CHOICE THEORY AND STUDENT MOTIVATION
Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this project
is my own or was done in collaboration with my Advisor. This project does not include
proprietary or classified information.
________________________________________________________________________
Randolph Stephen Hardigree, Jr.
Certificate of Approval:
______________________________
______________________________
Donald R. Livingston, Ed.D.
Associate Professor and Co-Project Advisor
Education Department
Sharon M. Livingston, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor and Co-Project Advisor
Education Department
Choice Theory & Motivation
CHOICE THEORY AND STUDENT MOTIVATION
A project submitted
by
Randolph Stephen Hardigree, Jr.
to
LaGrange College
in partial fulfillment of
the requirement for the
degree of
SPECIALIST IN EDUCATION
in
Curriculum and Instruction
LaGrange, Georgia
July 21, 2011
ii
Choice Theory & Motivation
iii
Abstract
This study focused on the application of William Glasser’s choice theory in a classroom
of freshman biology students in hopes of increasing student motivation and engagement
and, thereby, improving standardized test performance. Choice theory methods were
applied for a nine week period with a particular emphasis on cooperative learning teams.
Through the use of independent t-tests, student surveys, a colleague focus group, and a
school administrator interview, this action research study found no significant change in
standardized test scores but a distinctly positive influence on student attitudes and
engagement.
Choice Theory & Motivation
Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………….. iii
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………... iv
List of Tables and Figures…………………………………………………………..v
Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………….. 1
Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………... 1
Significance of the Problem………………………………………………... 2
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks………………………………….. 3
Focus Questions……………………………………………………………. 4
Overview of Methodology…………………………………………………. 5
Human as Researcher………………………………………………………. 6
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature………………………………………………...7
External Control vs. Choice………………………………………………... 7
Needs We Are Driven By………………………………………………….. 9
Learning Pictures…………………………………………………………... 12
Total Behavior……………………………………………………………... 13
Learning Teams……………………………………………………………. 13
Organizational Change……………………………………………………...15
Chapter 3: Methodology…………………………………………………………… 17
Research Design…………………………………………………………… 17
Setting ……………………………………………………………………... 18
Subjects and Participants……………………..……………………………. 18
Procedures and Data Collection Methods…………..……………………… 19
Validity, Reliability, Dependability, Bias, and Equity……….……………. 21
Analysis of Data……………………………………………………………. 23
Chapter 4: Results………………………………………………………………….. 27
Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results……………………………………. 35
Analysis……………………………………………………………………. 35
Discussion………………………………………………………………….. 40
Implications…………………………………………………………………41
Impact on School Improvement……………………………………………. 42
Recommendations for Future Research……………………………………. 43
References………………………………………………………………………….. 44
Appendices…………………………………………………………………………. 47
iv
Choice Theory & Motivation
v
List of Tables
Tables
Table 3.1
Data Shell…………………………………………………………..…….19
Table 4.1
Independent t-test: EOCT Scores………………………...……………....27
Table 4.2
Chi Square Statistic for Student Survey…………………………….……28
Choice Theory & Motivation
1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
This study will explored the problem of insufficient student engagement in
secondary schools. Specifically, the ideas presented in William Glasser’s (1988) Choice
theory in the Classroom were applied as an attempt to motivate and improve the test
performance of students in a freshman biology classroom. While the partial intent was to
measure any change in End of Course Test performance after Glasser’s innovations were
applied, equal emphasis was placed upon the effect of the innovations on the students’
feelings and attitudes toward coming to biology class.
The Georgia End of Course Test data for 2009-2010 left me wondering what
could be done to push more students beyond their current levels of performance. Across
the board, it seemed that many of the students were capable of scoring higher than they
did. Aware of the fact that I could not control out-of-school factors, I began to wonder if
America’s test-driven approach to education was prohibiting some students from a
fulfilling classroom experience that allowed them to succeed. If so, could something be
done in class to counteract this trend?”
Glasser (1988) estimates that American public high schools typically have about
fifty percent of their students successfully engaged in learning, while the other half either
disengage or drop out of school altogether (p. 3).
He adds that this truth persists even in
affluent areas. Erwin (2005), a former teacher and current staff development specialist
and educational consultant asks, “What do we do in education that turns exuberant little
learning sponges into haters of all things educational?...Why is this happening? What can
we do about it?” (p. 16).
Choice Theory & Motivation
The methods used in this study attempted to answer the question, “Did applying
the suggested practices of Glasser’s choice theory affect the way students performed on
their End of Course Tests and the way they felt about biology class?”
Significance of the Problem
Glasser (1988) states that the problem of student motivation has really existed in
the U.S. since World War II . Today, this preexistent problem is more visible than ever,
because, “Scores on tests are well-publicized, and everyone involved in education feels
enormous pressure to improve or at least maintain their level of performance” (Erwin,
2005, p. 15).
In a regular education classroom, the problem of low motivation plays out in the
form of various behaviors and test scores. While I am known for having a problem-free
classroom and an excellent rapport with students, the issue of non-performance is
obvious in my students’ End of Course test scores. In 2010, 28% of my students failed
to meet required standards on the EOCT, and only 16% of my students exceeded
standards.
The data from my own student test scores were indicative of the general
achievement gap seen across the state of Georgia. In 2009, thirty-six percent of
Georgia’s test takers did not meet standards in biology (Georgia Department of
Education, 2009). So it seems that this problem is pertinent to all public science
educators.
2
Choice Theory & Motivation
3
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks
This study, directed by Glasser’s choice theory, was closely connected to the
social constructivist theory of learning. Geelan (2006) stated, “Constructivist
perspectives on teaching and learning generally affirm two principles: (1) knowledge is
actively constructed by learners, rather than transmitted by teachers; and (2) new
knowledge is constructed on the foundations of students’ existing knowledge” (p. 53).
Specifically, social constructivism is subscribed to by LaGrange College Education
Department (2008) in Tenet One of its Conceptual Framework, where it is stated,
“…knowledge is constructed in a context of social relations…” (p. 3). Glasser (1988)
agrees that learning is influenced heavily by what happens in the social realm, stating,
“On a well-coached team, all players experience not only power but also a strong sense of
belonging, and it would not be amiss to say that there is a love for both each other and the
coach. The contrast between teams and classes is striking. What is so need fulfilling in
music, drama, and athletics is almost completely lacking in English, math, and history”
(pp. 75-76).
Tenet Two also coincided with Glasser’s choice theory and learning team
approach. Tenet Two states, “Fundamental to social constructivism, learning that is first
taught at the conceptual level in the classroom must be transferred to situations outside
the classroom (Fosnot & Perry, 2005). This requires that learners be active participants
in the learning process” (LaGrange College Education Department, 2010, p. 5).
“To apply constructivist principals, while simultaneously meeting the content and
testing requirements of state departments of education and local school boards,” as stated
Choice Theory & Motivation
4
in Tenet Two (LaGrange College Education Department, 2008), is also at the heart of the
learning teams model suggested by Glasser.
This study was directly connected to Tenet Three, Caring and Supportive
Classrooms and Learning Communities, in that it required me to put great thought and
effort into specific classroom strategies for positively affecting the students’ feelings,
learning experiences, and future lives.
Propositions One, Three, and Four of the National Board of Professional
Teaching Standards (NBPTS) for Experienced Teachers, state that teachers are
committed to students and learning, responsible for managing and monitoring student
learning, and that they think systematically about their practice and learn from experience
(LaGrange College Education Department, 2008). While test score expectations do
maximize the pressure placed on all teachers to perform, these three propositions were
truly at the heart of why I chose to explore choice theory and put great thought and effort
into the ways of engaging the most students and move them toward a more personal and
positive educational experience.
Focus Questions
A desire to find real ways to maximize the enjoyment of the learning process for
all students as well as curiosity as to whether increasing motivation could affect test
performance guided the formation of several focus questions. Whether it is right or
wrong, this is a season of American educational history during which accountability is
being directly linked to test performance. With this in mind, the first focus question
asked:
Choice Theory & Motivation
5
1. Did the application of Glasser’s choice theory have a positive effect on the
students’ EOCT performance for the Cells & Genetics domains?
More important to me, personally, was the challenge of affecting the attitudes and
feelings of the students I taught. I care deeply about making a personal connection with
my students and want to end each year confident that I was successful in this attempt.
This natural inclination led to the formulation of the second focus question, which asked:
2. How did my students and colleagues feel about the choice theory methods that
were applied to the classroom setting?
Finally, I was interested, as always, in proliferating anything proven to be effective in
helping me reach my goals as an educator and promoting authentic learning across the
school campus, while eliminating worthless practices. This naturally led to the third
focus question:
3. Did school leaders view choice theory as an innovation worthy of school-wide
application?
Overview of Methodology
This was an action research study, employing several methods of data collection.
Research was performed in public high school freshman biology classes in west central
Georgia. To assess focus question # 1, “Did the application of Glasser’s choice theory
have a positive effect on the students’ EOCT performance for the Cells and Genetics
domains?” quantitative data were secured from End of Course test results from 2010 and
2011. T-tests were used to analyze this quantitative test data. A survey utilizing a Likert
Choice Theory & Motivation
6
scale was used to assess focus question # 2, “How did my students and colleagues feel
about the choice theory methods that were applied to the classroom setting?” as well as a
colleague focus group. Data were then examined through chi square analysis of the
survey responses and coding of the focus group record for significant themes. Interviews
were also conducted to document feelings of other stakeholders in response to focus
question # 3, “Did school leaders view choice theory as an innovation worthy of schoolwide application?” Reflection was completed and coded for themes after completion of
interviews.
Human as a Researcher
I hold degrees in both Business Operations Management and Education. My
work in both fields has allowed me to participate in the process of education as well as
observe the products of education. My 16 years of classroom teaching, both at the
elementary and secondary levels, and my 18 years of parenting experience have allowed
me to observe human development from both an educational perspective and a sociofamilial perspective. The combination of these exposures gives me a keen awareness of
the variables at play in an individual’s total development. Being a successful product of
traditional American education gives me a positive bias toward its effectiveness;
therefore, I had to work to remain aware of this to be objective as a researcher.
Choice Theory & Motivation
7
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
External Control vs. Choice
Glasser’s (1988) choice theory is rooted in the idea that at least half of the
students in any classroom are disengaged from the learning process, thereby producing
no evidence of quality work or knowledge. A traditional instrumentalist approach to
education puts the power of education solely in the hands of the teacher (Glasser, 1988).
Even though Noddings (2003) points out that fun, productive classrooms depend on the
knowledge and artistry of the teacher, Glasser’s (1988) theory indicates that student effort
is a crucial variable in the equation and that teaching is impossible without it (1988).
Interestingly, the problem of the disengaged student appears to be a universal one,
present even in the classrooms of affluent communities (Glasser, 1988). Could it be that
there is a flaw in the traditional approach to education that Americans have known and
clung to for so long? America has tried to upgrade curriculum since the Sputnik
phenomenon, yet we still face the unresolved and ever-present puzzle of the disengaged
student (Glasser, 1988). Erwin (2005) notes that dislike of school is an ever-increasing
problem. Adding to this dilemma is today’s pressure cooker of standardized testing.
Noddings (2003) points out that today’s standards movement may push even more
students away from school with its dull and tireless pursuit of facts and skills than can be
tested easily. Erwin (2005) agrees that today’s testing mandates exert excessive pressure
upon teachers and students, which leads to resentment, absence, shut-down, and
disruption.
According to Glasser (1988), the prevalent mode of thought in America operates
within a paradigm of external control theory, in which we believe that what we do is
Choice Theory & Motivation
motivated by people and events outside of us. Glasser (1988) challenges educators to be
brave enough to embrace a paradigm shift by accepting the idea of choice theory – the
belief that any behavior we engage in is an attempt on our part to satisfy at least five
basic needs that are built in to our genetic make-up. These basics include the need to
survive and reproduce, to belong, to gain power, to be free, and to have fun. Our nature
is to behave in such a way that will fulfill whichever need is currently the most unmet.
Choice theory suggests that the need for knowledge is often far overshadowed by other
unmet needs in students’ lives. According to Glasser (1988), when any or all of these
critical needs are unmet, no amount of pressure or coercion will cause students to
succeed. Noddings (2003) confirms this with the observation that students can’t find
happiness in a classroom when they are dealing with such unmet needs as hunger, pain,
and poor vision. Glasser (1997) points out that continuing to teach within a
stimulus/response mindset destroys the warm and supportive relationships that are an
innate need of all students. Furthermore, discipline problems begin to surface and
escalate in classrooms where students do not feel satisfaction in terms of these innate
needs. Shillingford and Edwards (2008) found that using choice theory as a model for
therapy decreased such negative behavior. Glasser (1988) says, “a good school could be
defined as a place where almost all students believe that if they do some work, they will
be able to satisfy their needs enough so that it makes sense to keep working” (p. 16).
Supporting this idea, Zeeman (2006) asserts that a Glasser Quality School will provide
success, happiness, and intellectual growth for most students. Glasser (1988) states that
a good starting place for teachers in understanding choice theory is to replace the
commonly used words react and respond with choose and act. This helps to initiate a
8
Choice Theory & Motivation
9
shift in our thinking by helping us be cognizant of our own choice in every behavior that
we engage in.
Needs We Are Driven By
All organisms have needs, but Glasser (1988) says that one need unique to human
beings is the need for power. According to Glasser (1988), whenever any of our needs is
unmet – especially the need for power – we have a built in urge to behave in some
manner. Psychological needs are much more challenging, especially in the classroom,
because what meets them varies from one person to the next (Glasser, 1988). For
example, worries that typically prevail in the human psyche include, “…winning, our
honor, our pride, our integrity, our desire to be heard, our need to be right, who
recognizes us, whether we are achieving enough, rich enough, smart enough, goodlooking, well dressed…the list goes on and on. We worry about status, position, and
whether we have clout. We are constantly trying to avoid those people who would coerce
us, manipulate us, or use us. Among us, even the humble compete for who can be the
humblest of all” (Glasser, 1988, p. 29).
Regarding the need for power, Glasser (1988) says that our tendency is to avoid
ownership of this need due to the fact that history has given us so many negative
examples of power (Hitler, for example), leaving a connotation of bad things attached to
the idea. In reality, Glasser (1988) believes, we are innately competitive beings who will
jump at any chance to move beyond mere survival. We are driven by our needs to
behave so that the needs are met (Glasser, 1988). In so doing, some may behave rightly
while others may behave wrongly. At any rate, Glasser (1988) says that students simply
Choice Theory & Motivation
10
will not work in school if they do not sense that they have any power and that even
teachers work harder when they can see that their efforts have a power payoff.
Glasser’s (1988) theory suggests that whenever teachers can meet, in the
classroom, any of these needs that all humans share – specifically power, freedom, and
belonging – that students and teachers alike will find the work more interesting, more
fun, and will learn more. Goodman (1964) had similar ideas, stating that need, desire,
choice, and trying out could be welcome elements in education. According to Noddings
(2003), classroom atmospheres should reflect a desire for happiness and offer
opportunities for pleasure, yet many educators still think that classroom pleasure is a sign
that little is being accomplished. There is an assumption here that the more students get
their needs met in the classroom, the more of themselves they will invest in academic
endeavors. According to Erwin (2005), when students are satisfied in the classroom, high
standards and fun can go hand in hand. Noddings (2003) echoes this notion with the idea
that students will perform for teachers who demonstrate care for them consistently,
especially by responding to the expressed needs of the students.
Glasser (1988) concluded that the secondary school setting holds a greater
opportunity for improvement than elementary schools where choice theory is concerned.
This is due to the presence of more failure at the high school level, more competition,
more emphasis on memorization, and less emphasis on thinking than in elementary
school (Glasser, 1988). These variables create a scenario in which students feel an
intense lack of power in the high school setting (Glasser, 1988). While teenagers look
more toward their peers for belonging and love, they also have an increased need for
independence and power, for which they still look toward adults. Glasser (1988) says
Choice Theory & Motivation
11
that it is normal for teenagers to experience this need for power as part of their growth
and development, yet a traditional high school academic setting fails to give students
access to the very power that they crave.
As teachers bear these ideas in mind, Glasser (1988) suggests that they ask themselves
some key questions:

Do your students sense that they belong?

Do they feel that they are friendly with other students and supportive of you and
each other?

Do they realize that there is power in knowledge?

If they don’t, do you have any program to help them gain this vital belief?

Do all of your students have a chance to win or do you only have a few consistent
winners?

Do your students have any freedom to choose what to study or any say in how to
prove to you that they are making progress?

Are they free to go elsewhere if they are finished with their work and others are
not?

Is there laughter and good-natured clowning in which you are a participant?

Have you been concerned as to whether your students find satisfaction in your
class? (p. 33)
Choice Theory & Motivation
12
Learning Pictures
Glasser (1988) says that most students begin school with a desire to learn because
of a certain pattern that prevails for most children in their early years: when we do what
our caretaker wants, we get love and attention. Upon school entrance, what teachers
want students to do is learn to read; and so begins a chain of events that can lead toward a
mindset of victory or defeat, depending upon the child’s readiness to read (Glasser,
1988). A student who is ready to read receives a good grade, pleases his teacher and
caretakers, receives praise, feels important, feels powerful, associates this power with
knowledge, and consequently places a picture in his mind of reading being a needsatisfying activity. Contrastingly, a student who is not ready to read receives a bad grade,
frustrates his teacher and caretakers, may receive scolding, feels unimportant and
powerless, experiences severe frustration, associates learning with bad feelings, and
hence removes the picture from his mind of reading being a need-satisfying activity
(Glasser, 1988).
According to choice theory, all of our behaviors are instigated by satisfying
pictures in our heads of such behaviors being pleasant memories. When students believe
that they cannot master a particular activity, they tend not to keep a picture in their heads
of that activity being need-satisfying thing to engage in. Glasser (1988) says that we all
tend to keep a well-edited photo album in our heads, containing only pictures of things
that are pleasing or satisfying to us in some way. While a child may be able to cope with
being told that he still has some work to do before he reaches his goal, receiving failing
grades and criticism sometimes leads a child to believe that reaching the goal is
impossible (Glasser, 1988). This is more than some individuals can handle, and these are
Choice Theory & Motivation
13
the ones who make a choice to remove the learning pictures from their minds (Glasser,
1988). These are the ones that we must find a new way to reach.
Once a student has removed the learning picture from his head, choice theory
suggests that there are only two ways to restore that picture to its rightful place. A
student may be convinced by someone that he already loves and feels accepted by or he
may happen upon a class that for he, for whatever reason, finds satisfying. Glasser
(1988) says that it takes at least one satisfying class to reengage a lost student.
Total Behavior
Glasser (1988) states that behavior is actually a product of four components:
acting, thinking, feeling, and physiology. While humans may not be able to control every
component, they do choose the sum of the components. These behavior choices are
usually an attempt to control ourselves our control others (Glasser, 1988).
Learning Teams
So how does a teacher incorporate opportunities for students satiate the needs that
they bring with them to school? Glasser’s (1988) mode of delivering such opportunities
is learning teams. He uses the well-functioning athletic team as an analogy for
understanding how academic learning teams should function. Glasser (1988) explains
that athletic teams typically have strong players and weak players. When a team
functions as it should, the weak players do not just relax and disengage, letting the
stronger players do all the work. Nor do the strong players resent the weak players for
their lesser abilities. The strong players actually encourage the weaker ones and help
them along. When the weak players do get their chance to play, their hard work and
points are valued by the team just as the strongest players’ contributions are. Members of
Choice Theory & Motivation
14
such a team experience power, belonging, and often even love for each other and their
coach – elements that Glasser (1988) says are often missing from the classroom learning
environment.
Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec (1994) warn teachers against mistakenly thinking
that cooperative learning means simply putting students in groups and instructing them to
work together – that such a blind approach can lead to close-quarters competition,
individualistic efforts with conversation, and social loafing among various other
detrimental and nonproductive outcomes. Johnson et al. (1994) identify five fundamental
components for effective cooperative learning teams: positive interdependence (when
group members perceive that they cannot succeed without each other), promotive
interaction (when group members help, assist, support, encourage, and praise each
other’s efforts), individual accountability (when the performance of each individual is
assessed but the results are given back to the entire team), interpersonal and small group
skills (when leadership, decision making, trust building, communication, and conflict
management skills are taught to the group members and the group is rewarded for using
the acquired skills, and group processing (when groups identify what they are doing well
and what they are doing poorly and make decisions regarding modifications necessary for
the next meeting to be more successful). (Yager, Johnson, and Johnson, 1985) found that
high-, middle-, and low-achieving students who participated in cooperative learning
teams with group processing achieved higher than non-cooperative learning students in
the areas of daily achievement, post-instructional achievement, and retention of
knowledge.
Choice Theory & Motivation
15
Noddings (2003) points out that it may sometimes be necessary to pour extra
attention into establishing caring relationships and providing relevant experiences to
disenchanted students before they will be ready to join the willing learners of the
classroom. This may be something teachers should consider when planning for teambased learning.
Organizational Change
According to Reeves (2009), change leadership is one of the biggest challenges
organizations face around the world, and education is no exception. Although change is
an everyday part of life and inherent to human existence, it is still something resisted by
individuals, groups, and especially organizations (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). Tsoukas and
Chia (2002) maintain that organizational change should not be viewed as something
extraordinary but should be viewed as the norm, and they refer to this as organizational
becoming. They promote the idea that organizations are sites of continually evolving
human action and argue that lack of change would be abnormal (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002).
Reeves (2009) states that leaders are often far better at announcing change than they are
carrying out change and that leaders often tend to launch a change agenda without clear
goals or action plans and without properly assessing their organization’s or their
colleagues’ readiness for change. Bearing in mind that change is inevitably accompanied
by fear and resistance, he adds that it is important for leaders to identify positively those
things that should not change, as well as naming things that colleagues can stop doing
before adding new tasks or requirements to the plate (Reeves, 2009). In so doing, Reeves
(2009) implies that leaders may be able to reframe change from something threatening
into a modification of practices that colleagues already do well, thereby affirming their
Choice Theory & Motivation
16
worth. Reeves (2009) goes on to say that leaders of organizational change must engage
in self assessment of the examples they have set personally before expecting to lead
others in change. Gardner (1995) corroborates this idea with a reminder that leaders’
lives influence others far more than their words. Glasser (2000) says that unless
principals lead the way, major change for the better will not take place in any school and
that effective leaders are the ones you follow because their leadership helps you do your
job with more effectiveness and more enjoyment.
Additionally, Reeves (2009) states that decades of research have shown that
change is not achieved by evidence, commands, or fears, and that lasting change requires
individuals to reorient themselves to understand that their comfort and convenience is not
the measure of the legitimacy of the change under consideration.
Choice Theory & Motivation
17
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This action research study encompassed a nine week period focusing on the third
quarter of the academic year. Action research was the appropriate choice for this
endeavor as it involves an educator and a problem that is being addressed at the local
level through the trial of a new educational innovation (Charles & Mertler, 2002). The
purpose of the research was to appraise the effectiveness of William Glasser’s choice
theory as applied in a classroom setting; specifically, my classroom setting. Action
research is primarily for the benefit of the researcher and his/her subjects, although it may
prove to be applicable to others who have similar environments (Charles & Mertler,
2002). While action research traditionally affects a small nucleus of stakeholders, the
method is also becoming “a powerful vehicle for communicating to the larger public the
complex, day-to-day realities of teachers and children in schools” (Meyers & Rust, 2003,
p. 1). For comparison, End of Course data were secured from a control group comprised
of my students from the previous school year. Research centered on a treatment group
comprised of the students assigned to me during the semester concurrent with this
project.
The biology End of Course test is divided into separate domains, so data were only
collected from the Cells & Genetics domains, as it was the material being studied in the
classroom during the research period. Testing data were analyzed via independent T
tests.
Choice Theory & Motivation
18
Student surveys employing a Likert scale were used to access student’s feelings about
the innovations utilized during the research period. Survey responses were evaluated
through use of Chi Square analysis.
Feelings of my biology colleagues were examined by way of a focus group, which
was hosted by me at the end of the research interval. The focus group record was then
coded for themes.
Finally, interviews were conducted with my mentor administrator and my department
chairperson. Interview data were also coded for themes.
Setting
My research took place in the southeastern United States at a public high school that
was serving 1,343 students at the time of the study. The school is one of three public
high schools serving a county of almost 65,000 residents. The school’s student body
mirrors the county make-up, with a ratio of about 62% white, non-hispanic to 34% black
to 3% hispanic/latino origin to 1% other ethnicities. This location was chosen, because it
was my current place of employment. Access to this location was secured via written
permission from the school principal, an official research permission form required by
the county school system, and the required LaGrange College Institutional Review Board
permission documents.
Subjects and Participants
The subjects of this study were public high school biology students. Subjects
were a fair representation of the general population of the setting, as biology is a required
Choice Theory & Motivation
19
subject for all students and is not a subject area in which classes are ability leveled.
Subjects were selected by default due to the fact that they were assigned to my class
rosters for the current academic year.
Additional participants included my mentor administrator, department chair, and
fellow biology teachers. My mentor during this research was an assistant principal at my
school of employment and research who agreed to monitor my study and assist me in
gaining experience as a teacher leader. Other participants were chosen due to the fact
that we taught the same subject.
Procedures & Data Collection Methods
All data gathered during this project were applied toward the goal of evaluating
choice theory’s effectiveness as employed in the school learning environment. Table 3.1,
below, provides an overview of how the data were utilized and applied during the
research process.
Table 3.1 Data Shell
Focus Question Literature
Sources
Did the
Glasser, W.
application of
(1988)
Glasser’s
choice theory
Yager, ,
have a positive Johnson, &
effect on the
Johnson (1985)
students’
EOCT
Zeeman, R.
performance
(2006)
for the Cells &
Genetics
domains?
Type: Method,
Data, Validity
Method:
2010 & 2011
Biology EOCT
scores from the
Cells &
Genetics
Domains
Data:
Interval
Type of
validity:
Content
How these data
are analyzed
Quantitative:
Independent Ttest
Effect Size
Rationale
Quantitative:
Provides
evidence of
significant
differences in
test
performance
Choice Theory & Motivation
How did my
students and
colleagues feel
about the
choice theory
methods that
were applied to
the classroom
setting?
Glasser, W.
(1988)
Noddings N.
(2003)
Erwin (2005)
20
Method:
Survey,
Focus Group
Data:
Student
Surveys (Likert
Scale)
Quantitative:
Chi Square
Analysis
Quantitative:
Provides
evidence of
themes in
student
perceptions of
choice theory
Colleague
Focus Group
Qualitative:
Coded for
themes
Qualitative:
Provides
evidence of
themes in
colleagues’
perceptions of
choice theory
Qualitative:
Coded for
themes
Quantitative:
Provides
evidence of
viability of new
innovation for
future use
Type of
Validity:
Construct
Did school
leaders view
choice theory
as an
innovation
worthy of
school-wide
application?
Noddings, N.
(2003)
Method:
Interview
Reeves, D.
(2009)
Data:
Interview
Record
Tsoukas, H.
and Chia, R.
(2002)
Type of
Validity:
construct
William Glasser’s (1988) choice theory is built upon the concept that students learn
best and produce the highest quality of work when they experience four critical
ingredients of a successful classroom: belonging (which includes love), power, freedom,
and fun. These crucial elements were introduced through the avenue of learning teams.
Choice Theory & Motivation
21
Choice theory teaches that when students experience these elements, they will begin to
believe that education has value and that it is worth their efforts. Effective
documentation of strategies used and collection of data contributed to the validity of this
project.
To determine the effect of choice theory strategies on student outcomes, End of
Course test results were secured from school test administrators. It was imperative to
focus only on the EOCT domains that assessed the teaching that took place during the
research period (Cells and Heredity), so domains deemed irrelevant to this study were not
considered.
Evidence of the affective impact of choice theory innovations upon subjects was
secured via a student survey, which was presented in a Likert scale format (see Appendix
A).
Colleagues participated in a focus group which was hosted by me to obtain a record
of their feelings about the Glasser innovations utilized (see Appendix B).
An interview was conducted with my mentor administrator to ascertain his
opinions of the viability of Glasser’s strategies in terms of being applied school-wide.
(see Appendix C).
Validity, Reliability, Dependability, Bias, and Equity
Quantitative interval data were gathered for focus question #1, “ Did the
application of Glasser’s choice theory have a positive effect on the students’ EOCT
performance for the Cells & Genetics domains,” by assessing student knowledge of state
biology standards via the state-mandated End of Course Test. Salkind (2010) explains
Choice Theory & Motivation
22
that content validity is relevant when an assessment tool measures specific knowledge
learned, as from school course content. The EOCT demonstrates content validity by
being a summative, state-standardized assessment of content knowledge. These data
provide evidence of significant differences in test performance. It was the assumption of
the researcher that state-mandated assessments are designed to eliminate unfairness,
offensiveness, and disparate impact.
Qualitative and quantitative data were collected for focus question #2, “How did
my students and colleagues feel about the choice theory methods that were applied to the
classroom setting?” through student surveys and a colleague focus group. Construct
validity, as explained by Salkind (2010), gauges things that are non-measurable, such as
an attitude or disposition. Ordinal student survey data exhibited construct validity by
providing evidence of themes in student perceptions of choice theory. Construct validity
was also found in the identified themes from the focus group as they revealed evidence of
the colleagues’ perceptions of choice theory. Cronbach’s Alpha was applied to ensure
reliability of survey data. Dependability was secured through various methods. The time
and setting for conducting surveys was consistent from class to class. A significant
number of subjects were surveyed and were selected randomly by the school’s scheduling
software, thus minimizing the likelihood of confounding variables. Focus group
members and interviewees were allowed to compare video footage and manuscripts for
accuracy. Survey and focus group questions were worded neutrally to avoid bias.
Interviews with a school administrator and a science department chairperson were
conducted to amass qualitative data for focus question #3, “Did school leaders view
Choice Theory & Motivation
23
choice theory as an innovation worthy of school-wide application?”. Interview data
provided construct validity as a school leader stated his opinions regarding the feasibility
of choice theory methods as a school-wide teaching strategy in the future. Data were
accurately recorded via audio/video recording, and interviewees were invited to review
the manuscript for accuracy. Interview questions were formulated to be unbiased and to
be fair, inoffensive prompts for securing reliable evidence regarding the application of
choice theory school-wide.
Skrla, McKenzie, and Scheurich (2009) describe equity audits as ways for school
leaders to measure the degree of equity or inequity present in their schools or districts,
and they describe education equity as the policies, practices, and programs needed to
eliminate barriers and provide equal opportunities to all students. The school that
provided a home for this research endeavor was privileged to have several systems in
place that promoted educational equity.
Instruction was dictated by curriculum pacing
guides set forth by the district and aligned to state standards. Professional development
was focused on best practices for quality teaching as well as differentiated instruction.
The biology department collaborated daily to create common instruction, materials, and
assessment. All teachers in the department were highly qualified. There was much focus
at the district level on moving toward county-wide assessments to ensure equity.
Analysis of Data
Focus question #1, “Did the application of Glasser’s choice theory have a positive
effect on the students’ EOCT performance for the Cells & Genetics domains?” underwent
quantitative analysis by way of an independent t-test to determine if there were
Choice Theory & Motivation
24
significant differences between means from the control group (comprised of my students
from the 2009-2010 academic year) and the treatment group (comprised of my students
from the 2010-2011 academic year). Test outcomes of the treatment group and the
control group were compared with an independent T test. The decision to reject the null
hypothesis was set at p < .05. According to Salkind (2010), effect size indices measure
the degree to which the treatment was effective and are not dependent upon sample size.
An effect size calculator was used to compute Cohen’s d for determining whether the
effect size was small (d = 0.0 – 0.20), medium (d = 0.20 – 0.50), or large (d = 0.50 or
larger).
Data from focus question #2, “How did my students and colleagues feel about the
choice theory methods that were applied to the classroom setting?” were examined via
chi square analysis of survey results to determine which questions where significant and
which ones were not. Significance levels were reported at p < .05, p < .01, and p. <.001
levels. In addition to survey analysis, transcripts of the colleague focus group were coded
for recurrent, dominant, or emerging themes.
Qualitative analysis of focus question #3, “Did school leaders view choice theory
as an innovation worthy of school-wide application?,” was carried out by coding the
interview record for recurrent, dominant, or emerging themes.
In addition to data analysis by focus question, the entire study was examined
holistically to ensure that it was valid, credible, transferrable, and transformational.
Choice Theory & Motivation
25
Validation
Consensual validation was achieved by conducting the study under the approval
and direction of the faculty members at both the administrative and instructional levels.
Faculty members were also participants in focus groups and interviews. According to
Eisner (1991), consensual validation requires that others of competent knowledge be in
one accord that the description, interpretation, evaluation, and thematic of the study are
correct.
Epistemological validation was ensured by way of comparing the resulting data
from the study to the information found in the review of the literature, especially the
expertise of Glasser. This comparison serves as evidence that the researcher remained
consistent with theoretical perspectives found in the literature as he conducted the study,
as indicated by Denzin and Lincoln (1998).
Credibility
Eisner (1991) describes structural corroboration as a coming together of evidence
to form a compelling whole. This type of credibility was secured through the study of
multiple data sources documented in the review of the literature. Great care was taken to
safeguard the precision and accuracy of the study so that the resulting data could serve as
convincing evidence for arriving at meaningful conclusions.
Transferability
The accuracy, consistency, and credibility with which this study was conducted
allowed for others to use it as a launching pad for further study in the area of choice
Choice Theory & Motivation
26
theory. This referential adequacy, as Eisner (1991) calls it, leads to a better perception
and understanding of choice theory by others.
Transformation
Lather (as cited by Kinchloe & McLaren, 1998) describes catalytic validity as the
degree to which the researcher expects to shape and transform the participants, subjects,
or school. It is the hope of the researcher that this study provided a positive, enjoyable,
and motivating experience for the subjects and that colleagues were left inspired to
explore the tenets of choice theory further.
This action research study included a nine-week period during which innovations
based on William Glasser’s choice theory were applied in a ninth grade public high
school biology classroom. The study included 129 subjects, as well as several colleagues
and a school administrator. Following the innovation period, data were collected via End
of Course Test results for the Growth and Heredity domains of biology, and also by way
of student and colleague focus groups and an administrator interview. The study was
conducted in such a way as to ensure validity, reliability, dependability, equity, and
freedom from bias. Qualitative and quantitative data analysis included independent ttests for test results, chi square analysis for survey results, and coding for themes in
transcripts of focus groups and interviews.
Choice Theory & Motivation
27
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Quantitative interval data for focus question #1, “Did the application of Glasser’s
choice theory have a positive effect on the students’ EOCT performance for the Cells &
Genetics domains?” were gathered from the 2010 and 2011 biology End Of Course Test
scores from the Cells & Genetics domains. These data were analyzed with a t-test for
independent means of the treatment group and the control group. Accepting the null
hypothesis would indicate that the performances of the treatment group and the control
group showed no significant difference. The decision to reject the null hypothesis was
set at p < .05. An effect size calculator was used to compute Cohen’s d for determining
whether the effect size was small (d = 0.0 – 0.20), medium (d = 0.20 – 0.50), or large (d =
0.50 or larger).
Table 4.1. Independent t-test: EOCT Scores
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pooled Variance
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail
T(207) = 0.14, p < .05
Spring 2010
52.92
310.88
86
317.39
0
207
0.14
0.44
1.65
0.88
1.97
Spring 2011
52.56
321.94
123
Choice Theory & Motivation
28
Table 4.1 shows the results of the independent t-test for EOCT scores to be T(207) = 0.14,p
> .05, indicating that there was not a significant difference between the performance of
the treatment group and the control group. The obtained value (0.14) did not exceed the
critical value (1.65); therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted. The Cohen’s d
calculation generated a result of d = 0.02, indicating a very small effect size.
Quantitative and qualitative data from focus question #2, “How did my students
and colleagues feel about the choice theory methods that were applied to the classroom
setting,” were secured from student surveys and a colleague focus group. Survey results
were examined via chi square analysis to determine which questions where significant
and which ones were not. Significance levels were reported at p < .05, p < .01, and p.
<.001 levels. The degrees of freedom were set at 4. Cronbach’s alpha was computed to
measure internal consistency reliability of the survey results. Salkind (2010) states that
internal consistency reliability is used when the researcher wants to know if the test item
measures what he/she intends for them to measure. In addition to survey analysis,
transcripts of the colleague focus group were coded for recurrent, dominant, or emerging
themes.
Table 4.2: Chi-Square Statistic for Student Survey
Survey Items
Survey Question
χ2
n=14
Item 1
Did you feel a sense of belonging when you
came to biology class?
93.23***
Item 2
Do you feel that you were friendly toward the
other students during class?
119.03***
Choice Theory & Motivation
Item 3
Did you feel that your classmates were friendly 85.94***
toward you?
Item 4
Did you feel that your classmates supported
you during group work?
73.42***
Item 5
Do you feel that you acted in a way that
supported Mr. Hardigree?
112.21***
Item 6
Do you feel that you acted in a way that
supported your classmates?
85.10***
Item 7
Do you think there is power in knowledge?
173.70***
Item 8
Do you feel like Mr. Hardigree has a sense of
humor in class?
70.99***
Item 9
Do you feel that laughter is a part of our
classroom atmosphere?
63.33***
Item 10
Did you feel that your team had a fair chance
at winning points?
136.50***
Item 11
Did you feel like your team had any choice in
deciding what to study?
11.36*
Item 12
Did you feel that your team had and choice in
deciding how to be assessed?
31.36***
Item 13
Did you have freedom to choose how to spend
your extra time when your work was
complete?
84.07***
Item 14
Do you feel like Mr. Hardigree wants you to
be satisfied with his class?
370.90***
29
* p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
As shown in Table 4.1, all survey questions except question 11 were found to be
highly significant at the p < .05, .01, and .001 levels, indicating that respondents
frequently answered the same way on these questions. Question 11 was found to be
Choice Theory & Motivation
30
significant at the p < .05 only, indicating a moderate level occurrence of respondents
answering the same way. Cronbach’s alpha showed a result of α = 0.72, which showed a
very high level of internal consistency.
Colleague focus group questions (see Appendix C) revealed several trends in
teacher attitudes. Three colleagues were interviewed, representing a varying degree of
teaching experience. Teacher one had taught for ten years. Teacher two had 28 years of
teaching experience, and teacher three was a first-year educator.
Question #1, “What percentage of your students do you think are consistently
engaged in learning?” revealed that all three colleagues felt that the majority of their
students were engaged. Teacher one reported 90%; teacher two reported 65%; and
teacher three reported 75%. There was consensus, then, that all three teachers had a
percentage of students who were disengaged. The teachers strongly agreed with each
other on questions two and three.
Question #2, “Why are these students engaged in learning?” drew similar
responses from each colleague. Teacher one stated that the engaged students saw value
in education and had been taught that school was a stepping stone. Teacher two felt that
these students were the ones that wanted to learn and whose parents had high
expectations of them. Teacher three stated that the engaged students learned to be
involved from home expectations.
Question #3, “Why are the disengaged students disengaged?” revealed that
teachers one and three felt that disengagement was due to students not being taught to
value education or to see what doors school opened for the future, while teacher two
blamed the problem on lack of sleep and unstable home environments.
Choice Theory & Motivation
31
All three colleagues offered unique responses to question #4, “What ideas do you
have for helping disengaged students gain the vital belief that there is power in
knowledge?” Teacher one stated that educators should make learning relevant to the
students and help them see why it was important. Teacher two shared the opinion that it
was important to build relationships with students from the beginning and work with
them individually to achieve success. Teacher three felt that it was imperative to
establish contact between the students and real world situations like field trips and guest
speakers.
In response to question #5, “To what degree do you think students experience fun,
freedom, belonging, and power in the classrooms of our school? Do you think these
things are important?” all members of the focus group agreed in their responses. Teacher
one felt that students experienced these crucial effects very little across the board and that
students dreaded specific classes because of this deficit. Teacher one added that he
always tried to include, fun, freedom, and student choice so that students could take
control of their own education and enjoy it. Teacher two stated that while fun, freedom,
belonging, and power were important things for students to experience in the classroom,
it was impossible to achieve them all every day. He felt that his students experienced at
least two out of the four every day. Teacher three shared the opinion that fun, freedom,
power, and belonging were vitally important needs to fulfill in the learning environment.
She stated that she tried to incorporate activities that made learning fun and gave
opportunities for more freedom at least once a week through lab activities and daily
through cooperative learning groups and hands-on activities.
Choice Theory & Motivation
32
All focus group members showed strong concurrence in their responses to
question #3, “How do you feel about using cooperative learning teams as an avenue for
students to experience fun, freedom, power, and belonging in your classroom?” Teacher
one saw great value in the use of cooperative learning teams and stated that they allowed
team work, fun, freedom, and gave students a sense of power. He added that classroom
management was the only potential disadvantage, but that a good manager of the learning
environment should not have issues. Teacher two shared that cooperative learning teams
were a great route to student engagement and learning and that students enjoyed
cooperative learning due to its high level of interaction. Teacher two also saw classroom
management as a potential disadvantage but felt that it was far outweighed by the
opportunity for students to communicate together and become more involved in their
learning. Teacher three voiced her practice of using cooperative learning activities
whenever possible and felt that students were more likely to remember information
learned in this type of environment. She saw time requirement as the biggest
disadvantage, both in preparation and classroom time.
An interview of a school administrator was conducted to gather data regarding
focus question #3, “Did school leaders view choice theory as an innovation worthy of
school-wide application?” The interviewee’s responses largely resembled sentiments
shared by the focus group. To question #1, “What percentage of students at our school
do you think are consistently engaged in learning?” the administrator replied that he was
sure it was well over half and that his best estimate would be 75%. In response to
question #2, “Why are these students engaged in learning?” he recognized that the
engaged students valued getting an education for their future. The administrator also felt
Choice Theory & Motivation
33
that positive peer pressure, parental influence, and teacher influence contributed to the
students’ ability to value education and that whether students planned to attend college or
not, most of them recognized the role a high school diploma played in securing
employment after high school.
By the same token, the administrator hypothesized in response to question #3,
“Why are the disengaged students disengaged?” that the disconnected students lacked
support structures that valued education and that this was not a problem teachers could
resolve. He also commented that the curriculum was possibly at fault by being so
college-bound oriented that some students did not find it relevant to their lives.
When asked question #4, “What ideas do you have for helping disengaged
students gain the vital belief that there is power in knowledge?” the administrator offered
long-term goal setting with students as a viable avenue for reaching this goal. He
suggested helping students formulate a picture of what they want to be doing 10-15 years
after graduation and then helping them map a path to success. He added that we must
show them how school is a vital stepping stone on that path.
Regarding question #5, “To what degree to you think students experience fun,
freedom, belonging, and power in the classrooms of our school? Do you think these
things are important?” the interviewee stated that learning should be exciting and
fulfilling. He added that it does not have to be fun, but it needs to be interesting. The
administrator went on to say that students need the freedom to learn in a way that is best
for them and that the teacher was the key to making this happen. He administrator also
added that a sense of belonging and power contributed to a feeling of security in the
learning process.
Choice Theory & Motivation
34
The administrator placed a high value on the use of cooperative learning teams in
his response to question #6, “How do you feel about using cooperative learning teams as
an avenue for students to experience fun, freedom, power, and belonging in the
classroom?” He noted that most companies function by utilizing cooperative teams and
that it is vital for students to practice working in this type of setting to prepare for future
employment. The interviewee added that employees today are stating that soft skills are
what graduates need for success and that the best way to develop these soft skills was
through cooperative learning experiences.
In reply to question #7, “What are some of the keys to leading effective
organizational change at the school level? What roadblocks have you run into when
leading our school through an organizational change and how did you get around the
roadblocks?” the administrator began by describing resistance to change as an extremely
daunting roadblock to organizational change. He commented that most teachers were
quite distrustful of change and wanted things to remain as they had always been. He
added that in truth, change is inevitable from many different directions. Patience with
lagging teachers and determination to be committed to forward thinking were described
as key qualities possessed by administrators who proved to be successful in leading
change. He also placed great value on involving teachers in the decision making process,
stating that change was much more likely to be permanent when it came from within.
Choice Theory & Motivation
35
CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to explore the effectiveness of William Glasser’s
choice theory methods upon freshman biology students with a desired goal of increasing
levels of student engagement, motivation to learn, and performance on the state End of
Course Test.
Analysis
Results of the 2010 and 2011 biology End of Course Test provided quantitative
interval data for focus question #1, “Did the application of Glasser’s choice theory have a
positive effect on the students’ EOCT performance for the Cells & Genetics domains?”
A t-test for independent means was used to analyze the performance of the control group
and the treatment group. The t-test results showed an obtained value (0.14) lower than
the critical value (1.65); thus, the null hypothesis was accepted. The data analysis did not
identify a significant difference between the performances of the two groups. This means
that, based on data only, the implementation of Glasser’s methods did not make a
difference in the students’ test performance. The Cohen’s d calculation generated a result
of d = 0.02, indicating a very small effect size. The t-test did measure what it was
supposed to measure. Only material from the Cells and Genetics domains was covered
during the research period, and these were the only two domains considered in the data
collection and analysis. I do not believe that these results are significant for reasons
addressed later in the discussion section of this chapter. The t-test results contradict
Glasser’s (1988) idea that students will learn more when teachers can meet the universal
needs of power, fun, freedom, and belonging in the classroom learning environment. The
results also contradict the findings of Yager, Johnson, and Johnson (1985) that students
Choice Theory & Motivation
36
participating in cooperative learning teams achieved higher than non-cooperative learning
students in retention of knowledge.
Data for focus question #2, “How did the researcher’s students and colleagues
feel about the choice theory methods that were applied to the classroom setting?” were
gathered from student surveys that employed a Likert scale, as well as a colleague focus
group, providing both qualitative and quantitative statistics. Chi square analysis was used
to determine the significance of each survey question. Cronbach’s alpha was used to
measure internal consistency reliability. All survey items except #11 were found to be
highly significant at the p < .05, .01, and .001 levels. This indicated that students very
frequently answered the same way on these items. Item #11 was found to be significant
only at the p < .05 level, which showed only a moderate frequency of students answering
the same way. A Cronbach’s alpha result of α = 0.72 showed a very high level of internal
consistency, indicating that the survey indeed measured what it was intended to measure.
I found the survey data to be some of the most important data generated by this study and
expect it to be the driving force for continuing my research in the classroom with
Glasser’s theory.
Survey results reflected an overwhelmingly positive response from the students
regarding their feelings about the innovations used during the research period. More than
70% of students surveyed answered “frequently” and “always” to all items except #11
and #12. Responses to item #11, “Did you feel like your team had any choice in deciding
what to study?” showed that only 48% of students surveyed felt strongly that they had a
choice in what to study. I believe this was due to the fact that the biology curriculum was
strictly mandated by a county pacing guide and state standards. Results from item #12,
Choice Theory & Motivation
37
“Did you feel that your team had any choice in deciding how to be assessed?” showed
that only 60% of students surveyed felt that they had choice in deciding how to be
assessed. During the research period, I only experimented once with multiple forms of
assessment. I found it to be unreasonably time consuming, overwhelming, and even
confusing to the students. I am confident that this was largely due to the learning curve I
was on and that my skill at offering student choice in assessment could easily be honed.
Of particular interest were items #2, #7, and #14. Item #2, “Do you feel that you
were friendly toward other students?” revealed that 90% of students felt that they were
friendly frequently and always during the cooperative learning team experience.
Friendliness and helpfulness were definitely mentioned throughout the study as goals of
the learning team. Responses to item #7, “Do you think there is power in knowledge?”
indicated that 92% of the students surveyed answered “frequently” and “always”. This
was monumental, considering the emphasis that Glasser places on helping students grasp
that truth. Results of item #14, “Do you feel like Mr. Hardigree wants you to be satisfied
with his class?” showed that 99% of my students answered “frequently” and “always”.
This item was one of the key questions that Glasser (1988) suggested that teachers ask
themselves.
Overall, the survey results indicated that students did feel a sense of belonging,
acted friendly toward each other, supported each other, supported the teacher, believed
there was power in knowledge, enjoyed humor and laughter in the classroom, believed
they had a fair chance at winning team points, and believed that the teacher cared about
their satisfaction level with the class. The survey was based on a list of questions that
Glasser (1988), himself, created for teachers to use as a self-assessment, and the results
Choice Theory & Motivation
38
indicated that students did, indeed, respond quite favorably to Glasser’s principles. I
believe that these survey results are quite relevant in light of Erwin’s (2005) statement
that dislike of school is an increasing problem. I thought it interesting also that the
students’ feeling that they had no choice in what to study confirmed Noddings’ (2003)
remark that today’s standards movement may push even more students away from school
with its dull and tireless pursuit of facts and skills that can be tested easily.
Upon coding the colleague focus groups records for themes, I found that all three
teachers believed the majority of their students were engaged in the learning process and
that those students were able to see the value in education because of parents and
guardians who were successful products of the educational system and who placed
expectations on them to learn for the sake of their future. Group participants agreed also
that most of their disengaged students were not able to value education due to the lack of
a home environment that modeled the benefits of education or placed expectations upon
them. These results line up perfectly with the ideas of Glasser (1988), Noddings (2003),
and Erwin (2005), who agreed that when students do not come to us valuing education,
our only route to better performance and more learning is through fulfilling as many of
the students’ needs as we can in the classroom.
Participants also agreed wholeheartedly with each other on the importance of
incorporating a sense of fun, freedom, power, and belonging into the classroom through
cooperative learning teams and real world experiences. All participants had reaped the
benefit of this approach in their own classrooms and were eager to incorporate more of it
in the future. None of the focus group data contradicted Glasser’s ideas. In fact, the data
only confirmed what Glasser had to say about fulfilling more human needs in the
Choice Theory & Motivation
39
classroom in order to achieve a greater level of learning. All focus group participants
agreed also that there is a mismatch between our country’s test-driven educational system
and utilizing ideas such as choice theory toward building an authentic learning
environment.
Qualitative data collected from the record of the school administrative interview were
also coded for themes relating to focus question #3, “Did school leaders view choice
theory as an innovation worthy of school-wide application?” Interview data reflected that
the administrator had similar opinions regarding the school-wide learning environment
that the focus group members had about their classrooms. The school administrator
agreed that the majority of students were engaged in the learning process due to a support
structure that valued education and that those students who were disengaged lacked this
vital support structure. He also reverberated that our test-driven, state mandated
curriculum was not conducive to relevant learning experiences. The administrator
pointed out that Glasser’s learning team approach builds that exact type of interpersonal
skills that most companies require of their employees today and that building meaningful
relationships with students were key to helping them set goals for the future and
understand that education was key to reaching those goals. This also confirms Noddings’
(2003) idea that the more students get their needs met in the classroom, the more of
themselves they will invest in academic endeavors.
Regarding organizational change, the school administrator’s responses paralleled
Reeves’ (2009) ideas that change leadership is one of the biggest challenges leaders face
and that change is yet an inevitable part of life. When the interviewee responded that
teachers were quite distrustful of change, his words were so similar to Tsoukas and
Choice Theory & Motivation
40
Chia’s (2008) statement that change is resisted by individuals, groups, and especially
organizations. Reeves (2009) also echoed the school administrator’s statement when he
said that change was often met with fear and resistance. The school administrator noted
that patience and determination were crucial and that involving teachers in the decisionmaking process was most helpful. Reeves pointed out that it was important for leaders to
assess their employees’ readiness for change, and this goes hand in hand with involving
teachers in the decision-making process.
Discussion
The findings of this study were at conflict with each other. The data generated
by the EOCT results indicated that the Glasser innovations did not increase student
learning, while the survey results indicated that the Glasser innovations most definitely
had a positive effect on the students’ feelings about the class. This conflict simply calls
for further study. Undoubtedly, the survey results serve to support the existing body of
knowledge in favor of choice theory. I am not discouraged by the EOCT data. The
choice theory innovations were only employed for a short period of time. To get a
realistic measure of choice theory’s effectiveness, I think it needs to be a part of the
learning environment at least for an entire school year. I was a novice with these
methods, and I believe they would prove to be more effective as I gain more experience.
During the research period, I was also mentoring an intern who shared the teaching load.
This introduced a certain amount of disequilibrium into the equation as well. One short
study is certainly not enough to make a blanket judgment about whether Glasser’s choice
theory increases student knowledge. I intend to extend my research into the next year, as
I personally find these ideas to hold great truth. I believe that the student survey results
Choice Theory & Motivation
41
are a much truer reflection of choice theory’s value. There was an overwhelmingly
positive feeling expressed by the students about working in cooperative learning teams,
and I think that information is relevant to all educators. The results of the focus group
and interview were in alignment with my own feelings about student engagement, value
for education, and striving to fulfill more innate human needs in the classroom. This
consensus calls for continued study and experimentation with choice theory in the
classroom.
This study achieved structural corroboration through the use of multiple data
sources, including standardized test data, student surveys, a colleague focus group, and a
school administrator interview. Although the test data failed to show significance, I hold
firmly to the opinion that the rest of the data sources serve as strong evidence of the
viability of choice theory in the classroom and that they warrant further study and
implementation of choice theory methods. There was no question that the student
response confirmed the ideas of Glasser as well as the other researchers represented in the
literature review.
Implications
The quantitative findings generated by EOCT results cannot be generalized at this
time to population at large, as I believe they were tainted by the learning curve I was
working on as well as the short duration of this project. With further study, more
practice, and improved teacher skill, I believe that test scores would show an increase in
knowledge resulting from this innovation. Quantitative findings produced by the student
survey, in my opinion, are a true reflection of choice theory’s value and could be
generalized to a larger population. Qualitative findings resulting from the focus group
Choice Theory & Motivation
42
and interview revealed that colleagues and administrators see the choice theory
innovations as valuable tools for increasing student engagement at large and especially
with students who lack a home support system. This study could be replicated easily and
should be of interest to any public educator like myself who wants to increase the level of
student engagement and motivation in the classroom.
Glasser’s cooperative learning team approach had a profoundly affirmative effect
upon students. Although I believe the students would have benefitted more from working
in teams for the entire school year, even the nine-week research period produced
extremely positive survey responses. The students enjoyed coming to class each day and
were eager to work in their learning teams.
The study of Glasser’s choice theory influenced me greatly as a teacher. Teachers
in my area tend to feel paralyzed by the test-driven, broad, shallow curricular constraints
that we work under. This paralysis keeps us from feeling the freedom to explore new
innovations. This study forced me to explore something new, and in hindsight, I see that
this exploration is exactly what it will take to affect change at the state and national
levels.
Impact on School Improvement
This study prompted my department to be more aware of and open to new
innovations – especially cooperative learning teams. Much of our energy has gone
toward collaboration, common planning, and common assessment. This study provided a
perfect segue into experimenting with a new innovation as a department. The knowledge
I have gained through the study of Glasser’s choice theory will ultimately benefit the
Choice Theory & Motivation
43
entire school, as I will be able to conduct a staff development session built upon the
principles of choice theory.
Recommendations for Future Research
My foremost recommendation for anyone replicating this project, including
myself, is that the research period be extended for longer than nine weeks. Ideally, I
would recommend a study period for an entire academic year in which the students work
in cooperative learning teams. Length of the research period is especially pertinent to
standardized test performance. I believe this would give a more accurate measure of
whether choice theory innovations actually increase student knowledge over time.
Choice Theory & Motivation
44
References
Charles, C., & Mertler, C. (2002). Introduction to educational research. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). The fifth moment. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),
The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 407-430).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Eisner, E.W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of
educational practice. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Erwin, J. (2005). Put Back the Fun in Classrooms. Education Digest: Essential Readings
Condensed for Quick Review, 70(5), 14-19. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Fosnot, C., & Perry, R. (2005) Constructivism: A psychological theory of
learning. In Catherine Twomey (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives and
practice (pp. 8-38). New York: Teachers College Press.
Gardner, H. (1995). Leading minds: An anatomy of leadership. New York: BasicBooks.
Geelan, D. (2006). Undead theories: Constructivism, eclecticism, and research in
education. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Georgia Department of Education (2009). Testing brief; end-of-course tests; spring
2009; April 27, 2009 – June 5, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.doe.k12.ga.
Glasser, W. (1997). A new look at school failure and school success. Phi Delta
Kappan, 78(8), 596-602. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Glasser, W. (1988). Choice theory in the classroom. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Glasser, W. (2000). Every student can succeed. Chatsworth, CA: William Glasser, Inc.
Goodman, P. (1964). Compulsory miseducation. New York, NY: Horizon.
Choice Theory & Motivation
45
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E.J. (1994). The new circles of learning:
Cooperation in the classroom and school. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kinchloe, J., & McLaren, P. (1998) Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In
N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories
and issues (pp. 260 – 299). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
LaGrange College Education Department [LCED] (2009). Conceptual framework.
LaGrange, GA: LaGrange College
Meyers, E., & Rust, F. (2003). Taking action with teacher research. Portsmouth, NH:
Heineman.
Noddings, N. (2003). Happiness and education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Reeves, D. (2009). Leading change in your school: How to conquer myths, build
commitment, and get results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development. Retrieved December 6, 2010 from netLibrary:
http://www.netlibrary.com.relay.lagrange.edu/Reader/
Salkind, N. J. (2010). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (Excel 2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shillingford, M., & Edwards, O. (2008). Professional school counselors using choice
theory to meet the needs of children of prisoners. Professional School
Counseling, 12(1), 62-65. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Skrla, L., McKenzie, K., & Scheurich, J. (2009). Using equity audits to create equitable
and excellent schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Choice Theory & Motivation
46
Tsoukas, H. & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational
change. Organizational Science, 13(5), 567-582. Retrieved from ERIC
database.
Wiggan, G. (2008). From opposition to engagement: Lessons from high achieving
african american students. Urban Review: Issues and Ideas in Public Education,
40(4), 317-349. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Yager, S., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1985). Oral discussion, group-to-individual
transfer, and achievement in cooperative learning groups. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 77, 60-66.
Zeeman, R. (2006). Glasser's choice theory and purkey's invitational education--allied
approaches to counseling and schooling. Journal of Invitational Theory and
Practice, 1246-51. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Choice Theory & Motivation
Appendix A
Student Survey


These questions apply only to the Cells & Genetics unit that we just
completed.
Please circle a response to each question.
1. Did you feel a sense of belonging when you came to biology?
Never
1
Rarely
2
Sometimes
3
Frequently
4
Always
5
2. Do you feel that you were friendly toward the other students?
Never
1
Rarely
2
Sometimes
3
Frequently
4
Always
5
3. Did you feel that your classmates were friendly toward you?
Never
1
Rarely
2
Sometimes
3
Frequently
4
Always
5
4. Did you feel that your classmates supported you during group work?
Never
1
Rarely
2
Sometimes
3
Frequently
4
Always
5
5. Do you feel that you acted in a way that supported Mr. Hardigree?
Never
1
Rarely
2
Sometimes
3
Frequently
4
Always
5
6. Do you feel that you acted in a way supported your classmates?
Never
1
Rarely
2
Sometimes
3
Frequently
4
Always
5
Frequently
4
Always
5
7. Do you think there is power in knowledge?
Never
1
Rarely
2
Sometimes
3
47
Choice Theory & Motivation
48
8. Do you feel like Mr. Hardigree has a sense of humor in class?
Never
1
Rarely
2
Sometimes
3
Frequently
4
Always
5
9. Do you feel that laughter is a part of our classroom atmosphere?
Never
1
Rarely
2
Sometimes
3
Frequently
4
Always
5
10. Did you feel that your team had a fair chance at winning points?
Never
1
Rarely
2
Sometimes
3
Frequently
4
Always
5
11. Did you feel like your team had any choice in deciding what to study?
Never
1
Rarely
2
Sometimes
3
Frequently
4
Always
5
12. Did you feel that your team had any choice in deciding how to be assessed?
Never
1
Rarely
2
Sometimes
3
Frequently
4
Always
5
13. Did you have freedom to choose how to spend your time when your work was
complete?
Never
1
Rarely
2
Sometimes
3
Frequently
4
Always
5
14. Do you feel like Mr. Hardigree wants you to be satisfied with his class?
Never
1
Rarely
2
Sometimes
3
Frequently
4
Always
5
Choice Theory & Motivation
49
Appendix B
Focus Group Questions
1. What percentage of your students do you think are consistently engaged in
learning?
2. Why are these students engaged in learning?
3. Why are the disengaged students disengaged?
4. What ideas do you have for helping disengaged students gain the vital belief that
there is power in knowledge?
5. To what degree do you think students experience fun, freedom, belonging, &
power in the classrooms of our school? Do you think these things are important?
6. How do you feel about using cooperative learning teams as an avenue for students
to experience fun, freedom, power, and belonging in your classroom? What are
the possibilities, advantages, and disadvantages?
Choice Theory & Motivation
50
Appendix C
Interview Questions
1. What percentage of students at our school do you think are consistently engaged
in learning?
2. Why are these students engaged in learning?
3. Why are the disengaged students disengaged?
4. What ideas do you have for helping disengaged students gain the vital belief that
there is power in knowledge?
5. To what degree do you think students experience fun, freedom, belonging, &
power in the classrooms of our school? Do you think these things are important?
6. How do you feel about using cooperative learning teams as an avenue for students
to experience fun, freedom, power, and belonging in your classroom? What are
the possibilities, advantages, and disadvantages?
7. What are some of the keys to leading effective organizational change at the school
level? What roadblocks have you run into when leading our school through an
organizational change and how did you get around the roadblocks?