing through childhood: Rethinking process and product.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.

Hawley, W., & Rollie, D. L. (Eds.). (2002). The keys to effective schools: Educational
reform as continuous improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relationships. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.

Hevesi, D. (2004, December 12). Finding a neighborhood and a school. New York Times,
Section 11, p. 1.

Hillocks, G. (2002). The testing trap: How state writing assessments control learning.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Huitt, W. (2001). Motivation to learn. Educational psychology interactive. Valdosta, GA:

Valdosta State University.
Huston, A.C. & Wright, J.C. (1983). Children’s understanding of television: Research
on attention and comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1991). Learning together and alone: Cooperative,
Competitive, and Individualistic Learning(3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.

Kolesnik, W. (1978). Motivation: Understanding and influencing human behavior.

Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Linnenbrink, E. (2005). The dilemma of performance-approach goals: The use of

multiple goal contexts to promote students’ motivation and learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 97, 197-204.

Maccoby, E.E. & Jacklin, C.N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York: Harper & Row.

Merton, R. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press.

Mills, G. E. (2003). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (2nd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

National Assessment of Educational Progress: The nation’s report card (2003).

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2002). Nation’s report card [On-line].
Available: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/writing/.

Newkirk, Thomas (2002). Misreading masculinity. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2006). Washington state report card [On-
Line]. Available: http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/

Pearson Assessments (2006). Sample size calculator [On-Line]. Retrieved from

http://www.pearsonncs.com

Perrone, V. (1991). On standardized testing. Childhood Education, 67, 132-142.

Piaget, J. (1969). The child’s conception of the world. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield & Adams.

Pollack, W. (1999). Real boys. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. London: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schlechty, P. (2001). Shaking up the schoolhouse. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schlechty, P. (2002). Working on the work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Slavin, R. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Stipek, D. (1988). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.

Stiggins, R. (2001). Student centered classroom assessment (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

U.S. Department of Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Retrieved October 19, 2006
from, http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html

US Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved October, 15,
2006 from, http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html

Wadsworth (2006). Reliability and validity [On-Line]. Retrieved from

http://www.wadsworth.com/psychology_d/templates/student_resources/workshop
s/res_methd/reli_vali/reli_vali_09.html.

Washington State: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2006). Retrieved

October 03, 2006, from http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/

Weber, C. (Ed.). (1984) Webster’s new world dictionary (2nd ed.). Chicago: Webster
Press.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.

Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.

Wool, P. A. (1994). Writing and talking in the social studies classroom: A way to foster
learning. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.

Woolfolk, A. (1987). Educational psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Wlodkowski, R. (1981). Making sense out of motivation: A systematic model to
consolidate motivational constructs across theories. Educational Psychologist, 16,
101-110.
 APPENDIX A:
LETTER
Dear fifth graders (and parents),

There is a study starting in a few weeks. It will collect data on student views

and writing. This study is only open to 5th graders. Participants will take a short

survey. Six students will also be asked to take part in an interview.

This study is voluntary. It will not take away from class learning time.

Choosing to be in the study will not impact grades or class standing. Students will

remain anonymous. The data gained may help students and teachers in the future.

More information can be found on the attached consent form. I am on hand to

answer any questions. Please feel free to contact me. Permission slips should be

turned in by the end of next week.

I hope you will consider being a part of the study.

Sincerely,

Michael Anderson

Email: mande003@waldenu.edu Phone: 360-604-6875

 APPENDIX B:

SURVEY PERMISSION

Parental Permission for a Minor Child to Participate in a Research Study

___________________________________________________________________
_____

IRB Study #
Consent Form Version Date: 1

Title of Study: Engaged in Writing

Principal Investigator: Michael Anderson

Email Address: mande003@waldenu.edu
Faculty Advisor: Dr. James Mitchell
Funding Source: Private

Study Contact telephone number: 360-606-9496

Study Contact email: mande003@waldenu.edu
_________________________________________________________________

Things you should know

You are being asked to allow your child to participate in a research study. The results
of the study will be used for a doctoral research project. The researcher is a fifth-
grade teacher at your child’s school.

The study is voluntary. You may also withdraw your permission for any reason. Your
child can refuse to be in the study. Withdrawing from the study will not result in a
penalty. Refusing to participate will not result in a penalty.

Research studies are designed to obtain new knowledge. This new knowledge may
help students in the future. Your child may not receive any direct benefit from being
in the research study.

Details about the study are below. It is important that you understand the details so
that you and your child can make an informed choice.

You will be given a signed copy of this form.

The purpose of this study

The purpose is to research a relationship between writing choices, student
engagement, and test scores.

Criteria for participation:

• Current fifth grade student at Hearthwood
• The student is willing to participate
• Student returns a signed permission slip

How many people will take part in this study?

60 students.

How long will it last?

The study will last three months.

What will happen?

Participants will complete a survey. The survey is about their view as writers and
students. Students may choose not to answer any question. The survey will not
impact grades.

Your child’s privacy

Names of the participants will be coded. Participants won’t be identified in any report
or publication.

Will your child receive anything for being in this study?

No.

Will it cost you anything for your child to be in this study?

No.

Questions about this study?

You and your child have the right to ask any questions about this research. If you
have questions or concerns, please contact Mr. Anderson.

Rights as a research participant?

Research on human volunteers is reviewed by a committee. That committee works to
protect your child’s rights and welfare. If you or your child has questions or concerns
you may contact:
• Mr. Michael Anderson, at 360-604-6875 (mande003@waldenu.edu)
• Dr. James Mitchell ( jmitche4@waldenu.edu)
• Walden University’s Research Participant Advocate, Dr. Leilani Endicott: 1-
800-925-3368, ext. 1210

Parent’s Agreement:

I have read the information provided above. I have asked questions I have at this
time. I voluntarily give permission to allow my child to participate in this research
study.

_________________________________________
Printed Name of Research Participant (Child)

_________________________________________
_________________
Signature of Parent Date

_________________________________________
Printed Name of Parent
 APPENDIX C:

INTERVIEW PERMISSION

Parental Permission for a Minor Child to Participate in a Research Study

___________________________________________________________________
_____

IRB Study #
Consent Form Version Date: 1

Title of Study: Engaged in Writing

Principal Investigator: Michael Anderson

Email Address: mande003@waldenu.edu
Faculty Advisor: Dr. James Mitchell
Funding Source: Private

Study Contact telephone number: 360-606-9496

Study Contact email: mande003@waldenu.edu
_________________________________________________________________

Things you should know

You are being asked to allow your child to be interviewed. The results of the
interview will be used for a doctoral research project. The researcher is a fifth-grade
teacher at your child’s school.

The interview is voluntary. You may also withdraw your permission for any reason.
Your child can refuse to be interviewed. Refusing to participate will not result in a
penalty.

Research studies are designed to obtain new knowledge. This new knowledge may
help students in the future. Your child may not receive any direct benefit from being
in the research study.

Details about the study are below. It is important that you understand the details so
that you and your child can make an informed choice.

You will be given a signed copy of this form.

The purpose of this study

The purpose is to research a relationship between writing choices, student
engagement, and test scores.

Criteria for participation:

• Current fifth grade student at Hearthwood
• The student is willing to participate
• Student returns a signed permission slip

How many people will take part in this study?

Six students.

How long will it last?

The study will last three months.

What will happen?

Six students will be interviewed. The interviews will be tape recorded. The interviews
will not last more than 20 minutes. The interview questions cover writing
experiences. Students may choose not to answer any question. The interviews will
not impact grades.

Your child’s privacy

Names of the participants will be coded. Participants won’t be identified in any report
or publication.

Will your child receive anything for being in this study?

No.

Will it cost you anything for your child to be in this study?

No.

Questions about this study?

You and your child have the right to ask any questions about this research. If you
have questions or concerns, please contact Mr. Anderson.

Rights as a research participant?

Research on human volunteers is reviewed by a committee. That committee works to
protect your child’s rights and welfare. If you or your child has questions or concerns
you may contact:
• Mr. Michael Anderson, at 360-604-6875 (mande003@waldenu.edu)
• Dr. James Mitchell (jmitche4@waldenu.edu)
• Walden University’s Research Participant Advocate, Dr. Leilani Endicott: 1-
800-925-3368, ext. 1210

Parent’s Agreement:

I have read the information provided above. I have asked questions I have at this
time. I voluntarily give permission to allow my child to participate in this research
study.

_________________________________________
Printed Name of Research Participant (Child)

_________________________________________
_________________
Signature of Parent Date

_________________________________________
Printed Name of Parent
 APPENDIX D:
SURVEY

This survey is voluntary. BY taking this survey, you are giving permission for the
results to be used for research. Taking this survey will NOT affect your grade. There
will be no penalty for not taking this survey. Do your best to respond honestly. When
you have finished, place the survey in the box. Thank you for your participation!

* 1 – 3 select the statement that best describes your level of engagement.

1. Your most recent assignment

5. I did my best because I enjoyed the assignment.

4. I did my best because I want a good grade or credit.

3. I finished the assignment so that I could avoid being in trouble.

2. I did not care if I finished or not.

1. I chose to be off task, distract other students, or did not do the assignment.

2. Most subjects at school

5. I do my best because I enjoy school.

4. I do my best because I want a good grade or credit.

3. I just want to go to recess or avoid being in trouble.

2. I do not care one way or the other about school.

1. I choose to be off task or distract other students.

3. Writing in general

5. I do my best because I enjoy writing.

4. I do my best because I want a good grade or credit.

3. I just want to go to recess or avoid being in trouble.

2. I do not care one way or the other about writing.

1. I choose to be off task or distract other students.

*4-6: Read the statement, then circle your level of agreement.

4. When I am writing, I set high standards for myself.

Strongly somewhat neutral somewhat strongly
agree agree disagree disagree

5. When I am writing, I self-evaluate my work.

strongly somewhat neutral somewhat strongly
agree agree disagree disagree

6. When I am writing, I set goals for myself.

strongly somewhat neutral somewhat strongly
agree agree disagree disagree

*7 -9: Choose an answer for each question.

7. Your gender
a. male
b. female

8. I would rather write

a. poetry
b. narratives
c. expository

9. I prefer expository writing that has

a. a topic given to me
b. multiple prompts to choose from
c. I can describe or explain anything I choose

10. Explain your choice for question 9:

 APPENDIX E:
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Interview Questionnaire

1. Think of a writing assignment that you felt was really engaging. What do you think it was about
the assignment that made it so engaging?

2. Did you receive a grade or recognition for the assignment? If so, what was that like? If not, do
you think you should have, and if so, what would that have been like?

3. Think about a writing assignment that you really didn’t like doing. What do you think it was
about the assignment that made it less engaging?
4. Did you receive a grade or recognition for the assignment? If so, what was that like? If not, do
you think you should have, and if so, what would that have been like?

5. Picture yourself writing for fun. What does that look like? (Where are you, who’s around, what
is the environment like, what are you writing about?)
 APPENDIX F:
ORAL CONSENT
Hi ______________,

I would like to talk to you about writing. This won’t last more than 20 minutes. This will

be part of a study. The study is about writing experiences. You can stop at any time. You

can stop for any reason. The interview will be recorded. You will remain anonymous. Do

you know what anonymous means? What does anonymous mean?

I am interested in your opinions. Don’t answer in a way you think I want. Just be truthful

and answer from your point of view. Do I have your permission to interview you?
 APPENDIX G:
INTERVIEW ASSENT

Assent to Participate in a Research Study (Interview)

___________________________________________________________________
_____

IRB Study #
Consent Form Version Date: 1

Title of Study: Engaged in Writing

Principal Investigator: Michael Anderson

Email Address: mande003@waldenu.edu
Faculty Advisor: Dr. James Mitchell
Funding Source: Private

Study Contact telephone number: 360-606-9496

Study Contact email: mande003@waldenu.edu
_________________________________________________________________

Things you should know

You are being asked to be part of a research study. I am a student. This study is part
of my degree.

You may refuse to be in the study. You do not have to participate. You may also pull
out for any reason. There will be no penalty for leaving the study.

Studies are to obtain new knowledge. This new knowledge may help students in the
future. There may not be a direct benefit from being in the study.

There are more facts about the study below. It is important you know the details to
make an informed choice.

You will be given a signed copy of this form.

The purpose of this study

This study will look at student writing. It will look for a link between choices,
motivation, and test scores.

Criteria for participation:

• Current fifth grade student
• Willingness to participate
• Returned signed permission slip

How many people will take part in this study?

The target group for this study is 62 students.

How long will it last?

The study will last three months.
What will happen?
Six students will be asked to interview. The interviews will be taped. They will not
last more than 20 minutes. The questions cover the views of students as writers.
Students may skip any question they want. The interviews will not impact grades.

Privacy
The study will not use any student’s name.

Will you receive anything for being in this study?

No.

Will it cost you anything to be in this study?

No.

Questions about this study?

You have the right to ask any questions about this research. If you have a question,
please contact Mr. Anderson.

Rights as a research participant?

This study is reviewed by a group. That committee works to protect your rights and
welfare. If you or you have question or concerns contact:
• Mr. Michael Anderson, at 360-604-6875 (mande003@waldenu.edu)
• Dr. James Mitchell (jmitche4@waldenu.edu)
• Walden University’s Research Participant Advocate, Dr. Leilani Endicott: 1-
800-925-3368, ext. 1210

Student Agreement:

I have read the above form. I have asked questions I have at this time. I give my
permission to be in this study.

_________________________________________
Printed Name of Student

_________________________________________ ______/______/_____
Signature of student Date
 APPENDIX H:
SURVEY ASSENT

Assent to Participate in a Research Study (Survey)

___________________________________________________________________
_____

IRB Study #
Consent Form Version Date: 1

Title of Study: Engaged in Writing

Principal Investigator: Michael Anderson

Email Address: mande003@waldenu.edu
Faculty Advisor: Dr. James Mitchell
Funding Source: Private

Study Contact telephone number: 360-606-9496

Study Contact email: mande003@waldenu.edu
_________________________________________________________________

Things you should know

You are being asked to be part of a research study. I am a student. This study is part
of my degree.

You may refuse to be in the study. You do not have to participate. You may also pull
out for any reason. There will be no penalty for leaving the study.

Studies are to obtain new knowledge. This new knowledge may help students in the
future. There may not be a direct benefit from being in the study.

There are more facts about the study below. It is important you know the details to
make an informed choice.

You will be given a signed copy of this form.

The purpose of this study

This study will look at student writing. It will look for a link between choices,
motivation, and test scores.

Criteria for participation:

• Current fifth grade student
• Willingness to participate
• Returned signed permission slip

How many people will take part in this study?

The target group for this study is 62 students.

How long will it last?

The study will last three months.
What will happen?
Students will complete a short survey. The survey is about their view as writers and
students. Students may choose to skip any question. The survey will not impact
grades.

Privacy
The study will not use any student’s name.

Will you receive anything for being in this study?

No.

Will it cost you anything to be in this study?

No.

Questions about this study?

You have the right to ask any questions about this research. If you have a question,
please contact Mr. Anderson.

Rights as a research participant?

This study is reviewed by a group. That committee works to protect your rights and
welfare. If you or you have question or concerns contact:
• Mr. Michael Anderson, at 360-604-6875 (mande003@waldenu.edu)
• Dr. James Mitchell (jmitche4@waldenu.edu)
• Walden University’s Research Participant Advocate, Dr. Leilani Endicott: 1-
800-925-3368, ext. 1210

Student Agreement:

I have read the above form. I have asked questions I have at this time. I give my
permission to be in this study.

_________________________________________
Printed Name of Student

_________________________________________ ______/______/_____
Signature of student Date
 APPENDIX I:

INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

Student Ja (Female/High) Interview Transcript Code

I: Ja, hello. I am going to talk to you a little bit about

your writing.

Ja: Okay.

I: I am only interested in your opinions. I do not want

you to answer in a way that you think I want you to

answer. I just want you to be honest and truthful and

to answer from your perspective.

Ja: Okay

I: Think of a past writing assignment that you enjoyed;

any assignment. This could be an assignment from

school. It could be something that you did at home.

Just think of a writing experience that you enjoyed and

found engaging. I want you to think about what made

it enjoyable.

Ja: Sam in the Bottle, that I am writing, is very, very,

enjoyable.

I: Sam in the Bottle?

Ja: Yes

I: Tell me a little bit about Sam in the Bottle.

Ja: It is basically about a kid who basically has MNR

nothing. Then he finds an old bottle, and now he’s all

rich, and he lives in a house with his best friend. And,

he gets this letter from his aunt and he has to go save

her; and that’s basically where I’m at now.

I: So, instead of focusing on the story, what was it

about writing it that has made it enjoyable for you?

Ja: I think that being able to have the freedom of CU

choice in what I am writing makes it enjoyable.

I: So, it is important to you to have choice, or freedom

of choice, as you put it?

J: Yes. Freedom of speech. CU

I: Do you ever not have choice in your writing?

Ja: Sometimes at school, when I have to do like a five- SL

paragraph essay or something. Sometimes I have to

write about something in particular and it has to be ME

five paragraphs. The only thing you have choice in is CSL, CL

what you think about it.

I: How do those types of writing assignments compare

to the one you mentioned, Sam in the Bottle?

Ja: I think that the five-paragraph essays I do not like ME

as much as say narratives. MNR

I: What do you think it is about the narratives that

make them more enjoyable for you?

Ja: Because you can make whatever you want, happen. CU

It can be as realistic or non-realistic as you want.

I: Was Sam in the Bottle part of an assignment?

Ja: The first part, when I started it last year, the prolog

was; but then I decided to go on with it, and that part

was not an assignment. It was just something I wanted

to do.

I: Do you know how you did on the assignment?

Ja: I did pretty good. I didn’t do bad and I didn’t do SC

great, but that was fine.

I: Do you think how you did on it had any sort of

influence on your feelings toward this piece?

Ja: Well, I think that the writing that I’ve done this

year, I really like the way that I’ve done it, and that

makes me want to go on and write more.

I: What is it that you liked about the way you have

done it? MNR

Ja: Because it sounds like something that might

actually happen. On a very low basis, but it could

happen. MNR

I: So it’ more realistic?

Ja: Realistic fiction.

I: Now I want you to think about a writing assignment

that you really did not enjoy.

Ja: I think that the writing assignment last year about ME

rules, I didn’t very much enjoy, because it was three

rules that you got to choose and I kind of already liked CSL

the way the school rules are. I’m pretty used to them

and So there’s nothing really I wanted to do about

them. I think that it wouldn’t take five paragraphs to

explain why or why not I liked the school rules.

I: So, the prompt was to write about three rules at

school that you would change. Is that right?

Ja: Either change or just make new rules. ME, CSL

I: And you didn’t like that, because there was nothing

that you felt needed to be changed?

Ja: I know that there’s some things, like the five-

paragraphs that you have to do, but don’t really know

what to write about.

I: Do you think that there was a way that assignment

could have been changed to have made it more

engaging for you?

Ja: Maybe if it was, you could write about what would MNR

happen if you changed the rules; if it would be a good CSL

rule or a bad rule. Like, if you could have gum, then

probably everyone would be having some. There MNR

would probably be gum everywhere; in the doors,

under the desks, in people’s hair.

I: So, I want you to tell me if this is not correct. What I

am hearing is that you wouldn’t mind writing about

rules, but you would rather do it in kind of a story-

telling way.

Ja: Yes, because for me, I don’t know about anyone

else, but I would rather explain it in a story way rather SC

than just saying what you think about it. I would rather SF

have people talking and all that stuff. MNR

I: Do you know how you did on the assignment?

Ja: It was fine. It wasn’t bad and it wasn’t great, but I SC

did average.

Ja: About the same as Sam and the Bottle. SC

I: So how you did on those two assignments didn’t

influence whether you enjoyed them or not?

Ja: Yea, but, I would probably like them the same if I

did good or bad, but it does influence me a little bit to SC

keep going when I do good on them.

I: I want you to picture yourself writing for fun.

What does that look like to you in your mind?

Ja: It looks like me sitting at my desk, either watching

myself with a pencil trying to think, or writing SF

SL
something down.

I: Where is your desk, here at school or at home?

Ja: It’s a big desk in my room. I really like to write in

SL
my room. It’s peaceful, quiet, well usually quiet, and

it’s just a great place to work.

I: When you picture yourself writing at your desk,

what are you writing about?

Ja: Sam in the Bottle. MNR

I: Is there anything else in that setting that helps you

enjoy writing there better than other places?

Ja: Maybe because it’s my own room. I can picture SL

things a lot better rather than if I’m in a noisy area MNR

where it’s hard to think. And, when you’re doing CU

realistic fiction you can like write about things that

SP
could happen. If I can picture something I want to

happen, I can take it out of something that’s in my

room.

I: thank you for taking this time. Is there anything else

that you can think of that you might want to add?

Ja: Nope.
Student Jo (Male/Low) Interview Transcript Code

I: Hi Jo. I would like to talk to you for a little while

about writing. The conversation will not last more

than 20 minutes. This interview will be used as part of

a study on student writing experiences. You can stop

the interview at any time, for any reason. The

interview will be tape-recorded, but you will remain

anonymous. Do you know what anonymous means?

Jo: Yes.

I: What does it mean?

Jo: Like a, hidden or unknown.

I: That is right; hidden or unknown. I am interested in

your opinions. I do not want you to answer in a way

you think I want you to answer. Just be truthful and

answer from your point of view. Do I have your

permission to interview you for this study?

Jo: Yes.

I: I want you to think about a writing assignment that

you felt was engaging. What do you think it was about

the assignment that made it engaging?

Jo: The one we did today, where we wrote about our ME

favorite pet, and I always do my dog. I like writing

about my dog. So, that’s what made it engaging.

I: Ok, it was more about the content?

Jo: Yes.

I: Did you receive a grade or recognition for the

assignment?

Jo: Not yet.

I: Knowing that you might, do you think that affected

your level of engagement on the assignment?

Jo: No. SC

I: Think about a writing assignment that you did not

like doing. What do you think made the assignment

less engaging?

Jo: I couldn’t think of that much to write about. So, I CU

had to think of more stuff to write.

I: Did you receive a grade for the writing assignment

you are thinking about right now?

Jo: No. I think I probably would have gotten a two out

of four.

I: You did not feel like you did very well?

Jo: No. SC

I: How about today? How do you feel you did on the

writing assignment concerning your dog?

Jo: Pretty good. I think I would get a two or a three.

I: So, you feel you did better than you did on the
one you did not enjoy as much, but not twice as good?

Jo: Yea. SC

I: Picture yourself writing for fun. What does it look

like? Where are you? What are you doing? Who is

around?

Jo: I am in the classroom. S__ and Z__ are next to me. SL

H__’s chair is on her desk in front of me.

I: What about that environment makes it a fun place to

write?

Jo: I don’t know.

I: Do you ever write for fun outside of school?

Jo: No.

I: When you are writing for fun, what do you see

yourself writing about?

Jo: What I usually write about, when I get the chance ME

to write about anything, is my dog.

I: Do you have any questions or anything you would

like to add?

Jo: No.
Student Ka (Male/Medium) Interview Transcript Code

I: Hello Ka. I would like to talk to you for a little

while about writing.

Ka: Okay.

I: The conversation will not last more than 20 minutes.

This interview will be used as part of a study on

student writing experiences. You can stop the

interview at any time, for any reason. The interview

will be tape-recorded, but you will remain anonymous.

Do you know what anonymous means?

Ka: Yes.

I: What does anonymous mean?

Ka: It means no one knows who you are.

I: That is correct. I am interested in your opinions. I do

not want you to answer in a way you think I want you

to answer. Just be truthful and answer from your point

of view. Do I have your permission to interview you

for this study?

Ka: Yes.

I: Think of a writing assignment you felt was

engaging. What do you think it was about the

assignment that made it engaging?

Ka: I personally think that if I have a writing prompt I

am more engaged. Then I don’t have to be engaged on CL

trying to find something to write about.

I: So you would rather have some options or be told

what to write about, but not have to come up with a

topic on your own? Is that what I am hearing you

saying?

Ka: Yes. The last writing assessment on rules. CL, CSL, ME

I: Do you know if you received a grade for that

assignment?

Ka: Yes.

I: Do you know if it was a good grade or not?

Ka: No.

I: Did the possibility of receiving a good grade affect

your level of engagement?

Ka: No. SC

I: Think about a writing assignment you did not like.

What do you think it was about that assignment that

made it less engaging than the assignment about rules?

Ka: I could not. I had to focus on choosing what I CU

would like to write about and not focusing on just

writing it.
I: What was difficult?

Ka: Coming up with ideas. CU

I: Did you receive a grade for that writing assignment?

Ka: Yes SC

I: Do you know what grade you received?

Ka: No.

I: Would a grade have mattered in your engagement

level?

Ka: Yes. SC

I: Why would a grade have mattered?

Ka: Because, otherwise, if I did not know I was

getting a grade for the assignment I would not know SC

how to complete writing it.

I: Was it more about a grade, or more about

expectations that mattered to you on that assignment?

Ka: A little of both. SC

I: Picture yourself writing for fun. You could be

anywhere. You could be writing about anything. This

does not need to be something at school. You are just

writing and you are having fun. What does that look

like to you?

Ka: Maybe I would be writing a narrative story. Just a MNR

random story that I came up in my head.

Ka: I just wanted to get it out on paper. CU

I: Where are you when you are doing this writing?

Where do you see yourself?

Ka: Usually at the computer typing it. SL, SF

I: Who is around?

Ka: My dad is on his computer.

I: Is there anything else about the environment that

makes it an enjoyable place to write?

Ka: Maybe the fruit bowl on the table. SP

I: Are you eating fruit out of the fruit bowl?

Ka: Yes.

I: Is there anything else you would like to tell me

about your writing experiences?

Ka: I like writing expository writing prompts, but it’s ME

hard for me to come up with narratives. If someone CL, CSL

assigns me a paper that is just a narrative where I MNR, MNF

could write about anything, I have a lot of trouble with CU

that.

I: Do you have any questions, or anything else you

would like to add?

Ka: No.

I: Thank you for taking the time to do this with me

today.
Student Zo (Male/High) Interview Transcript Code

I: Hello Zo.

Zo: Hi.

I: I would like to talk to you for a little while about

writing.

Zo: Okay.

I: The conversation will not last more than 20 minutes.

This interview will be used as part of a study on

student writing experiences. You can stop the

interview at any time, for any reason. The interview

will be tape-recorded, but you will remain anonymous.

Do you know what anonymous means?

Zo: Yes.

I: What does anonymous mean?

Zo: You don’t say your name or no one knows who

you are.

I: Perfect. I am interested in your opinions. I do not

want you to answer in a way you think I want you to

answer. Just be truthful and answer from your point of

view. Do I have your permission to interview you for

this study?

Zo: Yes.
I: Think of a writing assignment you felt was

engaging. What do you think it was about the

assignment that made it engaging?

Zo: It was a topic that I knew a lot about and I thought KBA

it was fun.

I: Did you receive a grade or recognition for the

assignment?

Zo: Yes. I think it was a three out of four. SC

I: Do you think your grade influenced the enjoyment

of the assignment?

Zo: Yes. SC

I: If you would have received a lower grade do you

think you would have enjoyed the assignment less?

Zo: No. SC

I: If you would have received a better grade, would

you have enjoyed the assignment more?

Zo: Yes. SC

I: Think about a writing assignment that you did not

like doing. What do you think made the assignment

less engaging?

Zo: I didn’t know a lot about the topic and it was not KBN

very fun?

I: So your knowledge base was more limited?

Zo: Yes. KBN

I: That made it more difficult to write about?

Zo: Yes. KBN

I: Did you receive a grade or recognition for that

assignment?

Zo: Yes. I think it was a two out of four. SC

I: Do you think your grade had an effect on your level

of engagement?

Zo: Yes. SC

I: Picture yourself writing for fun. You could be

anywhere. You could be writing about anything. You

are just writing and you are having fun. What does

that look like to you?

Zo: Sometimes at night time I write in my bed. SL, SF

I: What is the environment like?

Zo: My room. I’m just lying on my bed. SL, SF

I: What are you writing about?

Zo: What I did today, what happened, and that kind of CU

stuff.

I: Is there anything else you would like to add?

Zo: No.

I: Thank you for your time.

Student Hi (Female/Low) Interview Transcript Code

I: I: I would like to talk to you for a little while about

writing.

Hi: Okay.

I: The conversation will not last more than 20 minutes.

This interview will be used as part of a study on

student writing experiences. You can stop the

interview at any time, for any reason. The interview

will be tape-recorded, but you will remain anonymous.

Do you know what anonymous means?

Hi: Yes.

I: What does anonymous mean?

Hi: No one knows it is actually you.

I: That is correct. I am interested in your opinions. I do

not want you to answer in a way you think I want you

to answer. Just be truthful and answer from your point

of view. Do I have your permission to interview you

for this study?

Hi: Yes.

I: Think of a writing assignment you felt was

engaging. What do you think it was about the

assignment that made it engaging?

Hi: I just liked it because you get to write about what CU

you want to write about.

I: Where were you doing this writing?

Hi: The classroom. SL

I: Did you receive a grade or recognition for the

writing assignment?

Hi: Yes, I think so. SC

I: What was that like?

Hi: (Shruggs) SC

I: Do you know what kind of grade you received?

Hi: No. SC

I: Did receiving a grade influence your level of

engagement?

Hi: Yes. It makes me want to do it so I can get a better SC

grade.

I: Think about a writing assignment that you did not

like doing. What do you think it was about that

assignment that made it less engaging?

Hi: I was told what to do, and it was hard for me to CL

think about what to say. I didn’t know what to write

about.

I: Did you receive a grade or recognition for that

assignment?
Hi: No. SC

I: Did that influence your level of engagement?

Hi: No. SC

I: Step away from graded and think about writing for

fun. When you picture yourself writing for fun, what

does that look like? Where are you? Who is around?

What is the environment like?

Hi: Last time I wrote for fun was in the classroom SL

yesterday and most of the people were gone. I was just MNR

writing. I wrote a story of a town. I really didn’t finish

the story. It was just about a town with a bunch of

people and their lives.

I: Was the story more narrative or expository?

Hi: Narrative. MNR

I: When you usually write for fun, do you tend toward

a certain type of writing?

Hi: I usually write narratives. MNR

I: Those are all the questions I have. do you have

anything you would like to add?

Hi: No.

I: Thank you for your time.

Hi: Okay.
 Student Si (Female/Medium) Interview Transcript Code

I: I would like to talk to you for a little while about

writing. The conversation will not last more than 20

minutes. This interview will be used as part of a study.

The study is about student writing experiences. You

can stop the interview at any time. You can stop the

interview for any reason. The interview will be tape-

recorded. You will remain anonymous. Do you know

what anonymous means?

Si: Yes.

I: What does anonymous mean?

Si: That you could; that the other people do not know

who you are.

I: I: That is correct. I am interested in your opinions. I

do not want you to answer in a way you think I want

you to answer. Just be truthful and answer from your

point of view. Do I have your permission to interview

you for this study?

Si: Yes.

I: I want you to think of a writing assignment you

thought was engaging. What do you think it was about

the assignment that made it engaging?

Si: It was an assignment where we had to write about MNR

a memory that if we could go back to it we would. I

really liked that memory so it was enjoyable to write

about.

I: Was it a writing prompt? CSL

Si: Yes. It was a time and a place that you would go

back to, to change anything, or just to go back to it.

I: Did you receive a grade or recognition for the

assignment?

Si: Not yet.

I: Do you think a grade or recognition made a

difference in how much you enjoyed the writing?

Si: No SC

I: Think about a writing assignment that you did not

like doing. What do you think it was about that

assignment that made it less engaging?

Si: During the WASL (Washing State Assessment of CL

Student Learning) testing, there was a prompt about MNF

seeing a principal flying or something like that. I SL

didn’t like that and it wasn’t something I would write

about. I wasn’t really engaged in it.

I: Were Both of the experiences you talked about at

school?
Si: Yes. SL, CL

I: What was it about the flying principal experience

that you did not like?

Si: It was just something that I would not write about CL

and I didn’t have any ideas for it.

I: Did you receive a grade or recognition for the flying

principal assignment?

Si: It was just the WASL score and I passed it. SC

I: Did your grade or passing have an impact on your

engagement level.

Si: No. SC

I: Picture yourself writing for fun. You could be

anywhere. You could be writing about anything. You

are just writing and you are having fun. What does

that look like to you? Where are you? Who is around?

What is the environment like?

Si: I am by myself, up in my room, with just paper and SL

I write about a memory that I’ve had or I think of MNR

something that I want to do and make up people as my CU

friends; but I change the names.

I: Do you prefer writing narrative stories or writing to

explain things?

Si: Narratives. MNR

I: Was the prompt concerning a memory expository,

where you explained something, or was it a story?

Si: The prompt was a personal narrative. MNR

I: If you were to write a narrative for fun, would it be

realistic or fantasy?

Si: Realistic. MNR

I: Was that part of the problem with the flying

principal; that the situation was not realistic?

Si: Yes. MNR

I: Do you have anything else you would like to add

concerning your writing experiences?

Si: No

I: Do you have any questions?

Si: No

I: Thank you for your time.

 CURRICULUM VITAE

Contact information

Michael J. Anderson
2242 NW. 45th Ave.
Camas, WA. 98607
telephone: 1-360-606-9496
e-mail: mande003@waldenu.edu

Personal information

Date of birth: November, 11, 1966

Place of birth: Denver, CO.
Citizenship: United States of America

Education

Walden University, Minneapolis, MN.

Ed.D. in teacher leadership (2008)
Doctoral study: “The Correlation Between Choices, Motivation, and Writing Scores in
Elementary School Students”
Advisor: Dr. James Mitchell

City University, Vancouver, WA.

M.A. in teaching (1996)

Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID.

B.A. in religious education, psychology minor (1990)

Teaching experience

Shahala Middle School, Vancouver, WA.

Eighth grade science (2007 to date)

Hearthwood Elementary School, Vancouver, WA.

Fifth grade general education (2006–2007)
Fourth grade general education (2002–2006)
Second grade general education (1997–2002)

Washington Elementary School, Vancouver, WA.

First grade language arts (1996-1997)

Prairie Community Church, Vancouver, WA.

Seventh – twelfth grade religious education (1992-1993)
Billings First Church of the Nazarene, Billings, MT.
Seventh – twelfth grade religious education (1990-1992)

Awards

Excellence in Teaching, Partnership with Science and Elementary School Students

(2004)
Outstanding Teacher, Washington state PTA (2002-2003)
Teacher of the year, Hearthwood Elementary School (2002)

Professional affiliations

Phi Delta Kappan International

National Science Teachers Association
Evergreen School District Assessment Cadre’
Evergreen School District Math Coach (2004-2005)
Lead science teacher, Hearthwood Elementary School (1998-2007)