10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.11.003.: Enhancing Student Motivation and Engagement 0

Enhancing Student Motivation and Engagement 0
Martin, A.J. (2008). Enhancing student motivation and engagement: The effects of a
multidimensional intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 239-269. DOI:
10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.11.003.
This article may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the journal. It is
not the copy of record. The exact copy of record can be accessed via the DOI:
10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.11.003.
Running Head: ENHANCING MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT
Enhancing Student Motivation and Engagement:
The Effects of a Multidimensional Intervention*
Andrew J. Martin
Faculty of Education and Social Work
University of Sydney
Requests for further information about this investigation can be made to Associate Professor
Andrew J. Martin, Faculty of Education and Social Work, A35 – Education Building,
University of Sydney, NSW 2006, AUSTRALIA. E-Mail: a.martin@edfac.usyd.edu.au.
Phone: (+ 61 2) 9351 6273. Fax: (+ 61 2) 9351 2606.
Note: Components of this paper were presented at the Australian Association for Research in
Education Conference, Sydney, Australia, 2005.
The Effects of a Multidimensional Intervention
The present study sought to investigate the effects of a multidimensional educational
intervention on high school students’ motivation and engagement. The intervention
incorporated: (a) multidimensional targets of motivation and engagement, (b) empirically-
derived intervention methodology, (c) research-based risk and protective factors, (d)
established practices that nurture optimal youth development, (e) use of interpersonally-
skilled staff, and (f) evidence-based programming. Using a pre/post, treatment/control group
design, it was found that the self-complete intervention brought about significant shifts in
motivation and engagement. Specifically, findings showed that the treatment group made
positive motivation shifts on key dimensions including task management, persistence,
anxiety, failure avoidance, and uncertain control. Moreover, against a large weighted external
comparison group, the treatment group made positive shifts on valuing, mastery orientation,
planning, task management, persistence, failure avoidance, uncertain control, and self-
handicapping. Taken together, these findings attest to the potential for multidimensional
educational interventions for enhancing students’ motivation and engagement.

The Effects of a Multidimensional Intervention
Motivation and engagement have been described as students’ energy and drive to engage,
learn, work effectively, and achieve to their potential at school and the behaviors that follow
from this energy and drive. Motivation and engagement play a large part in students’ interest
in and enjoyment of school and study. Motivation and engagement also underpin their
achievement (Martin, 2001, 2002, 2003d; Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 2001a, 2001b, 2003;
Meece, Wigfield, & Eccles, 1990; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Schunk, 1990).
Because they play such an important role in students’ academic achievement, it is
important to identify factors that contribute to motivation and engagement. Research
conducted to date has shown that a variety of factors impact on students’ motivation and
engagement, including the nature of pedagogy they receive (Teven & McCroskey, 1997),
relationships they have with their teachers (Kelly & Hansen, 1987), parents’ attitudes
towards and expectations for their children (Dandy & Nettelbeck, 2000), peers (Wigfield &
Tonks, 2002), class climate (Qin, Johnson, & Johnson, 1995), school culture and structure
(Anderman & Maehr, 1994), socio-demographic status (Becker & Luthar, 2002), gender
(Martin, 2003a, 2003b, 2004), and age (Martin, 2001, 2003d).
In addition to these findings, other research has sought to examine the effect of
intervention programs on students’ academic motivation and engagement. Although many of
these interventions have been successful in enhancing students’ self-concept (Marsh, 1990),
attributional patterns (Craven, Marsh, & Debus, 1991), goal orientations (Covington, 1998),
and sense of control (Craven et al., 1991), as well as reducing students’ anxiety (McInerney,
McInerney, & Marsh, 1997), the bulk of intervention studies focus on relatively few
dimensions of students’ motivation and engagement. When one considers the cumulative
effects of these narrowly focused interventions, the field quickly becomes fragmented and
diffuse. Indeed, recent commentaries (see Bong, 1996; Murphy & Alexander, 2000; Pintrich,
2003) have identified the fragmented nature of motivation research as a potential impediment
to its progression and application.
In response to recent calls for a more integrative approach to the study of
motivation and engagement (see Bong, 1996; Murphy & Alexander, 2000; Pintrich,
2003), the present study employs an intervention program that is shaped by a
multidimensional motivation and engagement framework and then assesses the
efficacy of this targeted intervention using a multidimensional instrument that directly
reflects this integrative framework. The present study is also a means of exploring a
systematic ‘Prepare-Generate-Reflect-Closure’ procedure that is aimed at: (a)
providing an advance organizer for the module and its key activities, (b) enabling the
participant to generate and construct key learnings relevant to their motivation, (c)
providing an opportunity for the participant to reflect on key messages developed
through these learnings, and (d) then attaining closure on the target module through
having mentors sign off the module for that week.
A Multidimensional Perspective to Intervention Studies
It is the multidimensional nature of motivation and engagement that is a central
foundation for the framework, instrumentation, and intervention collected together in
the present study. Marsh and colleagues (Marsh & Craven, 1997; Marsh, Craven, &
Martin, in press) argued for a construct validity approach to interventions in which the
specific dimensions of self-concept and motivation most relevant to the intervention
should be most affected, whilst less relevant dimensions should be less affected and
should serve as a control for response biases. In a meta-analysis of self-concept and
motivation intervention studies, O’Mara, Marsh, Craven, and Debus (2006) found
that, consistent with a multidimensional perspective on intervention, effect sizes were
substantially larger for specific and targeted components of key dimensions logically
related to the intended outcomes of the intervention than for more global measures
and other less relevant components. Studies designed to enhance global dimensions
(such as global self-esteem/motivation) were not very successful compared to studies
that focused on more specific components of the self that were most relevant to goals
of the intervention. In summary, previous research supports the usefulness of a
multidimensional perspective of intervention and so it is this perspective that is a
foundation of the present study.
The Multidimensional Motivation and Engagement Framework Underpinning the
Intervention
Motivational research is diverse and to varying degrees, is or can appear, fragmented
(Murphy & Alexander, 2000; Pintrich, 2003). Moreover, it has been suggested that
educational research can oftentimes yield limited practical and useful implications and
applications and that there is a need to combine research that advances scientific
understanding but which also has applied utility. Hence, it has recently been recommended
that greater attention be given to “use-inspired basic research” (Stokes, 1997; see also
Greeno, 1998; Pintrich, 2000, 2003).
With these matters in mind, Martin (2001, 2002, 2003d, in press) developed the
Motivation and Engagement Wheel to reflect an integrative framework for representing
seminal motivation and engagement theory. The development of the Motivation and
Engagement Wheel emerged through an attempt to bridge a gap between diverse dimensions
of educational theorizing on the one hand and on the other hand, practitioners’ (e.g., teachers,
counselors, psychologists) need to draw on the strengths of these dimensions within a
parsimonious and intuitively appealing framework that they could clearly communicate to
students. There are two levels at which the Wheel has been conceptualized: (a) the
integrative higher order level comprising adaptive cognitive and behavioral dimensions,
impeding/maladaptive cognitive dimensions, and maladaptive behavioral dimensions and (b)
the operationalized lower order level comprising eleven first-order factors subsumed under
the four higher order factors. Although the Wheel is applied in the present empirical setting,
its development has been very much driven by the need to provide practitioners with a
broader framework than would be characterized by any single theory. This more applied
purpose is further detailed below.
The Higher Order Level of the Wheel
Over the past four decades a number of educational and psychological theories and models
have been developed that aim to explain the nature of human cognition and behavior.
Particularly in relation to the academic domain, it is apparent that at a primary level there are
significant commonalities across these theories and models, which provide direction as to
fundamental dimensions of motivation and engagement. Martin’s (2001, 2003d, in press)
multidimensional concept of motivation that comprises adaptive, impeding, and maladaptive
cognitive and behavioral dimensions is reflected in these diverse lines of psychological
inquiry, including work by:
(a) Pintrich and colleagues (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991) who
presented a cognitive view of motivation encompassing motivational orientations and
a behavioral component encompassing learning strategies;
(b) Buss and Cantor (1989) who proposed a model of strategy and behavior in which
individuals’ characteristic orientations and cognitions influence the behaviors they
use to negotiate demands in their environment;

(c) Beck (1995; see also Dobson & Dozois, 2001; Reinecke & Clark, 2004) and his
cognitive behavioral approach to engagement, emphasizing that cognitive activity affects
behavior and that behavioral change can be affected through cognitive change;
(d) Miller and colleagues (1996) and Miserandino (1996) studying academic engagement
and separating engagement into cognitive-affective and behavioral dimensions; and,
(e) Researchers assessing the differential effect levels of distinct aspects of motivation and
engagement—for example, self-efficacy reflects highly adaptive motivation (Bandura,
1997; Pajares, 1996), anxiety impedes students’ engagement (Sarason & Sarason, 1990;
Spielberger, 1985), and behaviors such as self-handicapping reflect quite maladaptive
engagement (Martin et al., 2001a, 2001b, 2003).
Taken together, in consideration of the joint issues of motivational orientations, learning
strategies, cognitive and behavioral dimensions, and differing levels of adaptive and maladaptive
dimensions from empirical and applied settings, Martin (2001, 2003d, in press) proposed that
motivation can be characterized in terms of four higher order groups: (a) adaptive cognitive
dimensions, (b) adaptive behavioral dimensions, (c) impeding/maladaptive cognitive dimensions,
and (d) maladaptive behavioral dimensions.
The Operationalized Lower Order Level of the Wheel
Although this higher order conceptualization addresses the important aims of enhancing
parsimony, providing a unifying approach to seminal educational and psychological theory,
and giving scope for understanding the basic structure of students’ motivation and
engagement from an applied perspective, it is important that there exist a lower level at
which specific constructs operationalize these higher order dimensions and provide a basis
for measuring motivation and engagement. Although the selection of lower order constructs
for the operationalization of motivation and engagement is ultimately a (professional)

judgment call, theory and research can guide the development of constructs that reflect the
diversity of students’ academic engagement and motivation.
Recently, Pintrich (2003) identified seven substantive questions for the development of
a motivational science. Taken together, these questions underscore the importance of
considering, conceptualizing, and articulating a model of motivation from salient and seminal
theorizing related to: self-efficacy, attributions, valuing, control, self-determination, goal
orientation, need achievement, self-regulation, and self-worth. These, it is suggested, provide
a useful rationale for the identification of lower order constructs for operationalizing the
Motivation and Engagement Wheel.
As discussed fully in Martin (2001, 2002, 2003d, in press), (a) self-efficacy theory
(e.g., Bandura, 1997) is reflected in the self-efficacy dimension of the Wheel, (b) attributions
and control are reflected in the uncertain control dimension (tapping the controllability
element of attributions—see Connell, 1985; Weiner, 1994), (c) valuing (e.g., Eccles, 1983;
Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992, 2000; Wigfield & Tonks, 2002) is reflected in a
valuing (of school) dimension, (d) self-determination (in terms of intrinsic motivation—see
Ryan & Deci, 2000) and motivation orientation (see Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1989) are
reflected in a mastery orientation dimension, (e) need achievement and self-worth (e.g.,
Atkinson 1957; Covington, 1992; Covington & Omelich, 1991; McClelland, 1965) are
reflected in failure avoidance, anxiety, self-handicapping, and disengagement dimensions,
and (f) self-regulation (e.g., Martin, 2001, 2003d; Martin et al., 2001a, 2001b, 2003; Miller et
al., 1996; Miserandino, 1996; Zimmerman, 2002) is reflected in planning, task management,
and persistence dimensions. Hence, the Wheel comprises eleven lower or first-order
dimensions.
The Wheel is presented in Figure 1. As this figure shows, the adaptive cognitive
dimension is subsumed by self-efficacy, valuing, and mastery orientation. The adaptive

behavioral dimension is subsumed by planning, task management, and persistence. The
impeding/maladaptive cognitive dimension is subsumed by failure avoidance, uncertain
control, and anxiety. The maladaptive behavioral dimension is subsumed by self-
handicapping and disengagement. The Wheel provides the multidimensional framework
guiding the development of the multidimensional intervention, which comprises weekly
modules targeting each of the eleven first-order facets of the Wheel.
The Applied Purpose of the Wheel
It is important to recognize that this motivation and engagement framework is very much
intended for practitioners aiming to capture the diversity of motivation and engagement
dimensions that characterize the ordinary course of business in a school student’s academic
life. It is fully recognized that this departs from traditional approaches to the study of
motivation and engagement that typically reflect a single theoretical perspective (however,
it is noted that there are some notable examples of models reflecting diverse motivation-
related dimensions – e.g., see Midgley et al., 1997 for PALS and Pintrich, Smith, Garcia,
& McKeachie, 1991 for MSLQ). Hence, notwithstanding the theoretical positions that have
guided the development of the Wheel (see above), the reader is urged to be mindful that a
driving consideration has been the aim to provide practitioners with a single framework
that can quickly capture a good range of student motivation and engagement.
Previous Interventions Targeting the Wheel
Indeed, the Wheel has provided a good basis for previous intervention work. Martin (2005)
has implemented a series of workshops targeting students’ motivation and engagement,
embedded within a youth enrichment program. The workshops were focused on each facet of
the Wheel and measurement involved the multidimensional Motivation and Engagement
Scale−High School (MES-HS; Martin, 2006, in press) at the outset of the program, towards
the end of the program, and again 6-8 weeks later. Data showed that there were gains on key
facets of students’ motivation by the end of the program—gains that were sustained 6-8
weeks later. These gains were demonstrated by boys and girls. Moreover, when compared to
a larger weighted external sample (2,769 high school students), by Time 2 and also by Time
3, significant declines in motivation had been reversed and any pre-existing advantages or
parallel strengths of the intervention sample over the weighted sample were maintained.
Hence, in a workshop format, motivation and engagement can be enhanced.
Another format, and one which is perhaps more flexible and less reliant on having an
‘expert’ facilitator, involves a self-complete program in which students engage individually
(e.g., if conducted as part of individual/one-on-one work with a teacher, coach, tutor, or
school psychologist) or in small groups (e.g., if conducted in a classroom or tutorial/pastoral
care group context – the delivery mode of the present study). This has scope for greater
portability and more flexible administration as it is more readily replicable in any individual,
class, and school context. The present study provides a test of such an intervention format on
students’ motivation and engagement.
Evidence-based Principles Guiding the Design of the Present Investigation
An important criterion for the design of this intervention is that it complies with evidence-
based guidelines developed through previous successful intervention work. Over the past
three decades there has been much theorizing about, and empirical attention given to, the
design characteristics of successful interventions (see for example, Cook & Campbell, 1979;
Craven, Marsh, Debus, & Jayasinghe, 2001; Good & Brophy, 1974; Hattie, 1992; Plewis &
Hurry, 1998). Taken together, this research provides guidelines that shaped the present
intervention in the following ways:
(a) Using multidimensional instruments to assess diverse dimensions of educational
constructs;
(b) Intervening at the appropriate level (e.g., at the individual student level, whole-class
level, and/or whole-school level);
(c) Demonstrating reliability for the target samples (not simply relying on reliability from
test manuals and the like);
(d) Demonstrating construct validity using confirmatory factor analysis (where sample
size permits);
(e) Providing meaningful feedback to participants throughout the intervention;
(f) Focusing the intervention on specific and targeted facets of the educational
phenomena under study;
(g) Measuring these specific facets;
(h) Including non-target measures to test for the discriminant validity of the intervention;
(i) Including, where feasible, an external comparison sample to control for diffusion
effects;
(j) Demonstrating that the treatment group is not significantly different from the control
group or the external comparison at the outset;
(k) Using a longitudinal design; and,
(l) Embedding the intervention in an ecologically natural environment (school, tutorial
groups) and supported by ecologically natural agents (teachers) so that the
intervention involves the environment and agents with the most practical relevance to
participants and an approach that is sustainable beyond the researchers’ involvement.
Table 1 summarizes these key elements and also presents the ways in which the present
study met these criteria for successful intervention. As is evident, the design, administration
and the assessment of the intervention revolved around these central criteria. This, it is
contended, constitutes a powerful test of the extent to which motivation and engagement are
amenable to self-directed programmatic intervention work.

In terms of the present intervention’s comparability to other programs, it is worth
noting the following characteristics that align with features of effective programs outlined
elsewhere (see Dryfoos, 1990; Lerner & Galambos, 2002; Nation et al., 2003, Weissberg,
Kumpfer, & Seligman, 2003): intensive individualized attention, strong link with school,
engagement of peers, use of staff with strong training skills and background (teachers/tutors
have extensive experience working with youth), centrality of group work and productive
activity within that group, celebration and valuing of the individual, age specificity (targeting
a particular developmental level—middle to senior high), research-based risk (impeding and
maladaptive dimensions of the Wheel) and protective (adaptive dimensions) factors,
established practices that nurture optimal youth development, and evidence-based design (see
points (a) to (l) above—Cook & Campbell, 1979; Craven et al., 2001; Good & Brophy, 1974;
Hattie, 1992; Plewis & Hurry, 1998).
Particularly given the educational context in which the intervention is located, the
present study also incorporates principles of sound pedagogical practice derived from
seminal learning theory in a bid to aid retention of information and meaningful learning.
Although the investigation does not purport to be a direct test of these pedagogical principles,
they are nonetheless a useful guiding framework for the design of the study. Along these
lines, the study adapts concepts revolving around Ausubel’s (1960) cognitive instructional
strategies that are based on the premise that meaningful learning is idiosyncratic and involves
personal recognition of the links between concepts. Specifically, the intervention is
structured around a systematic ‘Prepare-Generate-Reflect-Closure’ procedure that is aimed
at: (a) providing an advance organizer for the module and its key activities, (b) enabling the
participant to generate and construct key learnings relevant to their motivation, (c) providing
an opportunity for the participant to reflect on key messages developed through these
learnings, and (d) then attaining closure on the target module through having mentors sign
off the module for that week. Hence, in addition to testing students’ specific receptiveness to
intervention targeting key motivation dimensions, it is also a means of exploring a program
in the demonstrated tradition of cognitive instruction.
Aims and Design of the Study
The central question in this investigation is the impact of the proposed intervention on
participants’ academic motivation and engagement. The intervention comprised a number of
self-complete modules conducted over a school term (details are below and in Appendix).
Students’ motivation and engagement were assessed at the outset of the intervention program
and again upon completion of the program. The study comprised control (no intervention)
and treatment (intervention) groups. The study also incorporated a large weighted
comparison sample of students who had previously completed the instrumentation.
It was hypothesized that relative to the control group, students participating in the
intervention (treatment group) would evince significant gains on multidimensional
motivation and engagement. It was also hypothesized that relative to the weighted
comparison sample, the treatment group would demonstrate significant motivation and
engagement gains. It was further hypothesized that these gains would be evidenced on target
dimensions of motivation and engagement (the eleven parts of the Wheel that are targeted in
the intervention program) and not on non-target dimensions that were not part of the
intervention program.
Method
Samples and Procedure
Target sample
The treatment and control group participants were 53 high school students from a large
independent boys’ school located in a capital city of Australia. The school is a relatively high
performing one drawing on middle to upper socioeconomic status families. Notwithstanding

this, it is not academically selective and so does comprise quite a range of performance.
Indeed, it is in this context that the present intervention focused on students who were
identified by the school as not performing to their potential.
Twenty-six were in the treatment group and 27 were in the control group. Participants
were in Years 10 (n = 36) and 11 (n = 17). The mean age of participants was 15 years (SD =
.66 years), represented by 14- (n = 12), 15- (n = 33), 16- (n = 7), and 17-year olds (n = 1).
Teachers administered the Motivation and Engagement Scale – High School (MES-HS –
formerly Student Motivation and Engagement Scale; Martin, 2001, 2003d, 2006, in press) to
all participants prior to the treatment group commencing the intervention program. The
MES-HS was again administered to all students when the intervention had concluded.
When contextualizing the present focus on boys in this intervention, it is
important to recognize that the study is part of a broader program assessing the
educational needs of boys and girls (see Martin, 2003a, 2003b, 2004; Martin & Marsh,
2005). Indeed, the education of boys has been an issue of ongoing debate, research, and
policy implementation over the past decade (Spelke, 2005; Weaver-Hightower, 2003).
There is a large body of data attesting to the differences between adolescent boys and
girls in academic motivation and achievement with many of the findings suggesting boys
are less motivated and engaged than girls (e.g., Collins, Kenway, & McLeod, 2000;
MacDonald, Saunders, & Benfield, 1999; Martin, 2002a, 2003a, 2003b, 2004;
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development – OECD, 2001; Rowe &
Rowe, 1999; Walker, 1988). This intervention study, then, was conducted in the context
of initiatives to address the educational needs of boys in Australia. This is not to diminish
the educational needs of girls nor the student body as a whole. Rather, as with many
studies, there is context, history, and broader issues that provide the backdrop against
which methodological decisions are made. Notwithstanding this, an obvious extension of
the present study will be to apply similar methodologies and analyses to girls as well.
The weighted external comparison sample
In addition to the control group involved in this study, mean-level group comparisons were
drawn with a larger Australian external sample (the comparison group) who had previously
been administered the MES-HS. Martin (2005) proposed a weighted external comparison
group can operate as another means by which to assess the findings of an intervention –
particularly when the intervention is conducted at a single site and greater validity can be
derived from ‘external’ data. He demonstrated the empirical efficacy of such an approach and
that it also seemed to provide a test for potential biases in experimental research such as
diffusion effects, Hawthorne effects, and ‘test savvy’ respondents (see Discussion below for
a full treatment of these issues in relation to the present study).
This larger sample comprised 12,237 male and female high school students. From
this sample, all 14-, 15-, 16-, and 17-year old boys were selected. In total, this represented
3,381 students. The data for this comparison sample of students were then weighted to reflect
the number of 14- (22.6%), 15- (62.3%), 16- (13.2%), and 17-year olds (1.9%) in the target
sample. The weighted data for this group then served as the weighted external comparison
group for the study.
This comparison sample is not a control group. It is simply another means by which the
present data can be contextualized, understood, and interpreted. The parallels between the
test sample and comparison are that both comprise only boys, both are Australian, and both
are matched in age. Notwithstanding this, the participants are not matched or paired in the
design and so conclusions regarding the comparison sample must consider this limitation. It
is also important to recognize that the timing of testing differed for the two samples. The
control and treatment samples were administered the MES-HS midway through the school
year, whereas the comparison sample comprised many schools that were administered the
instrument at different times of the year.
In terms of data analysis, the weighted external comparison group was retained as an
external dataset. Because it comprised such a large sample (N=3,381), any analyses of
differences would be biased towards statistical significance if they were included in the
intervention dataset. Hence, when comparing the intervention group with the weighted
comparison group, the latter group’s parameters (e.g., mean scores) were retained as an
external parameter and the intervention group tested against it. Thus, whereas treatment and
control groups were assessed within the dataset using independent samples t-tests (see
below), treatment and external comparison groups were assessed using one-sample t-tests
where the external comparison parameter (e.g., mean score) was ‘introduced’ to the specific
analysis under focus (see below).
Participant Selection and Tests for Equality of Groups
Treatment and control students participating in the study were identified by teachers as
reflecting a group of students who were not performing to their potential. It was of interest to
the school and of relevance to the broader program addressing the educational needs of boys
to assess the proposed intervention in the context of boys who in the school’s view could be
more engaged and performing better. For completeness, however, the school subsequently
administered the intervention to all other students in the cohort through their pastoral care
program (but no further measurement was undertaken with these students). Notwithstanding
this, given the nature of participant selection it must be recognized that other students with
motivation problems may have been overlooked in the formal intervention study (but not in
the subsequent cohort-wide program).
Preliminary analyses assessed the equality of groups participating in the study. In the
first instance, this comprised a series of independent samples t-tests using the eleven pre-test
factors as dependent measures and the grouping variable (treatment/control) as the
independent measure. No significant effects for group were found after Bonferroni correction
to adjust for the number of tests conducted. Follow-up MANOVA tests for equality of
covariance matrices between treatment and control groups also found no significant
difference (F = 1.20, p = ns). Secondly, it was of further interest to determine equality
between the treatment group Pre-test scores and the weighted comparison sample. A series of
one-sample t-tests found no significant differences between the two samples after Bonferroni
correction to adjust for the number of tests conducted. Taken together, these findings suggest
that at the outset of the study the treatment group was not significantly different from the
control group or the weighted external comparison sample. Notwithstanding this, findings
must be interpreted in view of the fact that no randomization occurred in selection or in
group assignment – and this obviously carries with it the associated issues relevant to the
validity of the study (see Cook & Campbell, 1979).
Materials
The Motivation and Engagement Scale – High School1 (MES-HS; Martin, 2006, in
press; formerly the Student Motivation and Engagement Scale – Martin, 2001, 2003d) is
the instrument under focus in this study. It measures high school students’ motivation
and engagement through six adaptive cognitive and behavioral dimensions, three
impeding/maladaptive cognitive dimensions, and two maladaptive behavioral
dimensions. For information about the development of this scale, see Martin (in 2001,
2003d, in press). Adaptive cognitions include self-efficacy (e.g., “If I try hard, I believe I
can do my schoolwork well”), mastery orientation (e.g., “I feel very pleased with myself
when I really understand what I’m taught at school”), and valuing (e.g., “Learning at
school is important to me”). Adaptive behaviors include persistence (e.g., “If I can’t
understand my schoolwork at first, I keep going over it until I understand it”), planning
(e.g., “Before I start an assignment I plan out how I am going to do it”), and task
management (e.g., “When I study, I usually study in places where I can concentrate”).
Impeding/maladaptive cognitive dimensions are anxiety (e.g., “When exams and
assignments are coming up, I worry a lot”), failure avoidance (e.g., “Often the main
reason I work at school is because I don’t want to disappoint my parents”), and uncertain
control (e.g., “I'm often unsure how I can avoid doing poorly at school”). Maladaptive
behavioral dimensions are self-handicapping (e.g., “I sometimes don’t study very hard
before exams so I have an excuse if I don’t do as well as I hoped”) and disengagement
(e.g., “I often feel like giving up at school”).
Each of the eleven factors comprises four items – hence the MES-HS is a 44-item
instrument. To each item, students rate themselves on a scale of 1 (‘Strongly Disagree’)
to 7 (‘Strongly Agree’). Martin (2001, 2003d, in press) has confirmed a strong factor
structure and has also shown that the MES-HS is a reliable instrument with
approximately normally distributed dimensions and is significantly associated with
literacy, numeracy, and achievement in mathematics and English, as well as being
sensitive to age and gender-related differences in motivation.
Psychometric properties of the MES-HS
Given the size of the treatment and control groups in the study, it is not appropriate to
conduct factor analysis to assess the factor structure of the target instrument.
Notwithstanding this, at pre-testing the entire year groups (Years 10 and 11) at the school
were administered the instrument (along with the treatment and control groups). This sample
comprised 424 boys in Years 10 (53%; mean age = 14.8 years; SD age = .55) and Year 11
(47%; mean age = 15.7 years; SD age = .57). It is informative to note that confirmatory
factor analysis using LISREL 8.54 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2003) demonstrated a sound factor
structure across this larger sample in the same school and year groups (χ2 = 1,581.29, df =
847, NNFI = .97, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .045). The weighted comparison sample was also
large enough to conduct similar analyses. This sample’s data fit the 11-factor model well (χ2
= 5,013.97, df = 847, NNFI = .98, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .038). Taken together, these data
show that the MES-HS reflects internal validity in terms of factor structure. Indeed,
reliability analysis presented in Table 2 below demonstrates that for the treatment and control
groups, a similar picture emerges.
Non-target measures
To test for the discriminant validity of the intervention it is important to also include non-
target educational measures that should not yield shifts as a result of the targeted
intervention. This provides a test of whether mere participation in a program rather than the
intervention itself impacts positively on students’ motivation and engagement. To this end,
the control and treatment samples were also administered items that explored their enjoyment
of school, class participation, educational aspirations, and academic resilience. Enjoyment of
school (e.g., “I enjoy being a student”; Pre-test Cronbach’s α=.95; Post-test Cronbach’s α =
.93; Test-retest reliability r = .69) comprised 4 items which were rated on a scale of 1
(Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree). Class participation (e.g., “I get involved in things
we do in class”; Pre-test Cronbach’s α = .96; Post-test Cronbach’s α = .93; Test-retest
reliability r = .79) comprised 4 items which were rated on the same 1 to 7 scale. Educational
aspirations (e.g., “I’d like to continue studying or training after I complete school”; Pre-test
Cronbach’s α = .74; Post-test Cronbach’s α = .89; Test-retest reliability r = .67) also
comprised 4 items which were rated on the same scale. Academic resilience (e.g., “I'm good
at bouncing back from a poor mark in my schoolwork”; Pre-test Cronbach’s α = .89; Post-
test Cronbach’s α = .88; Test-retest reliability r = .47) comprised six items, used the 7-point
scale, and refers to students’ ability to deal effectively with setback, challenge, stress, and
pressure in an academic setting.

Level at Which to Intervene
Interventions can be at the individual student level, the whole-class level, and/or the whole-
school level. One question to be resolved when an intervention is developed, concerns the
level/s at which to carry out that intervention. Although these considerations are now
recognized in much data analysis (for detailed discussion, see Goldstein, 2003; Rasbash,
Steele, Browne, & Prosser, 2004; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002), they are not typically the
focus of intervention considerations. Hence, in developing the current intervention it was
considered critical to examine the relative variance in the measures explained at student,
class, and school levels. The level at which the bulk of variance occurs will provide
important direction as to the focus of the current intervention. This assessment of variance in
the measures central to this study was the focus of a recent study by Martin and Marsh
(2005). These analyses involved multilevel (or hierarchical linear) modeling. Multilevel
modeling has emerged over the past decade as a highly flexible and useful approach to
analyzing hierarchically structured data (Goldstein, 2003; Kreft & De Leeuw, 1998; Snijders
& Bosker, 1999). In the Martin and Marsh investigation, the data were conceptualized as a
three-level model, consisting of student at the first level, class at the second level, and school
at the third level. The multilevel analyses were conducted using MLwiN version 2.00
(Rasbash et al., 2004).
In these preliminary analyses, a baseline variance components model (Rasbash et al.,
2004) or intercept-only model (Hox, 1995) was used to evaluate how much variation in each
of the eleven motivation measures could be attributed to the school (Level 3), the class
(Level 2), and the student (Level 1). Findings showed that on all measures, the bulk of
variance is accounted for at the student level. That is, there is greater variation from student
to student than there is from class to class or school to school. In 33 tests (11 measures x
student, class, and school levels) of statistical significance, all yielded significant student-
level variance, only three yielded significant class-level variance (mastery orientation; self-
handicapping; and disengagement) and none yielded significant school-level variance. Given
that the bulk of variance was accounted for at the student level, a student-centered
intervention was considered the most defensible to implement in the present study.
The Motivation and Engagement Intervention
The motivation and engagement intervention implemented in the present study comprised a
self-complete program of activities. There were 13 modules to the intervention, the details of
which are presented below and in the Appendix.
Modules 1 to 11
The first eleven modules address each of the eleven facets of the Wheel and comprise four
components in each module. As discussed earlier, the intervention was broadly structured
around a systematic ‘Prepare-Generate-Reflect-Closure’ procedure that is aimed at: (a)
providing an advance organizer for the module and its key activities, (b) enabling the
participants to generate and construct key learnings relevant to their motivation, (c) providing
an opportunity for the participants to reflect on key messages developed through these
learnings, and (d) then attaining closure on the target module through having mentors sign
off the module for that week.
Component 1: Prepare
The ‘Prepare’ component of a given module:
(a) Defined the construct under focus (e.g., for ‘self-efficacy’: “Self-efficacy is your belief
and confidence in your ability to understand or to do well in your schoolwork, to meet
challenges you face, and to perform to the best of your ability”)
(b) Provided General Rules for addressing the module’s target construct (e.g., for ‘self-
efficacy’: “General Rule 1. Become more aware of negative thoughts you may have
about yourself or events in your life, take time to look for evidence that challenges
these negative thoughts, and develop more positive ways to think about things using
this challenging evidence; General Rule 2. Recognize all your successes as you do your
schoolwork. For example, break an assignment into smaller parts and be pleased with
yourself for completing each part; General Rule 3. Recognize improvements you make,
trying not to focus on your shortcomings. If you do not do so well, focus on how you
can learn from that to improve; General Rule 4. Learn how to recognize your talents
and learn how to use them to your advantage”)
(c) Identified the key strategies of each of the three subsequent ‘Generate’ exercises (e.g.,
for ‘self-efficacy’: “Strategy 1. Learn how to challenge your negative thinking and
learn how to think more positively; Strategy 2. Identify the many ways you succeed as
you do your schoolwork; Strategy 3. Identify your school-related talents and
strengths”).
Component 2: Generate
The three ‘Generate’ exercises were self-complete activities specifically targeting the
relevant construct under focus. For ‘self-efficacy’, for example, the three exercises were:
(a) Identifying and challenging negative thinking (in which the student: 1. Lists negative
thoughts they might have about themselves as a student, 2. Write a thought or idea that
can challenge these negative thoughts, and 3. Write a new positive thought that can
replace the negative thought)
(b) Identifying ways to build more success into one’s schoolwork ( in which the student
reflects on previous completed work such as an assignment and lists some ways they
succeeded in that assignment irrespective of what mark they received – sample prompts
provided to students include: “Defined and understood the question/problem” and
“Broke the question into parts”)

(c) Identifying one’s academic strengths and talents (in which the student is encouraged to
be their own ‘talent scout’ by listing some of their academic-related talents – sample
prompts provided to students include: “I take good notes” and “I present my work
neatly”).
Component 3: Reflect
The ‘Reflect’ (or ‘Stocktake’) component encourages the student to process and further
personalize the key messages from the ‘Generate’ exercises and involved:
(a) Identifying the ‘Generate’ exercise that they found most helpful
(b) Listing two (and to try for a third) things the exercise taught them that they believe will
be most helpful to them
(c) Identifying specific ways they can implement the central messages from the module.
Here, three messages (reflecting the three ‘Generate’ exercises) are presented (e.g., for
‘self-efficacy’ the three messages are: “Message 1. Tackle negative thinking with
evidence so as to develop more positive thoughts, Message 2. Identify the many ways
you succeed as you do your schoolwork, and Message 3. Get to know your school-
related talents and strengths”). Sample prompts were provided to students to help them
think of ways to implement the key message (e.g., for ‘self-efficacy’: “Every time I think
I can’t do something I’ll remember times I’ve been successful before”)
(d) Rating their confidence to apply what has been learnt in that module (“I believe I can
apply what I’ve learnt in these exercises”) on a scale of 1 (‘Strongly disagree’) to 7
(‘Strongly agree’). This rating is then built into Modules 12 and 13 at the end of the
program.
Component 4: Closure
The ‘Closure’ component provides the student with the opportunity to touch base with a
designated teacher/tutor and have his or her work on each of the module’s components
signed off by this person. It also allows the student and teacher/tutor an opportunity to
interact on the motivation module under focus. This component of the module involved:
(a) Revisiting the General Rules outlined in the ‘Prepare’ component
(b) The student signing and dating his or her completion of the module
(c) The teacher/tutor signing and dating the student’s completion of the module.
Modules 12 to 13
The final two modules involved a top-up and a strength-consolidation module. Module 12
(top-up) required the student to identify a previous module in which his or her confidence in
applying its important messages was rated low, and then revisit this module with some
focused forward-thinking activity. Specifically, this module involved:
(a) Looking back at the confidence ratings (see (d) of ‘Reflect’ component above) made
in each module and writing the name of the lowest rating module (e.g., self-efficacy)
(b) Turning to the first page of that module’s exercises and looking at its general rules
(see (b) of ‘Prepare’ component above)
(c) Identifying two of the General Rules that could be most useful or helpful and listing
three ways this can be so in their academic life
(d) Writing the main message taken from these General Rules (Prompt provided: “What
do you think they are telling you?”)
(d) The student signing and dating his or her completion of the module
(e) The teacher/tutor signing and dating the student’s completion of the module.
Module 13 (strength-consolidation) required the student to identify a previous module in
which his or her confidence in applying its important messages was rated highly, and then
revisit this module with some focused forward-thinking activity. Specifically, this module
involved:
(a) Looking back at the confidence ratings (see (d) of ‘Reflect’ component above) made
in each module and writing the name of the highest rating module (e.g., self-efficacy)
(b) Turning to the first page of that module’s exercises and looking at its General Rules
(see (b) of ‘Prepare’ component above)
(c) Identifying two of the General Rules that could be most useful or helpful in
sustaining this strength and listing three ways this can be so in their academic life
(d) Writing the main message taken from these General Rules (Prompt provided: “What
do you think they are telling you?”)
(e) The student signing and dating his or her completion of the module
(f) The teacher/tutor signing and dating the student’s completion of the module.
The Process
Students completed the modules in small tutorial groups, which were led by teachers. They
were free to ask questions as they worked through the modules. Teachers were asked to
conduct discussion revolving around the modules that focused on practical ways the lessons
learnt could be applied in students’ academic lives. At the completion of each module, both
the student and the teacher signed off on its completion. Each module took approximately 20
to 30 minutes to complete and with the necessary introductions and follow-up discussions
along with the teacher signing off on modules, one module was comfortably embedded in a
standard 50-minute period. When all modules were completed, students were again
administered the MES-HS.
The program was conducted through the school’s house system (a structural
organization of students and teachers) and was overseen by house teachers (the teachers
located within an assigned house) who were well known to the students and who knew the
students well. At the same time as treatment students worked on their program, the other
students (including controls) engaged in their standard pastoral care/tutorial group (a smaller
grouping of students that enables an assigned teacher or tutor to oversee the day-to-day
dimensions of students’ school life) program. Hence participating in the modules did not
detract from the time spent in class or the amount of material they covered. Students in the
control group were administered pre and post MES-HS forms at the same time as the
treatment group completed their forms.
Results
Distributional and Reliability Statistics
Table 2 shows distributional and reliability statistics for each facet of the Wheel for: (a)
intervention and control students and (b) students from the large weighted comparison
sample. The data show that for pre, post, and comparison data, each facet of motivation and
engagement is approximately normally distributed. Internal consistency for each facet is
generally high across the pre and post waves of data collection and the comparison sample.
In terms of test-retest reliability, correlations across the two time points are high and
demonstrate reliability across time.
Pre- and Post-Test Differences
A central element of the analysis was to compare mean motivation levels across the two time
points. This entailed comparing pre-test scores (prior to the intervention) and post-test scores
(following the intervention). Means and SDs for each facet of motivation across each time
point are presented in Table 3. Pre- and post-test data were analyzed using a series of 2
(treatment/control) x 2 (Pre/Post) ANOVAs with repeated measures on the second factor.
Table 4 presents findings. There were significant main within-subjects effects on pre- and
post-test scores on planning, task management, anxiety, failure avoidance, and uncertain
control—however, all but planning were qualified by a significant interaction effect. In terms
of planning, for all participants, post-test scores were higher than pre-test scores with a large
effect size.
As Table 4 shows, there were statistically significant repeated measures interaction
effects on valuing, task management, persistence, anxiety, failure avoidance, and uncertain
control. Each of these is plotted in Figures 2a to 2f, along with associated effect sizes.
Valuing scores for the treatment group increased (medium effect size) between pre- and post-
testing while scores for the control group decreased (medium effect size). Task management
scores for the treatment group increased markedly (medium effect size) between pre- and
post-testing while scores for the control group increased slightly (negligible effect size).
Persistence scores for the treatment group increased (medium effect size) between pre- and
post-testing while scores for the control group decreased (small effect size). Anxiety scores
for the treatment group decreased (medium effect size) between pre- and post-testing while
scores for the control group remained the same (zero effect size). Failure avoidance scores
for the treatment group decreased modestly (medium effect size) between pre- and post-
testing while scores for the control group decreased slightly (negligible effect size).
Uncertain control scores for the treatment group decreased markedly (large effect size)
between pre- and post-testing while scores for the control group decrease slightly (negligible
effect size).
Tests Using a Larger Weighted External Comparison Sample
One limitation of previous analyses is that it is unclear how the mean levels of motivation
compare to a larger and more representative sample beyond the school in which the study
took place. To redress this, a weighted external comparison sample (described above) was
incorporated into analyses. Mean levels of motivation for this comparison sample are
presented in Table 3. To test for differences between this comparison sample and pre- and
post-testing for the treatment group, a series of one-sample t-tests were carried out. This
procedure compared the treatment group’s mean score for each dimension of motivation with
the weighted comparison’s mean score on the same dimension. The one-sample procedure
was the analysis of choice because pooling the weighted comparison data (N=3,381) with the
treatment group’s data (thereby enabling independent sample t-tests) would substantially
distort any tests of statistical significance. Moreover, matching samples to enable paired
samples t-tests would require a level of subjectivity that would call into question the validity
of the findings. Findings of the one-sample t-tests and associated effect sizes are presented in
Table 4. Table 4 shows that at pre-testing the treatment group was not significantly different
from the weighted comparison sample. Taken together, these findings show that at the outset
of the intervention, the treatment group was not significantly different from the weighted
comparison sample.
By post-testing, however, significant differences in motivation and engagement had
emerged such that the treatment group was more motivated than the comparison sample.
Specifically, by the end of the intervention, the treatment group scored significantly higher
than the weighted comparison archive sample on valuing, mastery orientation, planning, task
management, and persistence. Moreover, by the end of the intervention, the treatment group
scored significantly lower than the weighted comparison group on failure avoidance and
uncertain control. In terms of self-handicapping, the gap between the treatment group and the
comparative sample had widened, with the treatment markedly lower in self-handicapping
scores. Effect sizes ranged from medium to large, with a number of effect sizes in the large
range (planning, task management, and self-handicapping). Taken together, these findings
also attest to the positive effects of the intervention on students’ academic motivation and
engagement.
Tests on Non-Target Measures
A further test of the effects of the intervention is to assess for shifts on non-target measures.
If the intervention is targeted to specific facets of motivation and engagement then it should
not yield significant interaction effects on non-target measures. Indeed, this is a test of
whether mere participation in any program, rather than the program per se, accounts for gains
in educational outcomes. If there are not significant interaction effects on non-target
measures and there are significant interaction effects on target measures, this lends further
support to the validity of the intervention.
Accordingly a series of 2 (treatment/control) x 2 (Pre/Post) ANOVAs with repeated
measures on the second factor was conducted on four other educational constructs:
educational aspirations, class participation, enjoyment of school, and academic resilience.
Although not central to the specific research question posed here, there were two significant
main effects found (not qualified by an interaction): for class participation, F(1,51)=6.12,
p<0.05 (pre-test<post-test; effect size = .20) and enjoyment, F(1,51)=6.90, p<0.05 (pre-
test<post-test; effect size = .29). However, of particular interest was the interaction effect that
would indicate the treatment group’s shift on the non-target measures relative to the control
group. At the p < 0.05 level, no significant interaction effect was found for class
participation, F(1,51) = 2.54, p = ns, enjoyment of school, F(1,51) = 3.81, p = ns, and
educational aspirations, F(1,51) = 1.69, p = ns. There was a significant interaction found for
academic resilience, F(1,51) = 6.56, p < 0.05 such that the treatment group made significant
gains between pre- and post-testing (effect size = .62 ) while the control group remained
relatively unchanged. Interestingly, previous research by Martin and Marsh (2006) has
shown that academic resilience comprises five key facets of the Wheel (self-efficacy,
persistence, planning, low anxiety, and low uncertain control) and it may be that the present
intervention targeting these key facets, accounts for the significant effects for academic
resilience. However, taken together, and in consideration of previous research into academic
resilience, the hypothesis that the intervention should yield generally non-significant
interaction effects on non-target measures is upheld.
Discussion
The present study sought to investigate the effects of a multidimensional educational
intervention program on high school students’ motivation and engagement. Using a pre/post,
treatment/control group design, the present study found that the intervention brought about
significant shifts in motivation and engagement. Specifically, findings showed that the
treatment group made positive motivation shifts on target dimensions including task
management, persistence, anxiety, failure avoidance, and uncertain control. Moreover,
against a large weighted comparison group, the treatment group made positive shifts on
valuing, mastery orientation, planning, task management, persistence, failure avoidance,
uncertain control, and self-handicapping. Taken together, these findings attest to the potential
for multidimensional intervention for enhancing students’ motivation and engagement.
Significance of Findings
The findings are significant for a number of reasons. Firstly, they show that targeted and
multidimensional intervention yields significant effects particular to the parallel domains
under assessment. Previous research shows that targeted intervention is more effective than
intervention that does not focus on specific target behaviors (Martin, 2005; Weisz, Weiss,
Han, Granger, & Morton, 1995) and so it is proposed that educational programs seeking to
build specific academic skills and competencies need to provide targeted support that can do
this. Indeed, multidimensional interventions are one means of achieving this. Moreover, it is
encouraging that the key intervention components can be embedded into an existing school
term and yield effects specific to its focus. This suggests that it is not necessary to develop
programs independent of the school and curriculum but that opportunities can be sought to
embed intervention into the ‘ordinary course of business’.
Second, the findings reflect and confirm research into the elements of programs that
work. For example, in terms of the motivation intervention, the intervention involved the
following elements that research has found to underpin effective intervention and strategy:
empirically-derived intervention methodology; multidimensional educational cognition,
affect, and behavior; research-based risk (impeding and maladaptive dimensions) and
protective factors (adaptive dimensions); established practices that nurture optimal youth
development; use of interpersonally-skilled staff (teachers well known to the students); and,
incorporation of evidence-based programming (see Dryfoos, 1990; Lerner & Galambos,
2002; Nation et al., 2003, Weissberg et al., 2003).
A third reason the findings are significant is because they provide support for a multi-
dimensional conceptualization and application of motivation and engagement, show how
multidimensional intervention can address a diversity of motivation and engagement factors,
and demonstrate what particular dimensions of these are most influenced by intervention
work. This is in line with previous research (e.g., see Marsh & Craven, 1997; Marsh et al., in
press) that argues for a construct validity approach to interventions in which the specific
dimensions of self-concept and motivation most relevant to the intervention should be most
affected, whilst less relevant dimensions should be less affected and should serve as a control
for response biases. Taken together, then, the present findings support the usefulness of a
multidimensional perspective of intervention.
Fourth, the gains made are significant because the intervention period represents a
significant proportion of the academic term for students. Over this time they are subjected to
a diversity of academic pressures and challenges. In the context of this, the findings can be
considered robust in the face of students’ demanding academic lives. Related to this, findings
are also important because they provide some insight into the intervention in the context of a
large comparison sample matched in terms of age, year level and gender. Because the effect
was demonstrated in the context of both a control group and a large representative weighted
sample of comparable students, it is reasonable to conclude that they are robust.

Limitations and Future Directions
The present study provides a number of important insights into a form of educational
intervention that is multidimensional and embedded within the school curriculum, and also
the impact such a program can have on motivation and engagement outcomes.
Notwithstanding this, there are some aspects of the study that require qualification and which
provide direction for future research.
It may be that a Hawthorne Effect can account for part of the gains observed. That is,
simply being part of any new program and participating in the motivation intervention
prompted students to operate in more motivated ways and perhaps to inflate their self-reports
of motivation and engagement. The present study addressed this issue by assessing non-
target measures (class participation, educational aspirations, enjoyment of school, and
academic resilience) on which the intervention should have relatively less effect. The
rationale for inclusion of these measures was that if a significant group by time interaction
were not obtained, this would indicate against the possibility that mere participation rather
than the intervention per se has yielded effects. It was found that on three of the four
measures, no such interaction effect was found. It was concluded that the intervention
yielded effects specific to the key motivation facets it targeted and yielded little or no effect
on non-target measures.
It must also be recognized that at the descriptive level, pre-test scores for the control
group reflected greater mean levels of motivation and engagement than the treatment group.
It is therefore possible that the control group had little room to move, whereas the treatment
group had scope for positive shifts and/or a return to the population mean simply by dint of
their lower pre-test scores. Two points are made in relation to this. First, although mean
levels differed at the descriptive level, preliminary t-tests of pre-test differences between
treatment and control groups yielded no significant effects and MANOVA on pre-test
measures yielded no significant difference between covariance matrices. Second, it is
important to recognize that the treatment group made gains over and above mean level scores
for the large and representative weighted comparison group. Hence, if treatment gains were
simply a result of a return to the population mean, they would not reflect significant gains
relative to a comparison sample that more closely reflects that population mean.
It might also be possible that these gains were a function of participants’ expectations,
practice effects, or their propensity to be ‘test savvy’. They were aware of the purpose of the
intervention and may have been motivated to give the ‘right’ answers. Although this is
possible, it is contended that it is unlikely to be the case for two reasons. First, as a general
rule gains were not made where they should not have been made. That is, on the non-target
measures, no significant gains were made by the treatment group relative to the control
group. If students were simply responding in a socially desirable fashion, non-target items
would have yielded gains as well. Second, students are unlikely to have remembered
precisely how they responded to the instrument at pre-testing many weeks earlier. Taken
together, the findings and design reduce the likelihood of social desirability bias.
There is also the possibility of diffusion effects (Cook & Campbell, 1979; Craven et
al., 2001; Good & Brophy, 1974; Plewis & Hurry, 1998). These occur when direct or indirect
interaction between treatment and control groups invalidates comparisons between them. For
example, this can occur through the control group learning about information intended for the
others. Or, it can occur when the control group is aware that the treatment group is receiving
an intervention, and can result in what Cook and Campbell (1979) refer to as resentful
demoralization, in which the control group gives up, stops trying, or otherwise negatively
reacts to the benefits of the intervention being denied them. Both possibilities are considered
unlikely because on many of the key measures the control group was predominantly
unchanged by post-testing. Moreover, the presence of an external weighted comparison
group provided a control for any possible diffusion or leakage effects of the intervention.
It must be recognized that the participating students were selected on the basis of their
relatively lower motivation and engagement and so may have been in a potentially ready
state, or ready to make changes in their lives. Given this, the findings may have been due
primarily to students being in a potential state of readiness or need to change. Research into
the transtheoretical model of change (Prochaska, DiClemente, & Norcross, 1992; Prochaska
& Marcus, 1994) shows that the more individuals are ready to change, the more likely that
change will take place. It is unclear, then, to what extent change would occur with students
less ready to change. Future research needs to explore this. However, it may also be that one
benefit of motivation and engagement intervention is fast-tracking students’ readiness to
change.
It is important to note that the data presented in this study are all self-reported.
Although this is a logical and defensible methodology in its own right given the substantive
psychological focus, it is important to conduct research that examines the same constructs
using data derived from additional sources such as, for example, that from teachers and
parents. Furthermore, data were collected at pre- and post-test only and so the duration of
treatment effects is unclear. Although previous intervention work revolving around the
Wheel demonstrated sustained gains after a three-month follow-up (Martin, 2005), there is a
need to conduct such work in the context of the present intervention program.
It is recognized that the sample for this study was not large, and so the extent to which
it is representative of the larger student population is unclear. It must be noted, however, that
intervention research—particularly intensive and extended interventions such as the present
intervention— typically does not involve large numbers, and so this sample is not unusually
small in this context. Moreover, the students selected for the program were students who
could be more engaged or who could perform better. This type of student represents quite a
large slice of the student population (Vinson, 2002) and so even the relatively small size of
the present sample can be seen to reflect motivation in a significant proportion of the student
body. Furthermore, the inclusion of a large weighted external comparison sample provided
an important and valid context in which to explore the motivational gains observed.
Finally, a more powerful test of the effectiveness of the intervention would be to assess
the link between these results and later academic achievement. Unfortunately, no
achievement data were available in the present study and future research would do well to
extend the data collection to incorporate ‘objective’ measures of performance such as
achievement scores. It is contended that changes in motivation are likely to lead to changes in
achievement—for example, Martin (2001) found that facets of the Wheel are significantly
correlated with mathematics and English achievement. However, this needs to be tested in
the context of an intervention that brings about changes in motivation and engagement and
the subsequent impact this might have on academic gains or declines. Whilst it is tempting to
infer that gains in motivation will necessarily lead to gains in achievement, the onus is on the
researcher to demonstrate this using achievement data.
Conclusion
The present study sought to explore the effects on students’ academic motivation and
engagement of a multidimensional educational intervention. Relative to a control group and a
large weighted comparison sample, the data showed gains for a treatment group on key facets
of motivation over the course of the intervention. Key elements of the program that are
proposed to have contributed to the gains include key targets of motivation and engagement;
empirically-derived intervention methodology; multidimensional educational cognition,
affect, and behavior (the eleven facets of the Wheel); research-based risk (impeding and
maladaptive dimensions) and protective factors (adaptive dimensions); established practices

that nurture optimal youth development; use of interpersonally-skilled staff; and,
incorporation of evidence-based programming. Taken together, these findings hold practical
implications for program developers seeking to enhance key facets of students’ academic
motivation and engagement, as well as implications for researchers seeking to assess the
impact of programmatic interventions on academic outcomes.

References
Anderman, E.A., & Maehr, M.L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades.
Review of Educational Research, 64, 287-310.
Atkinson, J.W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking. Psychological Review, 64,
359-372.
Ausubel, D.P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of
meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 267-272.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman & Co.
Beck, A.T. (1995). Cognitive therapy: Basics and beyond. New York: Guilford.
Becker, B.E., & Luthar, S.S. (2002). Social-emotional factors affecting achievement
outcomes among disadvantaged students: Closing the achievement gap. Educational
Psychologist, 37, 197-214.
Bong, M. (1996). Problems in academic motivation research and advantages and
disadvantages of their solutions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 149-165.
Buss, D.W., & Cantor, N. (1989). Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging
directions. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Collins, C., Kenway, J., & McLeod, J. (2000). Factors influencing the educational
performance of males and females in school and their initial destinations after leaving
school. Canberra: DETYA.
Connell, J.P. (1985). A new multidimensional measure of children’s perceptions of control.
Child Development, 56, 1018-1041.
Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation. Design and analysis issues
for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Covington, M.V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and
school reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Covington, M.V. (1998). The will to learn: A guide for motivating young people. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Covington, M.V., & Omelich, C.L. (1991). Need achievement revisited: Verification of
Atkinson’s original 2 x 2 model. In C.D. Spielberger., I.G. Sarason., Z. Kulcsar., &
G.L. Van Heck. (Eds.). Stress and emotion Vol 14. New York, NY: Hemisphere.
Craven, R.G., Marsh, H.W., & Debus, R.L. (1991). Effects of internally focused feedback
and attributional feedback on the enhancement of academic self-concept. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 83, 17-26.
Craven, R.G., Marsh, H.W., Debus, R.L., & Jayasinghe, U. (2001). Diffusion effects: Control
group contamination threats to validity of teacher-administered interventions. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 93, 639-645.
Dandy, J., & Nettelbeck, T. (2000). The model student? An investigation of Chinese
Australian students' academic achievement, studying, and causal attributions for
academic success and failure. Australian Psychologist, 35, 208-215.
Dobson, K., & Dozois, D. (2001). Historical and philosophical bases of cognitive-behavioral
therapies. In K. Dobson (Ed.). Handbook of cognitive-behavioral therapies (pp. 3-39).
New York: Guilford.
Dryfoos, J.G. (1990). Adolescents at risk: Prevalence and prevention. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41,
1040-1048.
Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. Spence (Ed).
Achievement and achievement motivation. San Francisco: Freeman.
Goldstein, H. (2003). Multilevel Statistical Models (3rd ed.). London: Hodder Arnold.
Good, T.L., & Brophy, J.E. (1974). Changing teacher and student behavior: An empirical
investigation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 390-405.
Greeno, J. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist,
53, 5-26.
Hattie, J. (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hox, J. (1995). Applied multilevel analysis. Amsterdam: TT Publikaties.
Jöreskog, K.G. & Sörbom, D. (2003). LISREL 8.54. Scientific Software International.
Kelly, J.A., & Hansen, D.J. (1987). Social interactions and adjustment. In V.B. Can Hasselt
& M. Hersen (Eds.). Handbook of adolescent psychology. (pp. 131-146). New York:
Pergamon Press.
Kreft, I., & De Leeuw, J. D. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Lerner, R.M., & Galambos, N.L. (1998). Adolescent development: Challenges and
opportunities for research, programs, and policies. Annual Review of Psychology, 49,
413-446.
MacDonald, A., Saunders, L., & Benfield, P. (1999). Boys’ achievement progress, motivation
and participation: Issues raised by the recent literature. Slough UK: National
Foundation for Educational Research.
Marsh, H.W. (1990). A multidimensional, hierarchical model of self-concept: Theoretical
and empirical justification. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 77-172.
Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. (1997). Academic self-concept: Beyond the dustbowl. In G.
Phye (Ed.), Handbook of classroom assessment: Learning, achievement, and
adjustment (pp. 131-198). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., & Martin, A.J. (in press). What is the nature of self-esteem?
Unidimensional and multidimensional perspectives. In M. Kernis (Ed). Self-esteem:
Issues and Answers. Psychology Press: New York, NY.
Martin, A.J. (2001). The Student Motivation Scale: A tool for measuring and enhancing
motivation. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 11, 1-20.
Martin, A.J. (2002). Motivation and academic resilience: Developing a model of student
enhancement. Australian Journal of Education, 46, 34-49.
Martin, A.J. (2003a). Boys and motivation: Contrasts and comparisons with girls’ approaches
to schoolwork. Australian Educational Researcher, 30, 43-65.
Martin, A.J. (2003b). Enhancing the educational outcomes of boys: Findings from the A.C.T
investigation into boys’ education. Youth Studies Australia, 22, 27-36.
Martin, A.J. (2003c). How to motivate your child for school and beyond. Sydney: Bantam.
Martin, A.J. (2003d). The Student Motivation Scale: Further testing of an instrument that
measures school students’ motivation. Australian Journal of Education, 47, 88-106.
Martin, A.J. (2004). School motivation of boys and girls: Differences of degree, differences
of kind, or both? Australian Journal of Psychology, 56, 133-146.
Martin, A.J. (2005). Exploring the effects of a youth enrichment program on academic
motivation and engagement. Social Psychology of Education, 8, 179-206.
Martin, A.J. (2006). The Motivation and Engagement Scale. Sydney, Australia: Lifelong
Achievement Group.
Martin, A.J. (in press). Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and
engagement using a construct validation approach. British Journal of Educational
Psychology.
Martin, A.J., & Marsh, H.W. (2005). Motivating boys and motivating girls: Does teacher
gender really make a difference? Australian Journal of Education, 49, 320-334.

Martin, A.J., & Marsh, H.W. (2006). Academic resilience and its psychological and
educational correlates: A construct validity approach. Psychology in the Schools, 43,
267-282.
Martin, A.J., Marsh, H.W., & Debus, R. L. (2001a). A quadripolar need achievement
representation of self-handicapping and defensive pessimism. American Educational
Research Journal, 38, 583-610.
Martin, A.J., Marsh, H.W., & Debus, R.L. (2001b). Self-handicapping and defensive
pessimism: Exploring a model of predictors and outcomes from a self-protection
perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 87-102.
Martin, A.J., Marsh, H.W., & Debus, R.L. (2003). Self-handicapping and defensive
pessimism: A model of self-protection from a longitudinal perspective. Contemporary
McClelland, D.C. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. American Psychologist, 20,
321-333.
McInerney, V., McInerney, D.M., & Marsh, H.W. (1997). Effects of metacognitive strategy
training within a cooperative group learning context on computer achievement and
anxiety: An aptitude-treatment interaction study. Journal of Educational Psychology,
89, 686-695.
Meece, J.L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J.S. (1990). Predictors of mathematics anxiety and its
influence on young adolescents’ course enrolment intentions and performance in
mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 60-70.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M., Hicks, L., Roesser, R., Urdan, T., Anderman, E., Kaplan, A.,
Arunkumar., & Middleton, M. (1997). Patterns of Adaptive Learning (PALS). Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

Miller, R.B., Greene, B.A., Montalvo, G.P., Ravindran, B., & Nicholls, J.D. (1996).
Engagement in academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences,
pleasing others, and perceived ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 388-
422.
Miserandino, M. (1996). Children who do well in school: Individual differences in perceived
competence and autonomy in above-average children. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 88, 203-214.
Murphy, P.K., & Alexander, P.A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation
terminology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 3-53.
Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K.L., Seybolt, D., Morrisey-Kane, E., &
Davino, K. (2003). What works in prevention: Principles of effective prevention
programs. American Psychologist, 58, 449-456.
Nicholls, J.G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
O’Mara, A. J., Marsh H. W., Craven, R. G., & Debus, R. (2006). Do self-concept
interventions make a difference? A synergistic blend of construct validation and meta-
analysis. Educational Psychologist, 41, 181-206.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD; 2001). Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA) in brief: Highlights from the full Australian
report. Melbourne: ACER.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in achievement settings. Review of Educational
Research. 66, 543-578.
Pintrich, P.R. (2000). Educational psychology at the millennium: A look back and a look
forward. Educational Psychologist, 35, 221-226.

Pintrich, P.R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667-686.
Pintrich, P.R., & DeGroot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of
classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.
Pintrich, P.R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college
classroom. In M. Maehr & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.). Advances in motivation and
achievement: Goals and self-regulatory processes (Vol. 7 pp. 371-402). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A.F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W.J. (1991). A manual for the use of
the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (1991). Ann Arbor, MI:
National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
Plewis, I., & Hurry, J. (1998). A multilevel perspective on the design and analysis of
intervention studies. Educational Research and Evaluation, 4, 13-26.
Prochaska, J. O., & Marcus, B. H. (1994). The transtheoretical model: Application to
Exercise. In R. K. Dishman (Ed.), Advances in exercise adherence (pp. 161–180).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C.C., & Norcross, J. C. (1992). In search of how people
change: Applications to addictive behaviors. American Psychologist, 47, 1102-1114 .
Qin, Z., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and
problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 65, 129-144.
Rasbash, J., Steele, F., Browne, W., & Prosser, B. (2004). A user's guide to MLwiN version
2.0. London Institute of Education.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and
data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Reinecke, MA., & Clark, D.A. (2004). Cognitive therapy across the lifespan: Conceptual
horizons. In M.A. Reinecke & D.A. Clark (Eds). Cognitive therapy across the lifespan
(pp. 1-11). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rowe, K.J., & Rowe, K.S. (1999). Investigating the relationship between students’ attentive-
inattentive behaviours in the classroom and their literacy progress. International
Journal of Educational Research, 31, 1-138.
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Sarason, I.G., & Sarason, B.R. (1990). Test anxiety. In H. Leitenberg (Ed). Handbook of
social and evaluation anxiety. (pp. 475-495). New York: Plenum Press.
Schunk, D.H. (1990). Introduction to the special section on motivation and efficacy. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 82, 3-6.
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and
advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage Publications.
Spelke, E.S. (2005). Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science? A
critical review. American Psychologist, 60, 950-958.
Spielberger, C.D. (1985). Assessment of state and trait anxiety: Conceptual and
methodological issues. Southern Psychologist, 2, 6-16.
Stokes, D. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Teven, J.J., & McCroskey, J.C. (1997). The relationship of perceived teacher caring with
student learning and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 46, 1-9.
Vinson, T. (2002). Inquiry into the provision of public education in New South Wales.
Sydney: Pluto Press.

Walker, J.C. (1988). The way men act: Dominant and subordinate male cultures in an inner-
city school. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 9, 3-18.
Weaver-Hightower, M. (2003). The ‘boy turn’ in research on gender and education. Review
of Educational Research, 73, 471-498.
Weiner, B. (1994). Integrating social and personal theories of achievement striving. Review
of Educational Research, 64, 557-573.
Weissberg, R.P., Kumpfer, K.L., & Seligman, M.E.P. (2003). Prevention that works for
children and youth: An introduction. American Psychologist, 58, 425-432.
Weisz, J. R., Weiss, B., Han, S. S., Granger, D. A., & Morton, T. (1995). Effects of
psychotherapy with children and adolescents revisited: A meta-analysis of treatment
outcome studies. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 450–468.
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental
perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 49-78.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J.S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A
theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265-310.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J.S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of motivation. Contemporary
Wigfield, A., & Tonks, S. (2002). Adolescents’ expectancies for success and achievement
task values during middle and high school years. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.).
Academic motivation of adolescents. Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.
Zimmerman, B.J. (2002). Achieving self-regulation: The trial and triumph of adolescence. In
F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds). Academic motivation of adolescents. Connecticut:
Information Age Publishing.

Footnote 1
The MES-HS was formerly known as the Student Motivation Scale and then the Student
Motivation and Engagement Scale. It was renamed to reflect the recent extensions of the
Wheel and its instrumentation to the suite of parallel instruments encompassing junior
(elementary/primary) school (Motivation and Engagement Scale – Junior School; MES-JS),
university/college (Motivation and Engagement Scale – University/College; MES-UC), the
workplace (Motivation and Engagement Scale – Work; MES-W), sport (Motivation and
Engagement Scale – Sport; MES-S), and music (Motivation and Engagement Scale – Music;
MES-M).
ADAPTIVE ADAPTIVE
COGNITIONS BEHAVIORS
Persistence
Valuing
Mastery
orientation Planning
Self- Task
efficacy management Decline in
adaptive
motivation and
engagement
Anxiety
Disengagement
Failure
avoidance
Self-
Uncertain
handicapping
control
MALADAPTIVE IMPEDING/MALADAPTIVE
BEHAVIORS COGNITIONS
Further decline in
motivation and
engagement
Figure 1. The Motivation and Engagement Wheel—adapted from Martin (in press).
Table 1
Principles Guiding the Design of the Intervention Study
Guidelines for Intervention Studies1 Present Study’s Compliance with Guidelines

Using multidimensional instruments to assess The Motivation and Engagement Scale – High School
diverse dimensions of educational constructs (MES-HS) measured 11 dimensions of motivation and
engagement
Intervening at the appropriate level (eg. individual Prior multilevel (or hierarchical linear) modeling
student level, whole-class level, whole-school conducted to determine that individual student-level
level) accounts for a bulk of variance in motivation and
engagement
Demonstrating reliability for the target samples Cronbach’s alphas and test-retest reliabilities employed
(not simply relying on reliability from test for Pre-test, Post-test, and large weighted external
manuals and the like) comparison sample
Demonstrating construct validity using Large weighted external comparison sample of sufficient
confirmatory factor analysis (where sample size size to conduct CFA—demonstrated good fit to the data
permits)
Providing meaningful feedback to participants Upon completion of each module, participants have work
throughout the intervention signed off and commented on by Teachers
Focusing the intervention on specific and targeted Intervention focused solely on facets of the Wheel
facets of the educational phenomena under study
Measuring these specific facets The MES-HS assessed each facet of the Wheel
Including non-target measures to test for the Additional educational measures (educational aspirations,
discriminant validity of the intervention enjoyment of school, class participation, academic
resilience) included, not targeted in intervention
Including an external comparison sample to Large weighted external comparison sample included
control for diffusion or leakage effects
Demonstrating that the treatment group is not Predominantly, treatment group not significantly different
significantly different from the control group or from control group or large weighted comparison group at
the external comparison at the outset outset
Using a longitudinal design Pre- and Post-testing conducted
Embedding the intervention in an ecologically Intervention conducted as part of curriculum and
natural environment and supported by administered by teachers/tutors
ecologically natural agents so that the intervention
involves the environment and agents with the
most practical relevance to participants
1. See Cook & Campbell, 1979; Craven, Marsh, Debus, & Jayasinghe, 2001; Good & Brophy, 1974; Hattie,
1992; Plewis & Hurry, 1998
Table 2
Distributional and Reliability Statistics for (a) Intervention and Control Students and (b) Comparison Sample
Distributional Data Internal Consistency Reliability Test-Retest

Reliability
Time 1 Time 2 Comparison Time 1 Time 2 Comparison T1-T2
Skew Kurtosis Skew Kurtosis Skew Kurtosis Cronbach’s α Cronbach’s α Cronbach’s α Correlation
ADAPTIVE
Self-efficacy -.73 .71 -.98 1.56 -.90 1.20 .81 .81 .77 .69
Valuing -.35 -.31 -.38 -.17 -1.01 1.50 .68 .62 .75 .65
Mastery orientation -1.56 3.53 -1.60 3.89 -.95 1.31 .87 .86 .80 .78
Planning -.27 -.77 -.16 -.50 -.22 -.32 .81 .83 .79 .62
Task management -.65 -.01 -.08 -.45 -.43 -.28 .77 .75 .82 .75
Persistence -.93 1.90 -1.04 1.59 -.53 .22 .87 .87 .81 .61
IMPEDING/MAL
Anxiety -.13 -.21 -.09 -.69 -.15 -.47 .76 .84 .74 .78
Failure avoidance .16 -.30 .61 .27 .34 -.48 .76 .87 .76 .81
Uncertain control .39 -.64 .18 -.99 .09 -.66 .86 .84 .80 .76
MALADAPTIVE
Self-handicapping .64 -.62 .82 .49 .44 -.57 .87 .82 .81 .73
Disengagement 1.33 1.44 1.89 5.47 .84 .28 .87 .86 .81 .80
Note: ‘Time 1’ and ‘Time 2’ relate to the Intervention and Control students and ‘Comparison’ relates to the larger weighted comparison sample
Table 3
Pre and Post Treatment and Control Group Means and SDs and Weighted External
Comparison Data
Treatment Control Comparison1

Pre Post Pre Post
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
ADAPTIVE
Self-efficacy 82 (11) 84 (11) 87 (11) 88 (09) 81 (14)
Valuing 81 (10) 84 (09) 88 (08) 85 (09) 79 (14)
Mastery orientation 84 (14) 87 (13) 86 (13) 87 (09) 82 (13)
Planning 59 (16) 69 (13) 67 (16) 72 (14) 59 (18)
Task management 70 (16) 76 (11) 77 (13) 78 (11) 67 (18)
Persistence 69 (12) 74 (11) 77 (13) 74 (11) 69 (15)
IMPEDING/MALADAPT
Anxiety 62 (17) 54 (19) 62 (18) 62 (15) 59 (18)
Failure avoidance 46 (19) 40 (20) 43 (14) 42 (13) 47 (19)
Uncertain control 54 (20) 45 (14) 44 (17) 43 (17) 50 (18)
MALADAPTIVE
Self-handicapping 36 (14) 33 (10) 31 (16) 32 (14) 42 (19)
Disengagement 36 (18) 33 (17) 28 (15) 27 (11) 37 (18)
1. Weighted External Comparison is weighted sample of n = 3,381 Australian high school boys
Table 4
Tests for Repeated Measures Effects and Differences Between Treatment Group and a Weighted External Comparison Sample
Pre Test–Post Test Pre Test–Post Test Treatment Group Pre Test– Treatment Group Post Test–
Main Repeated Measures Effect Repeated Measures x Group Weighted Comparison Weighted Comparison
Effect Difference1 Difference1
Effect Effect Effect Effect
F (df) (Effect Size) F (df) (Effect Size) t (df) (Effect Size) t (df) (Effect Size)
ADAPTIVE
Self-efficacy 1.91 (1,51) ns .20 (1,51) ns .22 (25) ns 1.22 (25) ns
Valuing .06 (1,51) ns 7.34 (1,51)** See Figure 2a .97 (25) ns 2.80 (25)** Treat> Compar (.43)
Mastery orientation 3.82 (1,51) ns 1.59 (1,51) ns .55 (25) ns 2.03 (25)* Treat> Compar (.39)
Planning 16.68 (1,51)*** Pre < Post (.69) 2.36 (1,51) ns .07 (25) ns 4.11 (25)*** Treat> Compar (.64)
Task management 7.16 (1,51)* Qualified by interaction 3.10 (1,51) See Figure 2b .92 (25) ns 3.83 (25)*** Treat> Compar (.60)
Persistence .63 (1,51) ns 5.59 (1,51)** See Figure 2c .10 (25) ns 2.30 (25)* Treat> Compar (.38)
IMPEDING/MAL
Anxiety 7.97 (1,51)** Qualified by interaction 9.29 (1,51)** See Figure 2d 1.00 (25) ns -1.43 (25) ns
Failure avoidance 4.95 (1,51)* Qualified by interaction 2.77 (1,51) See Figure 2e -.30 (25) ns -1.70 (25) Treat< Compar (.36)
Uncertain control 9.39 (1,51)** Qualified by interaction 5.14 (1,51)* See Figure 2f .93 (25) ns -1.86 (25) Treat< Compar (.31)
MALADAPTIVE
Self-handicapping .48 (1,51) ns 2.08 (1,51) ns -1.98 (25) ns -4.35 (25)*** Treat< Compar (.59)
Disengagement 1.75 (1,51) ns .43 (1,51) ns -.37 (25) ns -1.19 (25) ns
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001 ns = not statistically significant
Note that for repeated measures analyses, Bonferroni correction would render p < 0.005 as the revised significance level
Note that for the one-sample t-tests, Bonferroni correction would render p < 0.002 as the revised significance level
1. Weighted External Comparison is weighted sample of n = 3,381 Australian high school boys
90 85
85 80
Mean/100
Mean/100
Treatment Treatment
80 75
Control Control
75 70
70 65
Pre Post Pre Post
Time Time
Figure 2a. Pre/Post x Treat/Cont interaction on Figure 2b. Pre/Post x Treat/Cont interaction on
VALUING TASK MANAGEMENT

Treatment Pre/Post Effect Size = .32 Treatment Pre/Post Effect Size = .44
Control Pre/Post Effect Size = .35 Control Pre/Post Effect Size = .08
85 70
80 65
Mean/100
Mean/100
Treatment Treatment
75 60
Control Control
70 55
65 50
Pre Post Pre Post
Time Time
Figure 2c. Pre/Post x Treat/Cont interaction on Figure 2d. Pre/Post x Treat/Cont interaction on
PERSISTENCE ANXIETY
Control Pre/Post Effect Size = .25 Control Pre/Post Effect Size = NA
55 60
50 55
Mean/100
Mean/100
Treatment Treatment
45 50
Control Control
40 45
35 40
Pre Post Pre Post
Time Time
Figure 2e. Pre/Post x Treat/Cont interaction on Figure 2f. Pre/Post x Treat/Cont interaction on
FAILURE AVOIDANCE UNCERTAIN CONTROL

Control Pre/Post Effect Size = .07 Control Pre/Post Effect Size = .06
Appendix
Intervention Modules and Component Summary
PROGRAM
MODULE COMPONENTS 1 TO 4
1. Prepare—Define factor, general rules, advance organizer for Module
MODULE 1. 2. Generate—
Self-efficacy a. Challenging negative thinking
b. Identifying ways to build more success into one’s schoolwork
c. Identify one’s academic strengths and talents
3. Reflect—Identifying important messages, how to apply them, and rating one’s confidence
in applying messages
4. Closure—Revisiting important strategies and having work signed off by oneself and
one’s parent/teacher
Valuing a. Linking school to the world
b. Linking school to one’s life
c. Skills learnt in school
Mastery orientation a. Achieving Personal Bests (PBs)
b. Developing active learning
c. Changing the reasons for learning
Planning a. Planning what to do and how to do it
b. Understanding what one is asked to do
c. Monitoring progress
Task management a. Working under good study conditions
b. Using one’s time better
c. Developing a weekly study timetable
Persistence a. Breaking work into more achievable components
b. Identifying the keys to previous times of persistence
c. Understanding previous times when persistence was a problem
Appendix. Intervention modules and component summary cont . . .
PROGRAM
Anxiety a. Relaxation techniques
b. Preparing for tests
c. Taking tests
Uncertain control a. Identifying reasons for past academic outcomes
b. Identifying which of these are within one’s control
c. Identifying ways to focus on these controllable reasons more
Failure avoidance a. Identifying the actions and thoughts that can deal with fear
b. Seeing mistakes as keys to improvement
c. Tackling ‘unhelpful’ reasons for learning
Self-handicapping a. Identifying examples of self-handicapping
b. Identifying reasons why one might self-handicap
c. Identifying strategies to tackle self-handicapping
Disengagement a. Identifying one’s own contribution in academic outcomes
b. Identifying past times at school when things were not so bad
c. Using this information to ‘glimpse’ the future
Appendix. Intervention modules and component summary cont . . .
PROGRAM
1. Identifying the lowest confidence rating in the ‘Reflect’ component across the eleven
MODULE 12. modules
Topping Up 2. Revisiting this module and refreshing major points
3. Identifying how these major points can be helpful
4. Identifying ways to apply these major points
5. Signing off—revisiting important strategies and having work signed off by oneself and
1. Identifying the highest confidence rating in the ‘Reflect’ component across the eleven
MODULE 13. modules
Finishing on a high 2. Revisiting this module and refreshing major points
note 3. Identifying how these major points can be helpful
4. Identifying ways to apply these major points
5. Signing off—revisiting important strategies and having work signed off by oneself and

10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.11.003.: Enhancing Student Motivation and Engagement 0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.11.003.: Enhancing Student Motivation and Engagement 0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Enhancing Student Motivation and Engagement 0

multidimensional intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 239-269. DOI:

Running Head: ENHANCING MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

Enhancing Student Motivation and Engagement:

The Effects of a Multidimensional Intervention*

Faculty of Education and Social Work

Enhancing Student Motivation and Engagement:

The Effects of a Multidimensional Intervention

The present study sought to investigate the effects of a multidimensional educational

intervention on high school students’ motivation and engagement. The intervention

incorporated: (a) multidimensional targets of motivation and engagement, (b) empirically-

positive motivation shifts on key dimensions including task management, persistence,

educational interventions for enhancing students’ motivation and engagement.

Enhancing Student Motivation and Engagement:

The Effects of a Multidimensional Intervention

Because they play such an important role in students’ academic achievement, it is

important to identify factors that contribute to motivation and engagement. Research

(Martin, 2003a, 2003b, 2004), and age (Martin, 2001, 2003d).

intervention programs on students’ academic motivation and engagement. Although many of

to its progression and application.

In response to recent calls for a more integrative approach to the study of

2003), the present study employs an intervention program that is shaped by a

multidimensional motivation and engagement framework and then assesses the

efficacy of this targeted intervention using a multidimensional instrument that directly

systematic ‘Prepare-Generate-Reflect-Closure’ procedure that is aimed at: (a)

providing an opportunity for the participant to reflect on key messages developed

having mentors sign off the module for that week.

A Multidimensional Perspective to Intervention Studies

It is the multidimensional nature of motivation and engagement that is a central

foundation for the framework, instrumentation, and intervention collected together in

specific dimensions of self-concept and motivation most relevant to the intervention

should serve as a control for response biases. In a meta-analysis of self-concept and

that, consistent with a multidimensional perspective on intervention, effect sizes were

(such as global self-esteem/motivation) were not very successful compared to studies

of the intervention. In summary, previous research supports the usefulness of a

multidimensional perspective of intervention and so it is this perspective that is a

foundation of the present study.

The Multidimensional Motivation and Engagement Framework Underpinning the

Motivational research is diverse and to varying degrees, is or can appear, fragmented

Greeno, 1998; Pintrich, 2000, 2003).

Motivation and Engagement Wheel to reflect an integrative framework for representing

counselors, psychologists) need to draw on the strengths of these dimensions within a

impeding/maladaptive cognitive dimensions, and maladaptive behavioral dimensions and (b)

purpose is further detailed below.

The Higher Order Level of the Wheel

fundamental dimensions of motivation and engagement. Martin’s (2001, 2003d, in press)

multidimensional concept of motivation that comprises adaptive, impeding, and maladaptive

cognitive and behavioral dimensions is reflected in these diverse lines of psychological

inquiry, including work by:

presented a cognitive view of motivation encompassing motivational orientations and

a behavioral component encompassing learning strategies;

individuals’ characteristic orientations and cognitions influence the behaviors they

use to negotiate demands in their environment;

cognitive behavioral approach to engagement, emphasizing that cognitive activity affects

and separating engagement into cognitive-affective and behavioral dimensions; and,

engagement—for example, self-efficacy reflects highly adaptive motivation (Bandura,

Spielberger, 1985), and behaviors such as self-handicapping reflect quite maladaptive

engagement (Martin et al., 2001a, 2001b, 2003).

Taken together, in consideration of the joint issues of motivational orientations, learning

dimensions, (b) adaptive behavioral dimensions, (c) impeding/maladaptive cognitive dimensions,

and (d) maladaptive behavioral dimensions.

The Operationalized Lower Order Level of the Wheel

parsimony, providing a unifying approach to seminal educational and psychological theory,