Motivation and Engagement Materials - Summary Document · PDF fileDocument includes...

Lifelong

© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com

MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT MATERIALS

Summary Document

Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance

Lifelong Achievement Group

2012

To Order Materials, visit:

www.lifelongachievement.com

© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance

http://www.lifelongachievement.com/

Document includes information on:

Motivation and Engagement Wheel

Motivation and Engagement Scale Suite

o Motivation and Engagement Scale – Junior (Elementary/Primary) School

o Motivation and Engagement Scale – High School

o Motivation and Engagement Scale – University/College

o Motivation and Engagement Scale – Sport

o Motivation and Engagement Scale – Music (incl. Performing/Creative Arts)

o Motivation and Engagement Scale – Work

Motivation and Engagement Scale Score Sheet

Motivation and Engagement Scale Profiling Sheet

Motivation and Engagement Workbooks

o Motivation and Engagement Workbook – Junior School

o Motivation and Engagement Workbook – High School

o Motivation and Engagement Workbook – University/College

Research using the motivation and engagement materials and concepts


Motivation and Engagement Wheel

Anxiety

Uncertaincontrol

Self-sabotage

Disengagement

Valuing school

Planning

Persistence

Self-belief

Learningfocus

Study management

Failure avoidance

ADAPTIVE COGNITIVE (BOOSTERS)

ADAPTIVE BEHAVIORAL (BOOSTERS)

IMPEDING COGNITIVE (MUFFLERS)

MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIORAL (GUZZLERS)


Motivation and Engagement Scale – High School (MES-HS)

Overview of MES-HS

The Motivation and Engagement Scale – High School (MES-HS) is an instrument that measures high

school students’ (12-18 years) motivation and engagement. It assesses motivation through three

adaptive cognitive dimensions (booster thoughts), three adaptive behavioral dimensions (booster

behaviors), three impeding/maladaptive cognitive dimensions (mufflers), and two maladaptive

behavioral dimensions (guzzlers) of motivation and engagement. Each of the eleven factors comprises

four items – hence it is a 44-item instrument. To each item, students rate themselves on a scale of 1

(‘Strongly Disagree’) to 7 (‘Strongly Agree’).

Motivation Scores

Each student’s answers to the four items on each motivation area are then aggregated and converted

to a raw score out of 100 and then to a norm score (Motivation Quotient Score – MQ Score – similar in

measurement to an IQ score) and a Grade between A and D. Hence, each student is assigned eleven

MQ scores and 11 Grades. MQs for the MES-HS are described more fully below.

Boosters

Each booster falls into one of two groups: thoughts and behaviors. Booster thoughts include self-belief

(or self-efficacy), learning focus (or mastery orientation), and valuing. Booster behaviors include

persistence, planning, and task management.

Self-belief (eg. "If I try hard, I believe I can do my schoolwork well") is students’ belief and confidence in

their ability to understand or to do well in their schoolwork, to meet challenges they face, and to perform

to the best of their ability.

Valuing school (eg. "Learning at school is important") is how much students believe what they learn at

school is useful, important, and relevant to them or to the world in general.

Learning focus (eg. "I feel very pleased with myself when I really understand what I’m taught at school")

is being focused on understanding, learning, solving problems, and developing skills.

Planning (eg. "Before I start an assignment I plan out how I am going to do it") is how much students

plan their schoolwork, assignments, and study and how much they keep track of their progress as they

are doing them.


Task (study) management (eg. “When I study, I usually study in places where I can concentrate”) refers

to the way students use their study time, organize their study timetable, and choose and arrange where

they study.

Persistence (eg. "If I can’t understand my schoolwork at first, I keep going over it until I understand it")

is how much students keep trying to work out an answer or to understand a problem even when that

problem is difficult or is challenging.

Mufflers

Mufflers are anxiety, failure avoidance, and uncertain control.

Anxiety (eg. "When exams and assignments are coming up, I worry a lot") has two parts: feeling

nervous and worrying. Feeling nervous is the uneasy or sick feeling students get when they think about

their schoolwork, assignments, or exams. Worrying is their fear about not doing very well in their

schoolwork, assignments, or exams.

Failure avoidance (eg. "Often the main reason I work at school is because I don’t want to disappoint my

parents") occurs when the main reason students do their schoolwork is to avoid doing poorly or to avoid

being seen to do poorly.

Uncertain control (eg. "I'm often unsure how I can avoid doing poorly at school") assesses students’

uncertainty about how to do well or how to avoid doing poorly.

Guzzlers

Guzzlers are self-sabotage (or self-handicapping) and disengagement.

Self-sabotage (eg. "I sometimes don’t study very hard before exams so I have an excuse if I don’t do as

well as I hoped") refers to students’ tendency to do things that reduce their chances of success at

school. Examples are putting off doing an assignment or wasting time while they are meant to be doing

their schoolwork or studying for an exam.

Disengagement (eg. "I often feel like giving up at school") assesses feelings and thoughts of giving up

in particular school subjects or school generally. Students high in disengagement tend to accept failure

and behave in ways that reflect helplessness.


Calculation of Global Scores

The eleven individual motivation scores can also be converted to four Global Scores that are the

average of booster thoughts, booster behaviors, mufflers, and guzzlers.

These Global Scores are computed by simply averaging the individual scores for each group of

factors.

Global Booster Thought Score

o Average of Self-belief, Valuing, and Learning Focus Scores

Global Booster Behavior Score

o Average of Planning, Task Management, and Persistence Scores

Global Muffler Score

o Average of Anxiety, Failure Avoidance, and Uncertain Control Scores

Global Guzzler Score

o Average of Self-sabotage and Disengagement Scores

MES Pack and Online Data Collection Service

The MES and associated forms and documentation are supplied in PDF format for printing and

distribution to respondents. There is also an Excel template to help clients in data entry of hard

copy survey responses. This is the MES Pack.

Lifelong Achievement Group also offers an MES online data collection service (see

www.lifelongachievement.com for information and ordering). Here, the client is sent a URL that is

a link to an online version of the MES. The client provides all intended respondents with this URL

to access the MES online. As respondents complete the survey, responses are stored by Lifelong

via the SurveyMonkey (www.surveymonkey.com) service. When all respondents have completed

the survey, the client contacts Lifelong and Lifelong then emails the dataset to the client in Excel

format. The client then processes and analyzes the data in the same way as they would if they had

collected and entered all hard copy surveys.

The MES Online Survey comprises the following items:

- Name (if required or relevant)

- ID number (if required or relevant)

- Gender

- Age



- Grade or year level

- Basic questions on school characteristics

- Basic questions on the respondent’s academic performance

- Basic questions about the respondent’s class and school engagement

- 44 MES items (4 items for each of the 11 parts of the Motivation and Engagement Wheel)

The MES Online Data Collection Service includes the MES Pack in the license.

MES-HS Psychometrics

Psychometric properties reported here are based on data collected from 21,579 high school students

from 58 schools (36 Government, 7 Systemic Catholic, and 15 Independent; 42 co-educational, 9

single-sex girls, 7 single-sex boys). Students were aged 12-13 years (31%), 14-15 years (36%), and

16-18 years (33%). The mean age of students was 14.52 (SD=1.57) years. Students were from Years

7 and 8 (35%), Years 9 and 10 (34%), and Years 11 and 12 (31%). In total, 55% of students were

males and 45% females. First order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using LISREL 8.80 yields an

excellent fit to the data (2=27,182.85, df=847, CFI=.98, RMSEA=.038), as does the higher order CFA

(2=35,315.47, df=886, CFI=.98, RMSEA=.042). The mean reliability (Cronbach’s ) for the 11

subscales is .79.

‘Normative’ MQ Scores

The raw scores on the Motivation and Engagement Scale can also be converted to ‘normative’ scores

referred to as MQ (Motivation Quotient) scores. MQs have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of

15 (like an IQ score). Using non-normalized MQs equates the means and standard deviations of the

different scores for each facet of motivation and engagement (but does not affect the shape of their

distributions). Subsequently, scores for each of the facets of motivation and engagement can then be

compared more meaningfully. Hence, converting scores to MQs has the advantage of placing each

booster, muffler, and guzzler on an approximately common metric. For example, using MQs we can say

that a student is higher on planning than self-belief if s/he scores 110 and 105 on planning and self-

belief respectively (even when in raw scores s/he scored lower on planning than self-belief).

Age-based MQs for boosters, mufflers, and guzzlers are presented in the Test User manual. They are

based on a ‘normative’ sample of 33,778 high school students from 92 Australian schools (48

Government/Systemic and 44 Independent schools; 63 co-educational, 15 single-sex girls, 14 single-

sex boys schools). Students were aged 12-13 years (32%), 14-15 years (39%), and 16-18 years (29%).

The mean age of students was 14.43 (SD=1.57) years. Students were from Years 7 and 8 (34%), Years

9 and 10 (38%), and Years 11 and 12 (28%). In total, 55% of students were males and 45% females. A

total of 15% of students were from a non-English speaking background. The MQs are separated into


early adolescence (12-13 years), mid adolescence (14-15 years), and late adolescence (16-18 years)

groupings.


Motivation and Engagement Scale – Junior School (MES-JS; Elementary/Primary School)

MES-JS Overview

The Motivation and Engagement Scale – Junior School (MES-JS) is an instrument that measures junior

(elementary/primary) school students’ (9-13 years) motivation and engagement. It assesses motivation

through three adaptive cognitive dimensions (booster thoughts), three adaptive behavioral dimensions

(booster behaviors), three impeding/maladaptive cognitive dimensions (mufflers), and two maladaptive




Motivation Scores


to a raw score out of 100 and then to a norm score (Motivation Quotient Score – MQ Score – similar in

measurement to an IQ score) and a Grade between A and D. Hence, each student is assigned eleven

MQ scores and 11 Grades. MQs for the MES-JS are described more fully below.

Boosters

Boosters are self-belief, learning focus, valuing of school, persistence, planning, and study

management.

Self-belief (eg. "If I try hard, I believe I can do my schoolwork well"): Self-belief is students’ belief and

confidence in their ability to understand or to do well in their schoolwork, to meet challenges they face,

and to perform to the best of their ability.

Valuing (school) (eg. "Learning at school is important"): Valuing (school) is how much students believe

what they learn at school is useful, important, and relevant to them or to the world in general. If

students value school they tend to believe that what they learn can be used in other parts of their life,

believe that it is important to learn at school, and feel that what they learn at school is relevant to

current events in the world.

Learning focus (eg. "I feel very happy with myself when I really understand what I’m taught at school"):

Learning focus is being focused on learning, solving problems, and developing skills. The goal of a

learning focus is to be the best student one can be. If students are learning focused they tend to work

hard, want to learn more, enjoy learning new things, enjoy solving problems by working hard, and do a

good job for its own satisfaction and not just for rewards.


Planning (eg. "Before I start a project I plan out how I am going to do it"): Planning is how much

students plan their schoolwork, assignments, and study and how much they keep track of their

progress as they are doing them.

Task (study) management (eg. “When I do homework, I usually do it where I can concentrate best”):

Task (study) management refers to the way students use their homework time, organise their

homework timetable, and choose and arrange where they do their schoolwork and homework.

Persistence (eg. "If I can’t understand my schoolwork, I keep trying until I do"): Persistence is how

much students keep trying to work out an answer or to understand a problem even when that problem

is difficult or is challenging. If students are persistent they tend to keep going over schoolwork until they

understand it, spend time trying to understand things that do not make sense straightaway, and keep

working at a task even when it is difficult.

Mufflers

Mufflers are anxiety, failure avoidance (fear of failure), and uncertain control.

Anxiety (eg. "When I have a project to do, I worry about it a lot"): Anxiety has two parts: feeling nervous

and worrying. Feeling nervous is the uneasy or sick feeling students get when they think about their

schoolwork, projects, or tests. Worrying is their fear about not doing very well in their schoolwork,

projects, or tests.

Failure avoidance (eg. "The main reason I try at school is because I don’t want to disappoint my

parents"): Students have an avoidance focus when the main reason they do their schoolwork is to

avoid doing poorly or to avoid being seen to do poorly. If students have an avoidance focus they tend to

do their schoolwork mainly to avoid getting bad marks, do their schoolwork mainly to avoid people

thinking they cannot do it, and do their schoolwork mainly because they do not want to disappoint their

parents or teachers.

Uncertain control (eg. "When I don’t do well at school I don’t know how to stop that happening next

time"): Students are uncertain in control when they are unsure about how to do well or how to avoid

doing poorly. If students are uncertain in control they can be at risk of helpless or disengagement at

school.

Guzzlers

Guzzlers are self-sabotage and disengagement.


Self-sabotage (eg. "Sometimes I don’t try hard at school so I can have a reason if I don’t do well"):

Students self-sabotage when they do things that reduce their chances of success at school. Examples

are putting off doing a project or wasting time while they are meant to be doing their schoolwork or

studying for a test. If students self-sabotage they do not try hard at projects or difficult schoolwork, do

not study very hard before tests, and do other things when they should be doing their homework.

Disengagement (eg. "I’ve given up being interested in school"): Students are disengaged or at risk of

disengagement when they lose interest or feel like giving up in particular school subjects or school

generally. Students high in disengagement tend to accept failure and believe there is little or nothing

they can do to avoid failure or attain or repeat success.





factors.


























- Gender

- Age

- Grade or year level

- Basic questions on school characteristics


- Basic questions about the respondent’s class and school engagement



MES-JS Psychometrics

Psychometric properties reported here are based on data collected from 1,249 students across 63

classes in 15 junior (primary/elementary) schools. Students were aged (a) 9 years to 11 years 6

months (47%) and (b) 11 years 7 months to 13 years (53%). The mean age of students was 10.86

(SD=.75) years. Students were from Year 5 (46%) and Year 6 (54%). In total, 54% of students were

males and 46% females. First order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using LISREL 8.80 yields an

excellent fit to the data (2=2724.92, df=847, CFI=.98, RMSEA=.04), as does the higher order CFA

(2=3,197.18, df=886, CFI=.98, RMSEA=.046). The mean reliability (Cronbach’s ) for the 11

subscales is .78.

‘Normative’ MQ Scores

The raw scores on the Motivation and Engagement Scale can also be converted to ‘normative’ scores

referred to as MQ (Motivation Quotient) scores. MQs have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of

15 (like an IQ score). Using non-normalized MQs equates the means and standard deviations of the

different scores for each facet of motivation and engagement (but does not affect the shape of their

distributions). Subsequently, scores for each of the facets of motivation and engagement can then be

compared more meaningfully. Hence, converting scores to MQs has the advantage of placing each

booster, muffler, and guzzler on an approximately common metric. For example, using MQs we can say


that a student is higher on planning than self-belief if s/he scores 110 and 105 on planning and self-

belief respectively (even when in raw scores s/he scored lower on planning than self-belief).

MQs for boosters, mufflers, and guzzlers are presented in the Test User manual. They are based on a

sample of 1,904 students across more than 100 classes in 36 junior (primary/elementary) schools.

Students were aged 10 years to 12 years. The mean age of students was 10.92 (SD=.63) years. In

total, 54% of students were males and 46% females.

.


Motivation and Engagement Scale – University/College (MES-UC)

Overview of MES-UC

The Motivation and Engagement Scale – University/College (MES-UC) is an instrument that measures

University/College (post-school) students’ motivation and engagement. It assesses motivation through

three adaptive cognitive dimensions (booster thoughts), three adaptive behavioral dimensions (booster

behaviors), three impeding/maladaptive cognitive dimensions (mufflers), and two maladaptive




Motivation Scores


to a raw score out of 100 or a raw score out of 7 (if converted back to the rating scale metric). Hence,

each student is assigned eleven scores.

Boosters

Each booster falls into one of two groups: thoughts and behaviors. Booster thoughts include self-belief

(or self-efficacy), learning focus (or mastery orientation), and valuing. Booster behaviors include

persistence, planning, and task management.

Self-belief (eg. "If I try hard, I believe I can do my university/college work well"): Self-belief is students’

belief and confidence in their ability to understand or to do well in their university/college studies, to

meet challenges they face, and to perform to the best of their ability.

Valuing (university/college) (eg. "Learning at university/college is important"): Valuing

(university/college) is how much students believe what they learn at university/college is useful,

important, and relevant to them or to the world in general. If students value university/college they tend

to believe that what they learn can be used in other parts of their life, believe that it is important to learn

at university/college, and feel that what they learn at university/college is relevant to current events in

the world.

Learning focus (eg. "I feel very pleased with myself when I really understand what I’m taught at

university/college"): Learning focus is being focused on learning, solving problems, and developing

skills. The goal of a learning focus is to be the best student one can be. If students are learning focused


they tend to work hard, want to learn more, enjoy learning new things, enjoy solving problems by

working hard, and do a good job for its own satisfaction and not just for rewards.

Planning (eg. "Before I start an assignment, I plan out how I am going to do it"): Planning is how much

students plan their university/college work, assignments, and study and how much they keep track of

their progress as they are doing them.

Task (study) management (eg. “When I study, I usually try to find a place where I can study well”): Task

(study) management refers to the way students use their study time, organize their study timetable, and

choose and arrange where they study.

Persistence (eg. "If I can’t understand my university/college work at first, I keep going over it until I do"):

Persistence is how much students keep trying to work out an answer or to understand a problem even

when that problem is difficult or is challenging. If students are persistent they tend to keep going over

university/college work until they understand it, spend time trying to understand things that do not make

sense straightaway, and keep working at a task even when it is difficult.

Mufflers

Mufflers are anxiety, failure avoidance, and uncertain control.

Anxiety (eg. "When exams and assignments are coming up, I worry a lot"): Anxiety has two parts:

feeling nervous and worrying. Feeling nervous is the uneasy or sick feeling students get when they

think about their university/college work, assignments, or exams. Worrying is their fear about not doing

very well in their university/college work, assignments, or exams.

Failure avoidance (eg. "Often the main reason I work at university/college is because I don’t want to

disappoint others (eg. lecturers, family, partner)"): Students have an avoidance focus when the main

reason they do their university/college work is to avoid doing poorly or to avoid being seen to do poorly.

If students have an avoidance focus they tend to do their university/college work mainly to avoid getting

bad marks, do their university/college work mainly to avoid people thinking they cannot do it, and do

their university/college work mainly because they do not want to disappoint their parents or lecturers.

Uncertain control (eg. "I'm often unsure how I can avoid doing poorly at university/college"): Students

are uncertain in control when they are unsure about how to do well or how to avoid doing poorly. If

students are uncertain in control they can be at risk of helpless or disengagement at university/college.


Guzzlers

Guzzlers are self-sabotage (or self-handicapping) and disengagement.

Self-sabotage (eg. "I sometimes don’t study very hard before exams so I have an excuse if I don’t do so

well"): Students self sabotage when they do things that reduce their chances of success at

university/college. Examples are putting off doing an assignment or wasting time while they are meant

to be doing their university/college work or studying for an exam. If students self-sabotage they do not

try hard at assignments or difficult university/college, do not study very hard before tests or exams, and

do other things when they should be doing their university/college or studying.

Disengagement (eg. "I’ve pretty much given up being interested in university/college"): Students are

disengaged or at risk of disengagement when they feel like giving up in particular university/college

subjects or university/college generally. Students high in disengagement tend to accept failure, believe

there is little or nothing they can do to avoid failure or attain or repeat success, behave in ways that

reflect helplessness, and are chronically low in self-esteem and general optimism.





factors.

























- Gender

- Age

- Year level

- Undergraduate, post-graduate status

- Full-time, part-time status

- Faculty, course, degree

- Basic questions on university/college characteristics


- Basic questions about the respondent’s academic engagement



MES-UC Psychometrics

Psychometric properties reported here are based on 420 undergraduate students from two Australian

universities. One university is well-established and one of the oldest in the country (68% of sample).

The other is a more recently established institution (32%). Most students were enrolled in education

(66%), with other students enrolled in arts (18%), psychology/social science (8%), social work (3%),

science (3%), and communications (2%). Most were full-time students (96%), with 4% part-time. Most



were in their first year of study (65%), with 25% in second year, 7% in third year, and 3% in fourth or

fifth year. The mean age of students was 21.47 (SD=6.62) years, with 60% under 20 years of age and

40% 20 years and over. First order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using LISREL 8.80 yields an

excellent fit to the data (2 = 1,697.75, df = 847, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .05), as does the higher order

CFA (2 = 1,968.82, df = 886, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .05). The mean reliability (Cronbach’s ) for the 11

subscales is .78.


Summary of Other Motivation and Engagement Scales: Work, Music, Sport

Motivation and Engagement Scale – Work (MES-W)

The Motivation and Engagement Scale – Work (MES-W) is an instrument that measures motivation

and engagement in the workplace. It assesses employee/staff motivation through three adaptive

cognitive dimensions (booster thoughts – self-belief, valuing, learning focus), three adaptive

behavioral dimensions (booster behaviors – planning, task management, persistence), three

impeding/maladaptive cognitive dimensions (mufflers – anxiety, failure avoidance, uncertain control),

and two maladaptive behavioral dimensions (guzzlers – self-sabotage, disengagement). Each of the

eleven factors comprises four items – hence it is a 44-item instrument. To each item, respondents rate

themselves on a scale of 1 (‘Strongly Disagree’) to 7 (‘Strongly Agree’).


average of booster thoughts, booster behaviors, mufflers, and guzzlers. These Global Scores are

computed by simply averaging the individual scores for each group of factors. Hence, the Global

Booster Thought Score is the average of self-belief, valuing, and learning focus scores; the Global

Booster Behavior Score is the average of planning, task management, and persistence scores; the

Global Muffler Score is the average of anxiety, failure avoidance, and uncertain control scores; and,

the Global Guzzler Score is the average of self-sabotage and disengagement scores.

Psychometrics for the MES-W reported here are based on 637 personnel from 18 elementary and

high schools. Eight were government schools, 8 were systemic Catholic schools, and 2 were

independent schools. Eight were elementary schools, 7 were high schools, and 3 were both. Two-

thirds (68%) of the respondents were female and 32% were male. The mean age of respondents was

43.77 (SD = 10.70) years, working in schools for an average of 16.71 (SD = 10.96) years. Most

participants (81%) were teachers, 3% were counseling staff, 3% were administrative staff, and 13%

were executive staff. Just under half (47%) reported their highest educational qualification was an

undergraduate degree, 44% reported a postgraduate qualification as their highest qualification, 8%

reported a certificate or diploma as their highest qualification, and a further 1% reported school as

their highest educational attainment. First order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using LISREL 8.80

yields an excellent fit to the data (2 = 2,033.71, df = 847, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .05), as does the

higher order CFA (2 = 2,441.68, df = 886, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .05). The mean reliability (Cronbach’s

) for the 11 subscales is .78.

Motivation and Engagement Scale – Music (MES-M – including other Performing Arts)

The Motivation and Engagement Scale – Music (MES-M) is an instrument that measures motivation

and engagement in the music domain – but is readily adapted for use in other performing arts (eg.


drama, dance etc.) domains. It assesses musicians’ (and other performing artists’) motivation through

three adaptive cognitive dimensions (booster thoughts – self-belief, valuing, learning focus), three

adaptive behavioral dimensions (booster behaviors – planning, task management, persistence), three












Psychometrics for the MES-M reported here are based on 224 young classical musicians from a high

school (N=138) with a specialist focus on music and a university (N=86). These students are skilled

young musicians. Hence, for these respondents music is a salient domain in their lives. The school

musicians were in junior high school (Years 7 and 8: 33% – approx. 12-14 years), middle high (Years

9 and 10: 33% – approx. 14-16 years), and senior high (Years 11 and 12: 34% – approx. 16-18

years). Just under two-thirds (60%) of respondents were female and 40% were male. The mean age

of school musicians was 14.43 (SD = 1.82) years. On average, school musicians had been playing

their target instrument for 6.83 (SD = 2.95) years. The university musicians were enrolled in music-

related degrees and in first year (69%), second year (20%), and third and fourth years (8% and 3%

respectively). Just over half (59%) the university musicians were female and 41% were male. The

mean age of university musicians was 19.60 (SD = 2.63) years. On average, university musicians had

been playing their target instrument for 10.09 (SD = 3.63) years. The major target instruments played

in the music sample were violin (20% of respondents), piano (19%), clarinet (9%), flute (8%), cello

(6%), voice (6%), trumpet (5%), with (in declining order of frequency) viola, saxophone, oboe, double

bass, bassoon, French horn, trombone, percussion, tuba, guitar, organ, and recorder each being a

target instrument for less than 5% of the sample. First order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using

LISREL 8.80 yields an excellent fit to the data (2 = 1,439.75, df = 847, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .06), as

does the higher order CFA (2 = 1,533.95, df = 886, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .06). The mean reliability

(Cronbach’s ) for the 11 subscales is .79.

Motivation and Engagement Scale – Sport (MES-S)


The Motivation and Engagement Scale – Sport (MES-S) is an instrument that measures motivation

and engagement in the sporting domain. It assesses sportspeople’s motivation through three adaptive

cognitive dimensions (booster thoughts – self-belief, valuing, learning focus), three adaptive

behavioral dimensions (booster behaviors – planning, task management, persistence), three












Psychometrics for the MES-S reported here are based on 239 young sportspeople. All participants

played competitive sport (e.g., for school, district, state, and/or country) or were part of a formal sports

program for young sportspeople with potential. Hence, for these respondents sport is a salient domain

in their lives. Just under half (43%) the respondents were female and 57% were male. The mean age

of respondents was 14.20 (SD = 1.61) years. The major target sports played were rugby/league (21%

of respondents), football/soccer (19%), netball (11%), swimming (8%), basketball (7%), surfing (7%),

dancing (6%), athletics (5%), with baseball, cricket, softball, tennis, equestrian, squash, golf, hockey,

ice hockey, skating, martial arts, snow boarding, gymnastics, cycling, shooting, sailing, and water polo

each being a target sport for less than 5% of the sample. On average, the participants had been

playing their target sport for 6.66 (SD = 3.21) years. First order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

using LISREL 8.80 yields an excellent fit to the data (2 = 1,563.13, df = 847, CFI = .94, RMSEA =

.06), as does the higher order CFA (2 = 1,701.97, df = 886, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .06). The mean

reliability (Cronbach’s ) for the 11 subscales is .74.



SCORE SHEET

Motivation and Engagement Profile for

Age years Testing Date

TABLE 1. BOOSTERS – higher MQs are better

Raw Score / 100

ROUNDED

MQ

Grade

SB. Self belief Q13 + Q23 + <<full item set supplied with license>>

P. Persistence Q1 + Q9 + <<full item set supplied with license>>

LF. Learning focus Q2 + Q7 + <<full item set supplied with license>>

V. Valuing Q4 + Q14 + <<full item set supplied with license>>

TM. Task management Q3 + Q17 + <<full item set supplied with license>>

PLN. Planning Q21 + Q27 + <<full item set supplied with license>>

TABLE 2. MUFFLERS AND GUZZLERS – lower MQs are better

Raw Score / 100

ROUNDED

MQ

Grade

D. Disengagement Q8 + Q15 + <<full item set supplied with license>>

SS. Self-sabotage Q5 + Q24 + <<full item set supplied with license>>

UC. Uncertain control Q6 + Q12 + <<full item set supplied with license>>

FA. Failure avoidance Q11 + Q20 + <<full item set supplied with license>>

A. Anxiety Q10 + Q19 + <<full item set supplied with license>>

TABLE 3. GLOBAL MQs MQ Grade Global Booster Thoughts Average* of SB and LF and V MQs

Global Booster Behaviors Average* of P and TM and PLN MQs

Global Muffler Average* of UC and FA and A MQs

Global Guzzler Average* of D and SS MQs

* Only compute an average if student has an MQ for every facet on this dimension 100 is the average MQ for a large ‘normative’ sample of school students Booster Grades range from A (‘Strength’: >1 SD above 100) to D (‘Needs More Work’: >1 SD below 100) Muffler and Guzzler Grades range from A (‘Strength’: >1 SD below 100) to D (‘Needs More Work’: >1 SD above 100)

GRADE PROFILING SHEET

Motivation & Engagement Grade Profile for Date

SB V LF PLN TM P

MQ Higher MQs are better (100 is the average)

Grade Booster Grades range from A (‘Strength’: >1 SD above 100) to D (‘Needs More Work’: >1 SD below 100)

A FA UC SS D

MQ Lower MQs are better (100 is the average)

Grade Muffler and Guzzler Grades range from A (‘Strength’: >1 SD below 100) to D (‘Needs More Work’: >1 SD above 100)

BOOSTER THOUGHTS

Planning (PLN)

BOOSTER BEHAVIORS

Learning focus (LF)

A

D

B

CSelf- belief (SB)

Anxiety (A)

Disengagement (D)

Persistence (P)

Uncertain control (UC) MUFFLERS

Self- sabotage (SS) GUZZLERS

Failure avoidance (FA)

Task management (TM)

Valuing (V)


Motivation & Engagement Grade Profile for John Brown Date March 15th 2011

SB V LF PLN TM P

MQ 120 100 110 100 115 120 Higher MQs are better (100 is the average)

Grade A B B B A A Booster Grades range from A (‘Strength’: >1 SD above 100) to D (‘Needs More Work’: >1 SD below 100)

A FA UC SS D

MQ 105 80 80 95 85 Lower MQs are better (100 is the average)

Grade C A A B A Muffler and Guzzler Grades range from A (‘Strength’: >1 SD below 100) to D (‘Needs More Work’: >1 SD above 100)

Learning focus (LF)

D

B

Valuing (V)

Planning (PLN)

Task management (TM)

Failure avoidance (FA)

Self- sabotage (SS) MUFFLERS GUZZLERS

BOOSTER BEHAVIORS

C

A

Uncertain control (UC)

Disengagement (D)

Disengagement (D)

Anxiety (A) Anxiety (A)

Pe Persistence

(P)

BOOSTER THOUGHTS

Self- belief (SB)

BOOSTER THOUGHTS

Self- belief (SB)


Motivation and Engagement Workbook – Summary of Modules

PROGRAM MODULE COMPONENTS 1 TO 4

MODULE 1. Self-belief

1. Prepare—Define factor, general rules, advance organizer for Module 2. Generate—

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

MODULE 2. Valuing school


a. Linking school to the world b. Linking school to one’s life c. Skills learnt in school


MODULE 3. Learning focus


a. Achieving Personal Bests (PBs) b. Developing active learning c. Changing the reasons for learning


MODULE 4. Planning


a. Planning what to do and how to do it b. Understanding what one is asked to do c. Monitoring progress


MODULE 5. Task management


a. Working under good study conditions b. Using one’s time better c. Developing a weekly study timetable


MODULE 6. 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



Workbook modules and component summary cont . . .


MODULE 7. Anxiety


a. Relaxation techniques b. Preparing for tests c. Taking tests


MODULE 8. 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


MODULE 9. 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


MODULE 10. Self-sabotage


a. Identifying examples of self-sabotage b. Identifying reasons why one might self-sabotage c. Identifying strategies to tackle self-sabotage


MODULE 11. 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



Workbook modules and component summary cont . . .


MODULE 12. Topping Up

1. Identifying the lowest confidence rating in the ‘Reflect’ component across the eleven modules

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 one’s parent/teacher MODULE 13. Finishing on a high note

1. Identifying the highest confidence rating in the ‘Reflect’ component across the eleven modules

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 one’s parent/teacher


SOME RECENT RESEARCH USING THE MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

MATERIALS AND CONCEPTS

Bobis, J., Anderson, J., Martin, A.J., & Way, J. (in press). A model for mathematics instruction to

enhance student motivation and engagement. In D.J. Brahier (Ed.). Motivation and

disposition: Pathways to learning mathematics. Reston, VI: National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics (NCTM).

Fredricks, J., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Montrosse, B., Mordica, J., & Mooney, K. (2011).

Measuring student engagement in upper elementary through high school: A description of

21 instruments. (REL 2011 No. 098) Washington DC: Institute of Education Sciences.

Green, J., Martin, A.J., & Marsh, H.W. (2007). Motivation and engagement in English,

mathematics and science high school subjects: Towards an understanding of

multidimensional domain specificity. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 269-279.

Jackson, S.A., Martin, A.J., & Eklund, R.C. (2008). Long and short measures of flow: Examining

construct validity of the FSS-2, DFS-2, and new brief counterparts. Journal of Sport and

Exercise Psychology, 30, 561-587.

Howard, D.M. (2006). African American students: Instructional strategies to improve students’

motivation to achieve. Proquest Dissertations and These Database (Publication No. AAT

3216045)

Liem, G.A., & Martin, A.J. (in press). Peer relationships and adolescents’ academic and non-

academic outcomes: Same-sex and opposite-sex peer effects and the mediating role of

school engagement. British Journal of Educational Psychology.

Mansour, M., & Martin, A.J. (2009). Home, parents, and achievement motivation: A study of key

home and parental factors that predict student motivation and engagement. Australian

Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 26, 111-126.

Marsh, H.W., Liem, G.A., Martin, A.J., Nagengast, B., & Morin, A.J.S. (in press). Methodological-

measurement fruitfulness of Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM): New

approaches to key substantive issues in motivation and engagement. Journal of

Psychoeducational Assessment.

Marsh, H.W., Martin, A.J., & Cheng, J. (2008). A multilevel perspective on gender in classroom

motivation and climate: Potential benefits of male teachers for boys? Journal of Educational

Psychology, 100, 78-95.

Martin, A.J. (2003). How to motivate your child for school and beyond. Sydney: Random

House/Bantam.

Martin, A.J. (2003). The role of significant others in enhancing the educational outcomes and

aspirations of Indigenous/Aboriginal students. Aboriginal Studies Association Journal, 12,

23-26.


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. (2004). The role of positive psychology in enhancing satisfaction, motivation, and

productivity in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 24, 113-133.

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. (2005). How to help your child fly through life: The 20 big issues. Sydney: Random

House/Bantam.

Martin, A.J. (2005). The Student Motivation and Engagement Wheel – ‘Researcher in Profile’

section. In. D. McInerney & V. McInerney. Educational Psychology: Constructing Learning

(4th Edition). Sydney: Prentice Hall.

Martin, A.J. (2006). A motivational psychology for the education of Indigenous students.

Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 35, 30-43.

Martin, A.J. (2006). Personal bests (PBs): A proposed multidimensional model and empirical

analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 803-825.

Martin, A.J. (2006). The relationship between teachers’ perceptions of student motivation and

engagement and teachers’ enjoyment of and confidence in teaching. Asia-Pacific Journal of

Teacher Education, 34, 73-93.

Martin, A.J. (2007). Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and engagement

using a construct validation approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 413-

440.

Martin, A.J. (2008). Enhancing student motivation and engagement: The effects of a

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

Martin, A.J. (2008). How domain specific are motivation and engagement across school, sport,

and music? A substantive-methodological synergy assessing young sportspeople and

musicians. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 785-813.

Martin, A.J. (2008). Motivation and engagement in diverse performance domains: Testing their

generality across school, university/college, work, sport, music, and daily life. Journal of

Research in Personality, 42, 1607-1612.

Martin, A.J. (2008). Motivation and engagement in music and sport: Testing a multidimensional

framework in diverse performance settings. Journal of Personality, 76, 135-170.

Martin, A.J. (2009). Age appropriateness and motivation, engagement, and performance in high

school: Effects of age-within-cohort, grade retention, and delayed school entry. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 101, 101-114.

Martin, A.J. (2009). Motivation and engagement across the academic lifespan: A developmental

construct validity study of elementary school, high school, and university/college students.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 794-824.


Martin, A.J. (2009). Motivation and engagement in the workplace: Examining a multidimensional

framework from a measurement and evaluation perspective. Measurement and Evaluation

in Counseling and Development, 41, 223-243.

Martin, A.J. (2010). Building classroom success: Eliminating academic fear and failure. London:

Continuum.

Martin, A.J. (2010). Multidimensional motivation and engagement: The Motivation and

Engagement Wheel – ‘Extension Study’ section. In. D. McInerney & V. McInerney.

Educational Psychology: Constructing Learning (5th Edition) (pp. 238-241). Sydney:

Pearson.

Martin, A.J. (2010). Physical activity motivation in the year following high school: Assessing

stability and appropriate analytical approaches. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 107-

113.

Martin, A.J. (2010). Physical activity motivation in late adolescence: Refinement of a recent

multidimensional model. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 81, 278-289.

Martin, A.J. (2010). Should students have a gap year? Motivation and performance factors

relevant to time out after completing school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 561-

576.

Martin, A.J. (in press). Courage in the classroom: Exploring a new framework predicting academic

performance and engagement. School Psychology Quarterly.

Martin, A.J. (in press). Holding back and holding behind: Grade retention and students’ non-

academic and academic outcomes. British Educational Research Journal.

Martin, A.J., Bobis, J., Anderson, J., Way, J., & Vellar, R. (2011). Patterns of multilevel variance

in psycho-educational phenomena: Exploring motivation, engagement, climate, teacher, and

achievement factors. German Journal of Educational Psychology / Zeitschrift für

Pädagogische Psychologie, 25, 49-61.

Martin, A.J., Colmar, S.H., Davey, L.A., & Marsh, H.W. (2010). Longitudinal modeling of academic

buoyancy and motivation: Do the '5Cs' hold up over time? British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 80, 473-496.

Martin, A.J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement, and

achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and practice. Review of Educational

Research, 79, 327-365.

Martin, A.J., & Hau, K-T. (2010). Achievement motivation amongst Chinese and Australian school

students: Assessing differences of kind and differences of degree. International Journal of

Testing, 10, 274-294.

Martin, A.J., & Jackson, S.A. (2008). Brief approaches to assessing task absorption and

enhanced subjective experience: Examining ‘Short’ and ‘Core’ flow in diverse performance

domains. Motivation and Emotion, 32, 141-157.


Martin, A.J., & Liem, G.A. (2010). Academic Personal Bests (PBs), engagement, and

achievement: A cross-lagged panel analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 20,

265-270.

Martin, A.J., Liem., G.A., Coffey, L., Martinez, C., Parker, P., Marsh, H.W., & Jackson, S. (2010).

What happens to physical activity behavior, motivation, self-concept, and flow after

completing school? A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22, 437-457.

Martin, A.J., Malmberg, L-E., & Liem, G.D. (2010). Multilevel motivation and engagement:

Assessing construct validity across students and schools. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 70, 973-989.

Martin, A.J., & Marsh, H.W. (2003). Fear of failure: Friend or foe? Australian Psychologist, 38, 31-

38.

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. (2008). Academic buoyancy: Towards an understanding of students’

everyday academic resilience. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 53-83.

Martin, A.J., & Marsh, H.W. (2008). Workplace and academic buoyancy: Psychometric

assessment and construct validity amongst school personnel and students. Journal of

Psychoeducational Assessment, 26, 168-184.

Martin, A.J., & Marsh, H.W. (2009). Academic resilience and academic buoyancy:

Multidimensional and hierarchical conceptual framing of causes, correlates, and cognate

constructs. Oxford Review of Education, 35, 353-370.

Martin, A.J., Marsh, H.W., McInerney, D.M., & Green, J. (2009). Young people’s interpersonal

relationships and academic and non-academic outcomes: The relative salience of teachers,

parents, same-sex peers, and opposite-sex peers. Teachers College Record, March,

http://www.tcrecord.org.

Martin, A.J., Marsh, H.W., McInerney, D.M., Green, J., & Dowson, M. (2007). Getting along with

teachers and parents: The yields of good relationships for students’ achievement motivation

and self-esteem. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 17, 109-125.

Martin, A.J., Tipler, D.V., Marsh, H.W., Richards, G.E., & Williams. M.R. (2006). Assessing

multidimensional physical activity motivation: A construct validity study of high-school

students. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 28, 171-192.

Parker, P.D., & Martin, A.J. (2009). Coping and buoyancy in the workplace: Understanding their

effects on teachers’ work-related well-being and engagement. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 25, 68-75.



Parker, P.D., & Martin, A.J. (in press). Clergy motivation and occupational well-being: Exploring a

quadripolar model and its role in predicting burnout and engagement. Journal of Religion

and Health.

Motivation and Engagement Materials - Summary Document · PDF fileDocument includes...

Documents

Transcript of Motivation and Engagement Materials - Summary Document · PDF fileDocument includes...