Educational Psychologist
ISSN: 0046-1520 (Print) 1532-6985 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hedp20
Motivational Interventions That Work: Themes and
Remaining Issues
KATHRYN R. WENTZEL & ALLAN WIGFIELD
To cite this article: KATHRYN R. WENTZEL & ALLAN WIGFIELD (2007) Motivational Interventions
That Work: Themes and Remaining Issues, Educational Psychologist, 42:4, 261-271, DOI:
10.1080/00461520701621103
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701621103
Published online: 05 Dec 2007.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1789
View related articles
Citing articles: 9 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hedp20
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 42(4), 261–271
C 2007, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Copyright Motivational Interventions That Work:
Themes and Remaining Issues
Kathryn R. Wentzel and Allan Wigfield
Department of Human Development
University of Maryland
We highlight major themes emerging from the articles in this special issue. These themes
include (a) the importance of theoretical frameworks and clearly defined constructs for guiding
the development of interventions, (b) a consideration of intervention effects on ethnic minority
children, (c) the importance of positive social interactions and relationships among teachers
and peers in school as a foundation for students’ adjustment to and achievement in school,
(d) the need for intervention programs to use strong research designs and measures to test their
effectiveness, and (e) the importance of considering developmental issues when designing
interventions. Issues with respect to each theme are discussed.
The articles in this special issue describe successful intervention programs designed to improve students’ academic and
social competencies by strengthening their motivation. In the
opening article, “Reforming Middle Schools: Focus on Continuity, Social Connectedness, and Engagement,” Jaana Juvonen discusses broad middle school reform efforts and how
creating positive social-emotional climates in middle school
can enhance the motivation and achievement of students from
many different backgrounds. Next, in the article by Felner
and his colleagues, “Creating Small Learning Communities: Lessons From the Project on High-Performing Learning
Communities About ‘What Works’ in Creating Productive,
Developmentally Enhancing, Learning Contexts,” and the
article by Balfanz and his colleagues, “Preventing Student
Disengagement and Keeping Students on the Graduation
Track in Urban Middle-Grades Schools: Early Identification and Effective Interventions,” large-scale school-level reforms implemented in many middle and high schools across
the country are described. Guthrie, McRae, and Klauda’s article, “Contributions of Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction
to Knowledge About Interventions for Motivations in Reading,” describes a reading comprehension instructional program that enhances children’s cognitive skills in reading and
motivation to read, as a way to increase reading comprehension and engagement in reading activities. The final article
by Hudley and her colleagues, “Reducing Aggressive BehavCorrespondence should be addressed to Kathryn Wentzel or Allan
Wigfield, Department of Human Development, University of Maryland, 3304 Benjamin Building, College Park, MD 20742. E-mail:
wentzel@umd.edu or awigfiel@umd.edu
ior and Increasing Motivation in School: The Evolution of
an Intervention to Strengthen School Adjustment,” describes
an intervention for aggressive children that provides social
skills training to help them get along better with their peers
in school and as a way to improve their school performance.
Our motivation for bringing together this group of authors for this issue was grounded in several important issues
and interests. First, the topic of successful interventions designed to enhance students’ motivation and engagement is
a timely one. We know of no other compilations of articles on this issue. As discussed in our introductory article to
this special issue, there now is a rich body of experimental
and correlational work on the nature of motivation that provides the field with a much clearer understanding of critical
motivation-related constructs. In addition, there is increasing
evidence that students’ motivation directly impacts their social and academic functioning, and researchers have gained
a great deal of knowledge about how teachers and other educators can influence students’ motivation in both positive
and negative ways. Motivation researchers now have developed reliable and valid measures of the different constructs;
having reliable, valid, and sensitive measures of motivation is
essential to gauge the effectiveness of programs designed to
improve children’s motivation and achievement. Finally, we
also were interested in exploring the implications of intervention work for understanding the motivation and school-based
accomplishments of ethnic minority children.
In addressing these goals for the special issue, the articles highlight a number of issues of central importance in
developing successful school-based interventions based on
motivational principles. The interventions include strategies
262
WENTZEL AND WIGFIELD
that work with students from elementary school through high
school, children from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and children who represent ethnic minority groups.
Further, these programs focus on a range of important academic and social outcomes, including reading achievement,
social interactions with other students and teachers, and
the ultimate motivational issue—dropping out or staying in
school. We are impressed with the range of treatments included in these interventions, the careful ways in which their
effects have been assessed, and the range of outcomes considered.
In this commentary we highlight some of the major themes
that can be drawn from this work and discuss issues that remain a challenge for future intervention work in this area.
These themes and issues include (a) the importance of having
clear theoretical foundations and constructs for the development of successful interventions; (b) further consideration of
what, if anything, is unique about ethnic minority students’
experiences at school that might require specific intervention strategies to enhance their motivation, as compared to
attempting to develop interventions that are aimed at all students; (c) the role of social relationships and supports in motivating positive social adjustment and achievement in school;
(d) the need for interventions to use strong research designs
and high-quality measures; and (e) developmental issues.
MOTIVATION THEORIES AND CONSTRUCTS
AS FOUNDATIONS FOR SUCCESSFUL
INTERVENTIONS
One of the problems with many school-based intervention
programs is the lack of clear theoretical foundations or rationales to guide intervention efforts. That is decidedly not
the case for the interventions presented in this special issue.
Some of the authors utilized specific theoretical perspectives on motivation to design their programs. For example,
Hudley et al.’s (2007/this issue) intervention programs to reduce boys’ aggression are based in attribution theory, one
of the prominent motivational theories over the last 25 years
(Weiner, 1985, 2005). Attribution theory attempts to explain
individuals’ causal reasoning about what happens in different kinds of situations, achievement and otherwise. In turn,
causal reasoning is believed to have a powerful impact on
subsequent behavioral choices and actions. Based on these
fundamental principles of attribution theory, Hudley et al.
provide an elegant example of how to target for intervention
motivational processes hypothesized to mediate relations between training activities and desired behavioral outcomes.
They do this by working to change aggressive boys’ understanding of different social interactions and the reasons
behind them to ultimately improve their behavior.
Guthrie et al. (2007/this issue) utilized a number of principles from different motivation theories to develop specific
instructional practices in the CORI program and to guide
their intervention work. The practices emphasizing choice
are based in self-determination theorists’ (e.g., Ryan & Deci,
2002) view that students need to become autonomous learners who take control of their own learning. Giving students a
choice of tasks and activities provides a way to do that. Practices focused on helping students be successful are based in
self-efficacy theory (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Schunk & Pajares,
2002), which posits that students’ efficacy comes primarily from successfully completing achievement activities. The
concern for relevance comes from interest theories which
propose that students are more interested in doing activities they can connect to their own experiences (e.g., Hidi &
Harackiewicz, 2001). Practices fostering collaboration stem
from social motivational work documenting the importance
of positive social interactions in classrooms and how much
students enjoy working with one another (see Juvonen &
Wentzel, 1996). Finally, having thematic units is based in
part in goal orientation theory, which proposes that when the
material to be learned is clearly organized conceptually and
provides cognitive challenges students will be more strongly
motivated to master it (Pintrich, 2003; Stipek, 1996)
Other authors in this special issue focused on more general
perspectives that include attention to student motivation as an
aspect of engagement. Engagement and motivation are terms
that often are used synonymously but have somewhat different meaning. Engagement is a relatively broad construct that
includes affective, cognitive, and behavioral characteristics
(Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Wigfield & Guthrie,
in press). Motivation is a more specific set of processes that
provide energy for different behaviors; thus when individuals
are more strongly motivated they can become more deeply
engaged in different activities behaviorally, cognitively, and
affectively. Balfanz et al. (2007/this issue), in their Talent Development Middle School program, use “active and engaging
pedagogies in order to make it more likely that students will
remain engaged in school” (p. 231). With regard to specific
motivational principles, this program provides students extra
help when needed, a strategy known to increase self-efficacy
and a sense of mastery, and gives students opportunities to
engage actively in different kinds of learning activities, such
as science experiments, a strategy that supports perceptions
of autonomy and self-efficacy.
A logical extension of this work is found in the creation
of small learning communities as illustrated in the programs
described by Balfanz et al. (2007/this issue) and Felner et al.
(2007/this issue). This practice is central to promoting social
aspects of motivation, including stronger and more rewarding relationships with teachers and peers. Balfanz and his
colleagues, Juvonen (2007/this issue), and Felner and his
colleagues also rely on theoretical work that highlights the
importance of a sense of connectedness and belongingness
to students’ motivation (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Ryan
& Deci, 2002). A recognition of positive social relationships and school climate during the middle school years also
draws on developmental and ecological perspectives. First,
MOTIVATIONAL INTERVENTIONS THAT WORK
the middle school years reflect a developmental phase in
which relations with peers and adults other than one’s parents
become increasingly important. Second, structural aspects of
many middle schools (larger schools, integration of several
elementary schools into one middle school; more teachers
for students to work with, etc.) can create situations in which
it is difficult to form positive social relationships. Therefore,
attending to issues of social motivation is especially crucial
during these years. Felner and his colleagues’ work combines this focus on early adolescence and middle school with
broad developmental theories of competence development,
such as Bronfenbrenner’s (1989) ecological theory of development. This perspective focuses on the additional critical
importance of school context and supports in facilitating the
development of students’ emotional, social, and intellectual
well-being.
In summary, the interventions described in this special
issue were based on an impressive range of important motivational theories and principles. Further advances in this
area, however, will require greater attention to how motivation is construed when designing strategies for change.
For example, as noted earlier, motivation and engagement
are often used interchangeably in the literature and when
describing intervention efforts. However, there are important distinctions between motivation as a psychological process that energizes and directs behavior, and effortful, “engaged” behavior believed to reflect positive motivational
orientations toward a task. For those wanting to promote
positive student engagement, a logical focus would be on
students’ motivational processes, such as their self-efficacy
beliefs (e.g., Guthrie et al., 2007/this issue), attributions
for success and failure (e.g., Hudley et al., 2007/this issue), or sense of social connectedness (Guthrie et al.,
2007/this issue; Juvonen, 2007/this issue). In contrast, a
more proximal target for promoting achievement outcomes
would be objective forms of student engagement (e.g., Balfanz et al., 2007/this issue; Guthrie et al.). Implementing
change at the level of motivational processes as well as
engaged behavior is essential for intervention efforts to
succeed.
Applying more specific motivational principles to schoollevel reform also could move the field forward (e.g., Maehr
& Midgley, 1996). To illustrate, school-level functioning can
have a negative impact on academic motivation and achievement by influencing peer norms and values. This occurs most
often when schools establish competitive academic standards
and norm-referenced evaluations of achievement that in turn
heighten social comparison among students. Such practices
tend to result in students adopting orientations toward learning that focus on performance rather than mastery of subject
matter and in lowered levels of academic efficacy and aspirations for achievement, especially among low-ability students
(Butler, 2005). Therefore, more attention to targeting specific
structural aspects of schools and classrooms that influence
students’ motivation to succeed is warranted.
263
Finally, additional intervention efforts based on motivation theories and principles but not described in this issue are
worthy of note. For example, interventions have targeted students’ feelings of connectedness to classmates and teachers
(Watson, Solomon, Battistich, Schaps, & Solomon, 1989),
perceptions of competence, autonomy, and relatedness (Connell, 2003), feelings of helplessness associated with learning
(Foesterling, 1985), and test anxiety (Hill, 1984). Additional
strategies not described herein have been implemented successfully in experimental settings to increase self-efficacy
(see Schunk & Pajares, 2002), beliefs about intelligence (e.g.,
Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007), and intrinsic interest (e.g., Cordova & Lepper, 1996). This work provides the
field with additional theoretical perspectives and intervention
models that can be applied in classroom settings to improve
the social and academic achievements of all students.
MINORITY STUDENTS AND MOTIVATION
As noted in the introduction to this special issue, there is
ample and striking evidence that levels of achievement differ
significantly when African American and Hispanic students
are compared to their White and Asian American peers (Okagaki, 2006; U. S. Department of Education, 2003), with the
first two groups on average performing more poorly in school
than the latter two groups. African American and Hispanic
students also are much more likely to drop out of school.
The reasons for these differences remains controversial given
that the effects of poverty and low socioeconomic status are
rarely taken into account when comparing groups of students, combined with the fact that many African American
and Hispanic students also are economically disadvantaged
(Graham, 1994; McLoyd, Aikens, & Burton, 2006). It is interesting that group differences in motivation as a function
of ethnicity are less apparent (see Cooper & Dorr, 2005, and
Graham, 1994, for reviews). In fact, some studies indicate
that African American children have more positive beliefs
about their ability in different areas than do White children. Further, Stevenson, Chen, and Uttal (1990) reported
that African American children’s beliefs about ability in different subject areas did not relate to their performance in
those areas, but European American children’s ability beliefs and performance did relate. This raises some interesting
questions about whether motivation-related constructs like
ability beliefs are relevant for understanding engagement and
achievement for all children (see Graham, 1994).
However, the more important question for practitioners
and theorists alike is whether minority-group status moderates the effects of interventions on targeted outcomes. In
other words, are pathways between contextual effects and motivation and between motivation and achievement the same
for all groups of children? Must interventions be developed
and implemented exclusively for ethnic minority students?
As with explanations of group differences, the answer to this
264
WENTZEL AND WIGFIELD
question is complex. On one hand, it is reasonable to believe that motivational theories and principles are relevant
and useful for understanding competence in all children. As
Hudley et al. (2007/this issue) point out, “We are clear that
challenging behaviors are not the particular province of any
one gender or ethnic group, and the principles and programs
we have developed could be deployed to benefit any child”
(p. 258). The fact that all of the interventions discussed in this
special issue were successful with children who were members of ethnic minority groups as well as for those from low
socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds suggests that the
motivational principles on which the programs were based
apply to many different groups of children in school.
On the other hand, Felner and his colleagues (2007/this
issue) and Guthrie and his colleagues (2007/this issue) described greater impacts of intervention efforts on minority
students than on majority students. In addition, as discussed
by Juvonen (2007/this issue), ethnic minority students also
tend to benefit from increased social supports to a greater
extent that do their White peers. It is not clear whether these
findings are simply because of ceiling and floor effects such
that majority children who are likely to enjoy ample social
and academic supports for learning do not benefit greatly
from additional support, whereas minority students from low
SES backgrounds who are less likely to have adequate supports show dramatic gains when they are provided. However,
there are some reasons why ethnic minority children might
benefit more from effective interventions. For instance, Steele
(1992, 1997) proposed stereotype vulnerability and disidentification to help explain the underachievement of African
American students. These students often encounter mixed
messages about their abilities along with widespread negative cultural stereotypes about their academic potential and
motivation. As a result, they likely find it difficult to concentrate fully on their schoolwork due to the anxiety induced by
their vulnerability to these stereotypes (see Steele & Aronson, 1995). To protect their self-esteem, they may disidentify
with academic achievement leading to both a lowering of
the value they attach to intellectual accomplishments and a
detachment of their self-esteem from both positive and the
negative academic experiences.
Indeed, researchers have found that academic self-concept
of ability is not a strong predictor of general self-esteem for
some African American children (Stevenson et al., 1990;
Winston, Eccles, Senior, & Vida, 1997). Although several
investigators found no evidence of greater disidentification
with school among African American students (e.g., Spencer,
Noll, Stoltzfus, & Harpalani, 2001; Steinberg, Dornbusch,
& Brown, 1992), Steele’s work and that of others (Finn,
1989; Taylor, Casten, Flickinger, Roberts, & Fulmore, 1994)
makes a strong case for how disidentification, particularly
as a result of inequitable treatment and failure experiences
at school, can undermine achievement and academic motivation. If true, constructs of particular relevance for interventions targeted at ethnic minority students are students’
self-esteem (i.e., beliefs about the general worth of oneself)
and ethnic identify (i.e., the extent to which ethnicity defines
oneself; Phinney, Cantu, & Kurtz, 1997; Stone & Han, 2005).
Recent work suggests that a strong sense of ethnic identity in
conjunction with a positive sense of self-worth tend to act as
buffers against the negative effects of prejudice and discriminatory behavior on academic achievement (Wong, Eccles,
& Sameroff, 2003).
Although many researchers emphasize the role of ethnic
minority students’ self-perceptions in their motivation and
achievement, such as their self-esteem and ethnic identities,
it also is very important to note that in many school environments, these students face broader issues that go well beyond
their own beliefs about themselves. For instance, Weinstein
(2002) discussed the negative views and expectations some
teachers have for minority students, and these students’ classmates sometimes have similar views. Therefore, it is crucial
for intervention efforts to target such negative perceptions on
the part of teachers and classmates (see Weinstein, 2002), in
addition to trying to change any negative perceptions these
students might have of themselves. Further, we believe a
focus on changing classroom environments in ways to enhance children’s motivation, as compared to changing children to fit extant classroom environments, is generally the
better approach to enhancing students’ motivation. That is
the precisely the approach taken by the authors included in
this special issue.
In summary, the interventions described in this issue have
been successful with a broad range of students in different
ways. However, given the complexity of the achievement and
motivational differences across different groups of children
in this country, more research is needed. Work that includes
additional intervention strategies and a broader range of motivational constructs and principles would help the field obtain
a better understanding of the role of motivational processes
in explaining the academic performance differences in diverse groups of children (Graham, 1994; Pintrich, 2003). In
this regard, research on the potentially positive effects of a
strong sense of identity and self-worth in buffering prejudice
and discrimination, and on ways to change teachers’ and students’ negative expectations of those who are perceived to
be different would move the field forward.
SOCIAL SUPPORT AS A MOTIVATOR OF
ACADEMIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS
A prominent theme of the interventions discussed in this
special issue is the importance of social supports and relationships in facilitating positive change in academic motivation and achievement. The authors approach the social aspects of schooling and motivation in different ways, but each
acknowledges a central role of social interactions and relationships in their interventions. Hudley and her colleagues
(2007/this issue) focus on working with individual children
MOTIVATIONAL INTERVENTIONS THAT WORK
to improve their interactions with others and reduce their aggressive tendencies. A central assumption of their work is
that these improvements in social behavior also will enhance
academic performance. Guthrie and his colleagues include
collaborations with peers as a central instructional practice
in CORI. Balfanz and his colleagues (2007/this issue), Felner
and his colleagues (2007/this issue), and Juvonen (2007/this
issue) discuss ways in which creating smaller learning communities in middle schools can enhance students’ engagement, connections to their schools, and academic outcomes.
Juvonen’s article in particular describes the central importance of peer relationships to students’ adjustment to school.
In this section, we highlight several issues concerning social
support relevant to improving students’ social and academic
competence. These issues include the specific roles of teachers and peers in providing students with a sense of social
connectedness, the need for greater theoretical precision in
models of social support, and the need for institutional supports for teachers.
The role of social support in motivating academic outcomes has been acknowledged widely by educational policymakers interested in broad level school reform (e.g., Carnegie
Task Force on the Education of Young Adolescents, 1989;
National Middle School Association, 2003) as well as by
educational psychologists interested in the social and emotional functioning of children at school (Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Goodenow, 1993; Wentzel, 2004). At the level of
school reform, as illustrated in the articles by Balfanz et al.
(2007/this issue) and Felner et al. (2007/this issue), models
of social support have led to widespread implementation of
small learning communities, especially at the middle school
level. In the psychological community there also is increasing
recognition that socially supportive relationships with teachers and peers can promote positive aspects of school adjustment during adolescence. As noted by Juvonen (2007/this
issue), researchers have documented that adolescents’ perceptions of teachers as emotionally supportive and caring
are related to positive aspects of academic engagement, academic performance, and whether students at this age drop
out of school. Similarly, she describes how adolescent peer
groups and friendships also provide students with a sense of
emotional security and a sense of belonging. As with teacher
support, perceived peer support at school has been associated positively with academic engagement, performance,
and classroom behavior (see also Wentzel, 2005). Therefore,
this work on the psychological effects of teacher and peer
supports provides important insights into why broad-level
reforms designed to enhance these supports have positive
effects on motivation and achievement.
Of special relevance for this issue and for understanding
the achievement patterns of ethnic minority children is that
ethnographic accounts often conclude that at least some of
these students experience school as a place where positive
social supports are lacking and efforts to succeed are undermined by conflicting sets of values and expectations from
265
parents, peers, and teachers (Phelan, Davidson, & Cao, 1991;
Romo & Falbo, 1996; Valenzuela, 1999). Other evidence suggests that relations between close and secure teacher–student
relationships and student adjustment are moderated by SES
and race such that students from lower SES backgrounds
(Dornbusch, Erickson, Laird, & Wong, 2001) and members
of minority groups (Certo, Cauley, & Chafin, 2003; Crosnoe, Johnson, & Elder, 2004) tend to benefit more from close
relationships with teachers than do other students.
The critical importance of these findings with regard to
school reform and classroom intervention is that not only do
many ethnic minority students perceive their relationships
with teachers as less than positive but teachers also rate the
quality of their relationships with these students as less close
and more conflictual than they do their relationships with majority (White) children (Ladd & Burgess, 2001). Moreover,
teacher ethnicity and mismatch between the race/ethnicity of
teachers and students is related to conflict and dependency
in teacher–student relationships (O’Connor & McCartney,
2006; Saft & Pianta, 2001). Therefore, there is ample evidence to suggest that efforts to improve teacher–student relationships might especially benefit ethnic minority students
who attend schools in which they are a minority.
As previously noted, several articles in this issue (Juvonen, 2007/this issue; Guthrie et al., 2007/this issue; Hudley
et al., 2007/this issue) also suggest that children who enjoy
positive interactions and relationships with their peers also
tend to be engaged in and even excel at academic tasks more
than those who experience problems with classmates. Conceptual approaches to the study of peer activities and cognitive outcomes have focused on various aspects of peer relationships, ranging from the nature of interactions involved
in intellectual problem solving to group pressures to adopt
norms and values associated with academic performance (see
Wentzel, in press, for a review). Practical applications have
focused on providing students with structured learning activities within cooperative and collaborative peer settings.
Cooperative learning can lead to increased peer acceptance
and enhanced cross-group relations, increased intrinsic motivation, positive attitudes toward school, a heightened sense of
efficacy, and increased prosocial interactions (see Juvonen).
As predicted by co-constructivist models, the effects of
cooperative learning on achievement are consistently positive when students engage in cognitive elaboration and are
required to work together toward common goals, and the
learning tasks require equal status for all group members
(Slavin, Hurley, & Chamberlain, 2003). Of particular interest is that collaborative learning structures (peers working
in dyads) contribute most to learning outcomes for minority,
urban-dwelling, and young children, when dyads are homogeneous with respect to gender and occur over a number of
weeks (see Rohrbeck, Ginsberg-Block, & Fantuzzo, 2003,
for a review).
It also is worth noting, however, that the effects of
these learning structures are mixed when students’ social
266
WENTZEL AND WIGFIELD
characteristics are taken into account. For example, cooperative learning structures tend to work differentially for girls
and boys, such that in mixed-gender groups girls perform less
well than boys (see Slavin et al., 2003). Working with friends
versus acquaintances tends to result in positive outcomes
for girls more than for boys (Kutnick & Kington, 2005).
Pressures to display gender-stereotypic characteristics also
can result in some girls downplaying their intellectual abilities and competitive strivings in boys who display reluctance
to engage in academic pursuits altogether (Maccoby, 2002).
Group learning with children of differing levels of ability,
race, ethnicity, and SES also is largely unsuccessful in producing cognitive gains (Cohen, 1986).
Although interventions designed to increase academic
motivation have a rich theoretical base on which to build,
work in the area of social support is still in its infancy with
respect to understanding the nature of social supports at
school and the mechanisms whereby supports have influence on students’ social and academic outcomes. To illustrate, most research on the supportive nature of teachers and
peers focuses on fairly global notions of social relatedness;
operational definitions typically reflect beliefs that teachers
or peers “care about me.” However, researchers have documented differences in middle school students’ characterizations of supportive teachers as a function of student ability,
with students from high-ability tracks valuing teachers who
challenge them, encourage class participation, and express
educational goals similar to theirs.
In contrast, students from low-ability tracks tend to value
teachers who treat them with kindness, are fair, explain subject matter clearly, and maintain control in the classroom
(Daniels & Arapostathis, 2005). Ethnographic studies also
document that academically successful inner-city ethnic minority adolescents value instrumental help from teachers but
also warmth and acceptance coupled with high academic
expectations (Smokowski, Reynolds, & Bezrucko, 2000).
Racially mixed groups of middle school students highlight
the importance of teachers who are responsive to individual
differences and needs, provide students with autonomy and
choice (Oldfather, 1993), show interest in students as individuals, help with academics, encourage students to work up
to their potential, and teach well and make subject matter
interesting (Hayes, Ryan, & Zseller, 1994).
It is clear from this work that more nuanced definitions
of social support are necessary to identify the precise ways
in which supportive teachers have positive effects on student
achievement. One approach to accounting for the multiple
definitions of support that students might hold is to utilize
a more differentiated model in which social support is defined with respect to specific provisions that can promote
academic success at school: clear communication of expectations and values related to achievement; instrumental help,
advice, and academic instruction; a safe classroom environment; and emotional nurturance and caring (Wentzel, 2004,
2005). These dimensions reflect essential components of so-
cial support in that (a) information is provided concerning
what is expected and valued in the classroom; (b) attempts to
achieve these valued outcomes are met with help and instruction; (c) attempts to achieve outcomes can be made in a safe,
nonthreatening environment; and (d) individuals are made to
feel like a valued member of the group. It is worth noting
that summaries of best practices for educating ethnic minority
students include these aspects of supportive relationships as
essential for effective classroom teaching (Rutherford, 1999;
Scribner & Reyes, 1999); essential components of positive
school climate also reflect these dimensions (see Felner et al.,
2007/this issue).
This differentiated approach also is particularly useful for
understanding the effects of social support on achievement in
that the various provisions can be linked to specific aspects of
motivation. For example, responsive and warm relationships
with teachers and peers are related to a students’ sense of
emotional well-being and corresponding desires to contribute
to the smooth functioning of classroom activities. In this regard, teachers’ and peers’ communication of expectations
might be particularly important for understanding students’
reasons for pursuing classroom-specific goals (Wentzel, Filisitti, & Looney, 2007) and values for academic and social
outcomes (Wigfield & Eccles, 2002). Teachers’ and peers’
provisions of help and instrumental aid are likely to be especially influential in promoting students’ sense of efficacy
for academic and social tasks (Bandura, 1997) and feelings
of self-determination (Ryan & Deci, 2002). In turn, these
motivational outcomes are likely to influence students’ academically related outcomes in positive ways (Wentzel, 2003;
Wigfield, Eccles, Schiefele, Roeser, & Davis-Kean, 2006). In
general, research on teachers and peers provides support for
this more differentiated model (see Wentzel, 2004).
A final issue we raise with respect to social support is that
if teachers have influence by way of the relationships and interactions they have with students, it also becomes essential
to understand those factors that contribute to teachers’ ability
and willingness to engage in these positive forms of social
interaction. Research that examines factors that foster supportive and caring interactions on the part of teachers is relatively rare. However, teacher stress appears to contribute to
the number of negative relationships that elementary school
teachers report having with their students (Yoon, 2002), depression has been related to the sensitivity and responsiveness
of preschool teachers (Hamre & Pianta, 2001), and a secure
attachment style has been related to positive as opposed to
conflictual interactions of elementary school teachers with
their students (Morris-Rothschild & Brassard, 2006). Teachers’ sense of efficacy with regard to classroom management
also has been related to positive relationships and interactions
with elementary school age students (Morris-Rothschild &
Brassard, 2006; Yoon, 2002). Therefore, the potential impact
of teacher characteristics on their assessments of relationships with students needs to be taken into account when
drawing inferences from this work.
MOTIVATIONAL INTERVENTIONS THAT WORK
As suggested in the article by Felner et al. (2007/this issue), school-level factors also are likely to influence teachers’
ability to create supportive classroom environments for their
students. For example, factors such as the quality of feedback
given to teachers from administrators, teacher autonomy and
participation in school decision making, opportunities for
collaboration and development of positive relationships with
peers, and instructional help and resources are likely to contribute to teachers’ ability and willingness to provide similar kinds of supports for their students (see also Firestone
& Pennell, 1993). Indeed, if provisions of positive supports
contribute to students’ successful functioning at school, provisions of similar supports to teachers are likely to improve
their practice as well.
In summary, issues concerning social relationships and
social support have been an integral part of whole-school
reform efforts and of increasing interest in the educational
psychology community. It is clear from work in this area,
however, that more specification of what is meant by social
support is necessary to identify the precise ways in which
supportive teachers and peers have positive effects on behavioral, motivational, and academic outcomes of students.
An additional challenge for intervention researchers is to
identify specific strategies for teaching teachers and students
how and when to provide these supports in classroom settings. Changing social behavior and interaction patterns is a
difficult task although several programs have been successful
in improving levels of cooperative and prosocial behavior in
classroom and school settings (see Watson et al., 1989).
In addition, more work is needed to identify school-level
structures that can influence the development of positive
social relationships and interactions. For example, the degree to which middle and high schools are ethnically diverse can influence the nature and stability of friendships
and group membership (Urberg, Degirmencioglu, Tolson, &
Hallidayscher, 1995). Organizational aspects of classrooms
also can have fairly powerful effects on the nature of peer
relationships and interactions. For instance, middle and high
school students in classrooms where frequent interactions
with classmates are condoned are less likely to be socially
isolated or rejected by their classmates, enjoy greater numbers of friends, and experience more diversity and stability
in their friendships (Epstein, 1983). Continued work in this
area is sorely needed.
DESIGN AND MEASUREMENT ISSUES
The authors in this issue describe a number of notable design and measurement features of their interventions. In this
section, we highlight several issues that are especially noteworthy. First, the measures used to assess change in school
performance and academic motivation for the most part are
well established in the literature and have strong psychometric properties. By using such measures we can be more confi-
267
dent of drawing valid inferences with regard to the effects of
the intervention efforts. However, new ways to measure students’ motivation, particularly measures that are sensitive to
change in motivation, still need to be developed. We note four
areas in which measurement strategies could be improved.
The first area concerns the level of specificity of measures.
We now have many domain-specific assessments of motivation (e.g., motivation for reading), which should be more
sensitive to interventions in particular subject areas than are
more general measures of school motivation (see Bandura,
1997, and Pajares, 1996, for discussion of the importance
of matching the level of specificity of the measurement of
motivation to the level of specificity of the outcomes of interest). Therefore, when designing and testing interventions,
researchers need to match the level and content of the intervention program with the measures used to assess it. More
general measures possibly can give a sense of the broader
effectiveness of the program, but if such measures are included it also is crucial to have domain-specific measures
that provide the most direct test of intervention effects.
In addition, most of the questionnaire measures used in
research on motivation assess students’ summary evaluations
of themselves with regard to whatever construct is of interest
(e.g., measures of students’ self-efficacy ask for their judgments of confidence in their ability to perform a specific
task). However, these measures do not get at the processes
involved in the formation of these self-perceptions. Further,
they also are static, in that they usually are administered before and after an intervention, rather than being completed
while the intervention is ongoing (see Boekaerts, 2001, for
discussion of “online” measures of motivation). Therefore,
measures that capture the process of change as student motivation develops and as motivation influences performance
outcomes over time need to be developed.
A third area for improvement concerns unidimensional
approaches to measurement. Most assessments of motivation are based on student self-report questionnaires. Such
questionnaires provide valuable information about how students think about themselves and the social settings they
learn in. These measurement strategies, however, are subject to social desirability and young children often have a
difficult time completing them in meaningful ways. Efforts
to develop alternate ways of measuring students’ motivation
such as the teacher report measures described by Guthrie and
his colleagues (2007/this issue) need to continue if we are to
be successful in truly capturing multiple aspects of student’s
social and academic motivation at school.
Finally, the measurement of social motivation is perhaps
less well developed than that of academic motivation. For example, school belongingness measures typically assess students’ perceptions of the quality of relationships with all of
their teachers and peers as a group (see Goodenow, 1993;
Roeser & Eccles, 1998). However, remaining questions to
address in this area concern the extent to which these global
beliefs develop out of interactions and relationships with
268
WENTZEL AND WIGFIELD
single or multiple teachers and peers, and the degree to which
reflect a student’s ongoing history of relationships or a single
but salient recent relationship.
Design issues concerning sampling also are important to
consider. Sampling procedures described in this issue reflect different but effective ways to protect the validity of the
experimental designs and to allow conclusions concerning
generalizability to be made. For example, at the individual
student level, Hudley et al.’s (2007/this issue) interventions
to reduce children’s aggression used random assignment of
aggressive children to treatment condition. At the level of
school intervention, Felner et al.’s (2007/this issue) work
also illustrates how random assignment can be done effectively to evaluate large-scale school reform. As the gold standard for intervention research, random assignment to treatment and control conditions is increasingly common even
in school-based interventions. However, few evaluations of
motivational interventions have used this strategy, especially
studies done at the classroom level of intervention. Often,
intervention researchers have difficulty using random assignment at the classroom level given issues surrounding teacher
and principal support for such designs, contamination effects
within schools, and obtaining parent permission for such kind
of work. Ethical considerations also are an issue. If motivational interventions are effective, all students should be given
the opportunity to enjoy their benefits.
However, different kinds of matching procedures can be
employed in quasi-experimental designs to ensure comparability of treatment and control groups. Guthrie and his
colleagues’ (2007/this issue) work with CORI is exemplary
in this regard. Researchers also can use a variety of statistical
techniques to address sampling issues. For instance, Guthrie
et al. check for differences between treatment and control at
pretest and analyze posttest data only after establishing that
there are not pretest differences. When pretest differences exist they use analyses of covariance where appropriate. These
researchers also are careful to use appropriate levels of analyses to assess intervention effects, sometimes looking at outcomes at the individual level and sometimes at the classroom
level. Balfanz and his colleagues (2007/this issue) used logistical regression to analyze the predictive power of their
“flags” to identify dropout risk. In these and other ways,
threats to internal validity can be addressed in well-designed
interventions.
Another issue with respect to design is the scalability
of different interventions (see Blumenfeld, Marx, & Harris,
2006, for discussion of the challenges of taking successful smaller interventions to a larger scale). As demonstrated
by experimental studies, many cognitive and motivational
interventions are effective on a small scale. However, once
shown to be effective, they then need to be implemented more
broadly to see if they are replicable in multiple classroom settings and schools and with diverse groups of students. There
are many challenges to scaling up successful interventions,
with implementation quality perhaps the most serious. As the
number of individuals and schools adopting an intervention
increases, there is a greater likelihood that there will be differences in quality of implementation. When this occurs, it
is difficult if not impossible to determine if the intervention
did not work because it was not of good quality or because it
was not implemented well.
A number of the interventions discussed in this special issue, notably Balfanz et al.’s (2007/this issue) and Felner et al.’s
(2007/this issue), have been taken to relatively large scale.
In this regard, Felner and his colleagues discuss necessary
and sufficient conditions for the effective implementation of
smaller learning communities. These conditions must be met
before the success or failure of an intervention can be determined. The Guthrie et al. (2007/this issue) programs have
been implemented on a smaller scale, but Guthrie and his
colleagues have developed interesting ways to assess fidelity
of implementation that should be helpful when CORI is taken
to a larger scale. These include videotaping teachers and coding for implementation quality, but also by having teachers
complete questionnaires that ask how they implement the
CORI program.
DEVELOPMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
The authors in this volume are to be commended for their
thoughtful consideration of developmental issues. Most of
the articles in this issue focus on projects designed for students in late childhood and early adolescent years. As Juvonen (2007/this issue) points out, this focus is warranted
given that students’ social as well as academic motivation
tends to decline during this period of development. Coupled
with findings that ethnic minority students at this age tend
to be at greater risk for academic problems and school drop
out than their White peers (Rumberger, 1995), these developmental challenges support a more careful consideration of
the early adolescent years as a critical time for intervention
efforts. This may be especially true for interventions focused
on motivation and engagement. Although the early adolescent years are indeed a critical time for the development of
motivation and engagement and (for many children) disengagement, it continues to be important to work with younger
children and older adolescents as well.
Developmental issues also are reflected in the evaluation
designs described by several authors in this issue. Indeed,
a critical design issue concerns the long-term effects of interventions. Hudley and her colleagues (2007/this issue) examined the effects of their intervention at 6- and 12-month
follow-ups, a relatively long time for this kind of research.
Such designs need to become more prevalent in the literature.
Both Balfanz and his colleagues (2007/this issue) and Felner and his colleagues (2007/this issue) also are interested in
long-term outcomes of their interventions with their focus on
identifying students likely to drop out, and work to keep them
engaged in school. As noted in these articles, there is a need
MOTIVATIONAL INTERVENTIONS THAT WORK
to continue efforts to determine how long effects of various
effective interventions last, or even when the effects emerge.
This issue also arises when considering the seemingly negative effects of school transitions on students’ motivation and
achievement. The question of whether the motivational and
academic downturns associated with the middle school years
are a long-term product of the transition or a developmental phenomenon that occurs regardless of school structure
remains unanswered.
269
of developmental issues when planning and implementing
motivation interventions. Much work has focused on the middle school years given the important changes in motivation
and achievement that tend to occur during this period. However, more work is needed to develop successful intervention
programs that motivate younger children and adolescents to
succeed.
We believe that the articles in this issue provide readers
with an excellent foundation for addressing these important
issues and from which to develop new intervention programs
to enhance students’ motivation and achievement at school.
CONCLUSION
We had two central goals in compiling this special issue.
One goal was to give authors who have developed successful
interventions that focus on student motivation an opportunity
to present a broad portrayal of their work and its effects on
student outcomes and to discuss issues and challenges they
and others designing interventions continue to face. A second
goal was to focus on the effects of the different interventions
on the achievement and social outcomes of ethnic minority
children. As we come to the end of this commentary and our
own reflections on the articles, we believe the two goals have
been met well by the authors in this issue. It is clear from
their articles that interventions focused on motivation indeed
do work and that they can be especially effective for ethnic
minority children.
At the same time, there is much work remaining to be
done with respect to enhancing the interventions described
in these articles, developing new ones, and dealing with the
complex research design and measurement issues that are
such a big part of intervention work. For example, more precision in theoretical and operational definitions of motivation
and engagement would move the field forward. Utilizing specific motivational principles when developing whole-school
interventions is necessary. Basic as well as evaluation research also could focus more on the social and emotional
experiences of ethnic minorities in schools as they relate to
motivation and achievement. Research is beginning to suggest that for these students, a strong sense of ethnic identity
in conjunction with a positive sense of self-worth tends to
act as a buffer against the negative effects of prejudice and
discriminatory behavior on academic achievement. It is clear
that ways to promote these positive views of the self by improving classroom environments are in need of development.
We also noted that although the measurement of motivation has improved over the past few decades, additional
advances in measurement with respect to specificity, focus
on process and change, and use of multiple methods are still
needed. In this regard, greater theoretical specification of social support and more precise ways to assess it are necessary.
Issues of sampling and scalability also were highlighted. In
general, more attention to targeting specific structural aspects
of schools and classrooms that influence students’ motivation
to excel is warranted. Finally, we highlighted the importance
REFERENCES
Balfanz, R., Herzog, L., & Mac Iver, D. J. (2007). Preventing student disengagement and keeping students on the graduation path in urban middlegrades schools: Early identification and effective interventions. Educational Psychologist, 42, 223–235.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
Freeman.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong. Desire for
interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Blackwell, L., Trzesniewski, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories
of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A
longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246–263.
Blumenfeld, P. B., Marx, R. W., & Harris, C. J. (2006). Learning environments. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & K. A. Renninger & I. E. Sigel
(Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 297–342).
New York: Wiley.
Boekaerts, M. (2001). The on-line motivation questionnaire: A self-report
instrument to assess students’ context sensitivity. In P. R. Pintrich & M.
L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, Volume 12:
New directions in measures and methods (pp. 77–120). New York: JAI
Elsevier Science.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.),
Annals of child development (Vol. 6, pp. 187–250). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Butler, R. (2005). Competence assessment, competence, and motivation
between early and middle childhood. In A. J. Elliott & C. S. Dweck
(Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 202–221). New
York: Guilford.
Carnegie Task Force on the Education of Young Adolescents. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. Waldorf, MD:
Carnege Council of New York.
Certo, J. L., Cauley, K. M., & Chafin, C. (2003). Students’ perspectives on
their high school experience. Adolescence,38, 705–724.
Cohen, E. G. (1986). Designing group work: Strategies for the heterogeneous
classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Connell, J. P. (2003). Getting off the dime: First steps toward implementing
First Things First. Report prepared for the U. S. Department of Education.
Philadelphia: Institute for Research and Reform in Education.
Cooper, H., & Dorr, N. (1995). Race comparisons on need for achievement: A meta-analytic alternative to Graham’s narrative review. Review
of Educational Research, 65, 483–508.
Cordova, D., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process
of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and
choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 715–730.
Crosnoe, R., Johnson, M. K., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (2004). Intergenerational
bonding in school: The behavioral and contextual correlates of student–
teacher relationships. Sociology of Education, 77, 60–81.
270
WENTZEL AND WIGFIELD
Daniels, E., & Arapostathis, M. (2005). What do they really want? Student
voices and motivation research Urban Education, 40, 34–59.
Dornbusch, S. M., Erickson, K. G., Laird, J., & Wong, C. A. (2001). The
relation of family and school attachment to adolescent deviance in diverse
groups and communities. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16, 396–422.
Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage/environment fit: Developmentally
appropriate classrooms for early adolescents. In R. Ames & C. Ames
(Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 139–181). New
York: Academic.
Epstein, J. L. (1983). The influence of friends on achievement and affective
outcomes. In J. L. Epstein & N. Karweit (Eds.), Friends in school (pp.
177–200). New York: Academic.
Felner, R. D., Seitsinger, A., Brand, S., Burns, A., & Bolton, N. (2007).
Creating Small learning communities: Lessons from the project on highperforming learning communities about “what works" in creating productive, developmentally enhancing, learning contexts. Educational Psychologist, 42, 209–221.
Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117–142.
Firestone, W. A., & Pennell, J. R. (1993). Teacher commitment, working
conditions, and differential incentive policies. Review of Educational Research, 63, 498–525.
Foesterling, F. (1985). Attributional retraining: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 495–512.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.
Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: Relationships to motivation and achievement. Journal of Early
Adolescence, 13, 21–43.
Graham, S. (1994). Motivation in African Americans. Review of Educational
Research, 64, 55–117.
Guthrie, J. T., McCrae, A., & Klauda, S. L. (2007). Contributions of conceptoriented reading instruction to knowledge about interventions for motivations in reading. Educational Psychologist, 42, 237–250.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher–child relationships and
the trajectory of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child
Development, 72, 625–638.
Hayes, C. B., Ryan, A., & Zseller, E. B. (1994). The middle school child’s
perceptions of caring teachers. American Journal of Education, 103, 1–
19.
Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151–180.
Hill, K. (1984). Debilitating motivation and testing: A major educational
problem, possible solutions, and policy applications. In R. Ames & C.
Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education, Vol. 1: Student motivation (pp. 245–272). New York: Academic.
Hudley, C., Graham, S., & Taylor, A. (2007). Reducing aggressive behavior
and increasing motivation in school: The evolution of an intervention to
strengthen school adjustment. Educational Psychologist, 42, 251–260.
Juvonen, J. (2007). Reforming middle schools: Focus on continuity, social
connectedness, and engagement. Educational Psychologist, 42, 197–208.
Juvonen, J., & Wentzel, K. R. (1996). Social motivation: Understanding
children’s school adjustment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kutnick, P., & Kington, A. (2005). Children’s friendships and learning in
school: Cognitive enhancement through social interaction? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 521–538.
Ladd, G. W., & Burgess, K. B. (2001). Do relational risks and protective
factors moderate the linkages between childhood aggression and early
psychological and school adjustment? Child Development, 72, 1579–
1601.
Maccoby, E. E. (2002). Gender and group process: A developmental perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 54–58.
Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming school cultures. Boulder,
CO: Westview.
McLoyd, V. C., Aikens, N. L., & Burton, L. M. (2006). Childhood poverty,
policy, and practice. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of
educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 700–775). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Morris-Rothschild, B. K., & Brassard, M. R. (2006). Teachers’ conflict management styles: The role of attachment styles and classroom management
efficacy. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 105–121.
National Middle School Association. (2003). This we believe: Successful
schools for young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author.
O’Connor, E., & McCartney, K. (2006). Testing associations between young
children’s relationships with mothers and teachers. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 98, 87–98.
Okagaki, L. (2006). Ethnicity, learning. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne
(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 615–634).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Oldfather, P. (1993). What students say about motivating experiences in a
whole language classroom. The Reading Teacher, 46, 672–681.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of
Educational Research, 66, 543–578.
Phelan, P., Davidson, A. L., & Cao, H. T. (1991). Students’ multiple worlds:
Negotiating the boundaries of family, peer, and school cultures. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 22, 224–250.
Phinney, J. S., Cantu, C. L., & Kurtz, D. A. (1997). Ethnic and American
identity as predictors of self-esteem among African-American, Latino,
and white adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 165–185.
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.
Roeser, R. W., & Eccles, J. S. (1998). Adolescents’ perceptions of middle
school: Relation to longitudinal changes in academic and psychological
adjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8, 123–158.
Rohrbeck, C. A., Ginsburg-Block, M. D., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (2003). Peerassisted learning interventions with elementary school students: A metaanalytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 240–257.
Romo, H. D., & Falbo, T. (1996). Latino high school graduation: Defying
the odds. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Rumberger, R.W. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: A multilevel analysis of students and schools. American Educational Research Journal,
32, 583–625.
Rutherford, W. (1999). Creating student-centered classroom environments:
The case of reading. In P. Reyes, J. D. Scribner, & A. P. Scribner (Eds.),
Lessons from high-performing Hispanic schools: Creating learning communities (pp. 131–168). New York: Teachers College Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination
theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M.
Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination theory research (pp. 3–33).
Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Saft, E. W., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Teachers’ perceptions of their relationships with students: Effects of child age, gender, and ethnicity of teachers
and children. School Psychology Quarterly, 16, 125–141.
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2002). The development of academic selfefficacy. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement
motivation (pp. 15–32). San Diego: Academic.
Scribner, J. D., & Reyes, P. (1999). Creating learning communities for high
performing Hispanic students: A conceptual framework. In P. Reyes, J.
D. Scribner, & A. P. Scribner (Eds.), Lessons from high-performing Hispanic schools: Creating learning communities (pp. 188–210). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Slavin, R. E., Hurley, E. A., & Chamberlain, A. (2003). Cooperative learning
and achievement: Theory and research. In W. Reynolds & G. Miller (Eds.),
Handbook of psychology, Vol. 7: Educational psychology (pp. 177–198).
New York: Wiley.
MOTIVATIONAL INTERVENTIONS THAT WORK
Smokowski, P. R., Reynolds, A. J., & Bezrucko, N. (2000). Resilience and
protective factors in adolescence: An autobiographical perspective from
disadvantaged youth. Journal of School Psychology, 37, 425–448.
Spencer, M. B., Noll, E., Stoltzfus, J., & Harpalani, V. (2001). Identify and
school adjustment: Revising the “Acting White” assumption. Educational
Psychologist, 36, 31–44.
Steele, C. M. (1992, April). Race and the schooling of black Americans.
Atlantic Monthly, 269, 68–78.
Steele, C. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual
identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual
test performance of African-Americans. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 69, 797–811.
Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S., & Brown, B. (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescent achievements: An ecological perspective. American Psychologist,
47, 723–729.
Stevenson, H. W., Chen, C., & Uttal, D. H. (1990). Beliefs and achievement:
A study of black, white, and Hispanic children. Child Development, 61,
508–523.
Stipek, D. J. (1996). Motivation and instruction. In R. C. Calfee & D. C.
Berliner (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 85–113). New
York: Macmillan.
Stone, S., & Han, M. (2005). Perceived school environments, perceived
discrimination, and school performance among children of Mexican immigrants. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 51–66.
Taylor, R. D., Casten, R., Flickinger, S., Roberts, D., & Fulmore, C. D.
(1994). Explaining the school performance of African-American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4, 21–44.
Urberg, K. A., Degirmencioglu, S., M., Tolson, J. M., & Hallidayscher,
K. (1995). The structure of adolescent peer networks. Developmental
Psychology, 31, 540–547.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
(2003). Projections of Education Statistics to 2013 (NCES 2004–013).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2002.
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.–Mexican youths and the
politics of caring. Albany: SUNY Press.
Watson, M., Solomon, D., Battistich, V., Schaps, E., & Solomon, J. (1989).
The child development project: Combining traditional and developmental
approaches to values education. In L. Nucci (Ed.), Moral development and
character education: A dialogue (pp. 51–92). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and
emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548–573.
Weiner, B. (2005). Motivation from an attribution perspective and the social
psychology of perceived competence. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck
271
(Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 73–84). New York:
Guilford.
Weinstein, R. S. (2002). Reaching higher: The power of expectations in
schooling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wentzel, K. R. (2003). School adjustment. In W. Reynolds & G. Miller
(Eds.), Handbook of psychology, Vol. 7: Educational psychology (pp.
235–258). New York: Wiley.
Wentzel, K. R. (2004). Understanding classroom competence: The role of
social-motivational and self-processes. In R. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child
development and behavior, Vol. 32 (pp. 213–241). New York: Elsevier.
Wentzel, K. R. (2005). Peer relationships, motivation, and academic performance at school. In A. Elliot & C. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence
and motivation (pp. 279–296). New York: Guilford.
Wentzel, K. R. (in press). Peers and academic functioning at school. In K.
Rubin, W. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. New York: Guilford.
Wentzel, K. R., Filisetti, L., & Looney, L. (2007). Adolescent prosocial behavior: The role of self-processes and contextual cues.Child Development,
78, 895–910.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). The development of competence beliefs
and values from childhood through adolescence. In A. Wigfield & J. S.
Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 92–120). San
Diego: Academic.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R., & Davis-Kean, P. (2006).
Development of achievement motivation. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg
(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 933–1002).
New York: Wiley.
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (in press). The impact of Concept-Oriented
Reading Instruction on students’ reading motivation, reading engagement, and reading comprehension. In J. L. Meece & J. S. Eccles (Eds.),
Handbook of research on schools, schooling, and human development.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Winston, C., Eccles, J. S., Senior, A. M., & Vida, M. (1997). The utility of an
expectancy/value model of achievement for understanding academic performance and self-esteem in African-American and European-American
adolescents. Zeitschrift Fur Padagogische Psychologie, 11, 177–
186.
Wong, C. A., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. (2003). The influence of ethnic
discrimination and ethnic identification on African American adolescents’
school and socioemotional adjustment. Journal of Personality, 71, 1197–
1232.
Yoon, J. S. (2002). Teacher characteristics as predictors of teacher–student
relationships: Stress, negative affect, and self-efficacy. Social Behavior
and Personality, 30, 485–493.