Literature review for S-TEAM WP6.9 Project:
Improving teachers’ capacities to motivate
students
Lars Brian Krogh & Hanne Møller Andersen
Centre for Science Education
Aarhus University
Denmark
Contents
IMPROVING TEACHERS’ CAPACITIES TO MOTIVATE STUDENTS ............................................................... 0
LARS BRIAN KROGH & HANNE MØLLER ANDERSEN ...................................................................................... 0
CENTRE FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION ...................................................................................................................... 0
AARHUS UNIVERSITY ................................................................................................................................................. 0
DENMARK ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0
CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1
FRAMING THE LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................................................... 2
PROJECT BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................... 2
DANISH STUDENTS’ MOTIVATION FOR SCHOOL SCIENCE ................................................................................................. 2
DANISH TEACHERS’ ORIENTATIONS TOWARDS TEACHING AND MOTIVATIONAL PRACTICES ............................................ 5
DANISH INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE IBSE AND TEACHERS’ MOTIVATIONAL PRACTICES ..................................................... 7
LEARNING TO MOTIVATE – ENGAGING TEACHERS WITH MOTIVATIONAL THEORY ........................ 9
MOTIVATION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS - A MULTIDIMENSIONAL CONSTRUCT ............................... 10
MOTIVATIONAL THEORIES AND CONSTRUCTS OF IMPORTANCE TO OUR S-TEAM-PROJECT. ..... 11
SELF-EFFICACY ............................................................................................................................................................. 11
SELF DETERMINATION THEORY (SDT) ......................................................................................................................... 12
ATTRIBUTIONAL THEORY .............................................................................................................................................. 12
GOAL ORIENTATION (AND SELF-REGULATION) ............................................................................................................. 12
EXPECTANCY-VALUE .................................................................................................................................................... 13
EMPHASES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SELECTED MOTIVATIONAL THEORIES IN SCIENCE
EDUCATION .................................................................................................................................................................. 13
SELF-EFFICACY ............................................................................................................................................................. 13
GOAL ORIENTATION (AND SELF-REGULATION) ............................................................................................................. 15
SELF DETERMINATION THEORY .................................................................................................................................... 16
ATTRIBUTIONAL THEORY .............................................................................................................................................. 19
INSTRUMENTS USED TO ASSESS MOTIVATIONAL CONSTRUCTS .............................................................. 19
Self-efficacy instruments: ......................................................................................................................................... 19
Self-Determination Theory Instruments: .................................................................................................................. 20
Goal-orientation instruments: .................................................................................................................................. 20
Students’ attributions instrument: ............................................................................................................................ 20
1
Framing the literature review
The aim of this project is to improve teachers’ capacities to motivate students. To reach this goal we will
create an in-service teacher training program and a training package introducing teachers to key elements
of contemporary motivational theory, and we will help them transform this theoretical knowledge into
practical knowledge applicable to their daily teaching to the benefit of students’ motivation. The selection
of motivational theories is in accordance with IBSE (cf. description in (Rocard et al. 2007)) and IBSE is seen
as a central aspect of improving students’ motivation in science teaching. So, our literature review will be
focused on the following components: students’ motivation, teachers’ use of strategies to improve
students’ motivation and teachers’ appropriation of theoretical knowledge and implementing theories into
their own practice. The project targets upper secondary science teachers, and consequently the literature
review focuses on students’ motivation and initiatives taken in Danish upper secondary school.
Project Background
Danish students’ motivation for school science
A number of research studies have documented, that Danish students enter upper secondary school with
moderate motivation for school sciences, particularly low in physics (Krogh and Thomsen 2000b; Krogh,
Arnborg, and Thomsen 2001; Andersen and Nielsen 2003; The Danish Evaluation Institute 2001). The
authors have been involved in the only two longitudinal Danish studies (Krogh, Arnborg, and Thomsen
2001) of upper secondary students’ attitudes towards science subjects (physics, chemistry, biology). A
number of findings are of relevance to the present project:
Students’ engagement or interest in school science(s) is not ultimately formed by the age of 14!
Recent reports (e.g. Osborne and Dillon 2008, p.14) claim that young peoples’ interest is largely formed by
the age of 14, but our Danish studies of physics (Krogh and Thomsen 2000b) and chemistry/biology
(Andersen and Nielsen 2003; Andersen 2007) revealed that students going from lower secondary school
(“Folkeskolen”) to upper secondary school (“Gymnasium”) had very dynamic changes in their engagement
in the different school sciences. Both studies indicated that only 1/3 of the students did not change their
attitudes towards science (on a 4 point Likert scale)! So a new school setting, teachers with a different
educational background, and new conceptualizations of subjects seem to influence students’ engagement
and interest in science.
The longitudinal studies also demonstrated that student engagement developed very differently in the
three subjects: During the two first years of upper secondary school students’ attitudes towards physics
had a highly significant decline (15% on average scores), while students on the average maintained quite a
stable engagement with chemistry, and significantly improved their engagement with biology
(approximately 10%). Again, our results add complexity to the trend emphasized by major reviews of
students’ attitudes towards science (Gardner 1975; Schibeci 1984; Osborne, Simon, and Collins 2003):
“A clear feature of the research is the decline in attitudes towards science from age 11 onwards
that is documented by a number of studies…. These all show how children’s interest and attitude to
2
science declines from the point of entry to secondary school (Osborne, Simon, and Collins 2003
p.1060).
We would like to stress that students’ attitudes can actually change dramatically during upper secondary
school, and that some subjects, curricula and teaching strategies seem to be more suited to facilitate and
sustain students’ motivation than others. Not necessarily because they represent “better teaching” in a
normative sense, but maybe they better fit adolescents’ priorities and values.
Teaching strategies and style influence students’ engagement with science.
When it comes to the relationship between teaching strategies and students’ engagement only a few
studies exist, and the authors of this article have been involved in most of them. Through a series of studies
using different methodologies we have investigated how various aspects of the school science subculture,
teaching/learning strategies, and interaction in the classroom have influenced students’ motivation. The
main studies have been:
1. A large scale quantitative study of physics (N=2243, Krogh and Thomsen 2000b) investigating the
use of Subject Centered, and Constructivist/Student Centered “teaching styles” in Danish upper
secondary school. The differentiation was based on two sets of 11 indicators. Students’ and
teachers’ responses were used to classify the orientation of 100 physics classrooms either as
Subject Centered (S) or Constructivist (C). Students’ attitudes were measured, along with their
performances on a conceptual test related to the curriculum. Classrooms highest on both
dimensions (High S-High C) came out as the most engaging, and Low S-High C classrooms came out
to be the second most engaging. The analysis lead to the following conclusion: “Students’ attitudes
towards science seem to be more positive, when constructivist elements are introduced.” (Krogh
and Thomsen 2000a).
2. In a follow-up study of students’ attitudes towards physics were modeled with Generalized Linear
Models (Krogh and Thomsen 2005). Seventeen constructs were entered as explanatory variables
and 3 of those accounted for more than 51% of the variation in attitudes: Physics Self-Concept, a
value-oriented cultural border crossing factor Reputation (science as strange, different, boring), and
Personal Teacher Interest (in students).
3. A third study (Andersen 2007) has investigated how students’ motivation and learning develop in
problem-based and student centered learning environments, where students are working with
authentic problems of their own choice, but derived from the teacher’s driving question originating
from the field of chemistry and biology. Typically the problems involved students’ practical work
with student autonomy to select, define, and design experimental elements. Teachers took on the
roles of supervisor, scaffolding students’ activities whenever they needed it. The study clearly
demonstrated how problem based teaching improved students’ engagement in biology among
students in a technical gymnasium.
4. Fourth, a study of value-orientations among students in upper secondary urban schools (Krogh
2006) revealed 5 high-priority orientations: Relatedness (2 types), Autonomy, KnowledgePerformance, and Potentiation. According to contemporary conceptions of values they guide
students’ attitudes and actions, in other words they are latent structures behind students’ goals,
3
intentions and behavior. The research demonstrated highly significant relations between students’
value-orientation and their preferences related to their physics learning environment, and their
ideas of future jobs.
5. Finally J. Dolin et al (Dolin et al. 2001) have developed a Danish project “Authentic School Physics”
(Autentisk Fysik) emphasizing students’ practical work with problems of an open-ended nature.
Students should “physicalize” authentic problems for possible investigation, and they should design
and carry out an investigation, and then, based on their data they should formulate empiricalmathematical laws. Despite the project’s emphasis on more epistemological aspects of the
scientific enterprise, it was concluded that the two year project had sustained students’ interest
better than traditional practices in control classes.
Based on these Danish studies we will conclude that: Certain kinds of IBSE-oriented pedagogy or
“orientations towards teaching” tend to improve students’ motivation in school science.
The conception of Constructivist teaching style (study 1), the description of problem-based and student
centered learning environment (study 3) and the “Authentic School Physics” - approach coincide with the
definition of Inquiry-Based Science Education (IBSE) offered in Rocard et al (2007):
“In contrast the second [method] has long been referred to as the “Inductive Approach”. This approach
gives more space to observation, experimentation and the teacher-guided construction by the child of
his/her own knowledge. This approach is also described as a ‘bottom-up’ approach. The terminology
evolved through the years and the concepts refined, and today the Inductive Approach is most often
referred to as Inquiry-Based Science Education (IBSE), mostly applied to science of nature and technology.
By definition, inquiry is the intentional process of diagnosing problems, critiquing experiments, and
distinguishing alternatives, planning investigations, researching conjectures, searching for information,
constructing models, debating with peers, and forming coherent arguments. (Linn, Davis, & Bell, 2004).”
This relationship between IBSE and the use of Problem-based/constructivist approach in school science is
supported by a recent report from the Danish Ministry of Education preparing a National Strategy for
Science, Technology and Health Education (Arbejdsgruppen til forberedelse af en national strategi for Natur
2008) that found:
”Teaching strategies applied, particularly in compulsory school, have traditionally not been marked
by contemporary views of science as a culture and scientific ways of thinking. Gradually though, a
project- and problem-based approach in closer accordance with how science works is gaining
ground (“IBSE”= Inquiry Based Science Education). Even though this effort is still progressing in
Denmark much can be done to facilitate the individual teacher, the local teams of science teachers,
as well as school managers, and district councils”
In this way we have established the link between IBSE-oriented teaching and students’ motivation in a
Danish context. And we hypothesize that IBSE has a motivational effect due to a number of socialpsychological constructs:

Students’ subject-related Self-concepts (self-efficacy/sense of competence)
4



Students’ autonomy (allowing them to pursue personal/authentic learning goals and organize their
own learning processes)
Students’ sense of relatedness to others in the classroom (peers, teachers).
Value-orientations, as motivational constructs (e.g. situated goals based on values).
These social-psychological constructs serve as essential mediating devices that explain why IBSE-strategies
tend to motivate. If we want to understand why these strategies work we would have to go to motivational
theories built around these concepts. And if we want to qualify teachers’ use of IBSE-strategies for
motivational purposes teachers must be introduced to the motivational theories emphasizing such
concepts. This is the rationale behind our local AU S-TEAM project.
Danish Teachers’ orientations towards teaching and motivational practices
Internationally there is a growing body of research on “teachers’ orientations towards teaching and
learning (Grossman 1990; Magnusson, Krajcik, and Borko 1999; Abell 2007). Orientation towards teaching
was defined by Grossman as the “overarching conceptions of teaching a particular subject”. Magnusson et
al have explicated a number of orientations related to different teaching goals, and some of these coincide
with our notion of IBSE, e.g. Conceptual Change, Discovery, Project-Based Science, Inquiry, and Guided
Inquiry. Research has shown that teachers’ orientations towards teaching and learning heavily influence
their actual teaching practices, which indicates that any durable change of teachers’ practice must be
supported by a paralleled change in their orientation towards teaching and learning. In a Danish context
there has been very little research on teachers’ orientation towards teaching, and we have only found a
few studies offering fragments of relevant knowledge (Andersen and Krogh 2009; Zeuner et al. 2008)
In the context of an in-service training program to accommodate a recent reform in upper secondary
school, teachers of different subjects were asked to write short essays about their conceptions of their
academic disciplines, the relationship between academic discipline and school subject, and their
conceptions of teaching and learning of these subjects (Andersen and Krogh 2009). In analyzing and
comparing the responses from science teachers the authors found that:
“Most science and math teachers (app. 60%) emphasise the importance of students taking an
active part in teaching and learning activities (e.g. problem solving and practical work), but biology
teachers differ from physics/mathematics teachers. While many physics/mathematics teachers
(app. 30%) conceptualise the optimal way of teaching as a sequence, being initiated by the
teacher’s explanation of important subject matter and followed by students working on related
problems, biology teachers do not envision this kind of standard procedure. Instead they mention
variation as an important element and several biology teachers point to the fact there is no best
way of teaching biology; the optimal way depends on the given situation and the students present
in the classroom. In contrast to physics/mathematics teachers, biology teachers did not mention
teachers lecturing when they described the best way to learn biology. Physics/mathematics
teachers were much more focused on students’ capability to do problem solving than biology
teachers. This might be explained by a more widespread use of problem solving in the evaluation of
students’ abilities in mathematics and physics. A variety of teacher roles were mentioned in
teachers’ essays, and typically teachers did not associate optimal teaching with one particular role.
About 50% of the teachers in physics, biology, and mathematics mentioned the role of a “sculptor”,
5
who shapes and communicates subject matter knowledge to the students; 25% of the physics and
biology teachers pointed to the importance of being an “inspirator”; while no teachers of
mathematics saw this as a part of their teacher role. In addition, teachers in all three subjects
mentioned “coach” or “supervisor” when they described the optimal teacher role - approx. 40% of
physics and mathematics teachers and less biology teachers. Roughly 20% of the teachers did not
identify any role as the optimal teacher role, instead the emphasized flexibility and the fact that the
optimal teacher role depended on the situation and circumstances.”
This investigation paints a quite complex picture of orientations held by Danish science teachers, and there
are clear subject-specific flavours. It also indicates that some teachers have an orientation towards IBSE
and other bottom-up activities, where students are undertaking enquiry, trying to find the answers to their
own questions, while other teachers want students to follow standardised patterns to come up with
answers to problems formulated by the teacher. It is questionable if the traditional sequencing of
physics/math lessons coincides with IBSE-standards. Even though students are active during problem
solving, the teaching just represents a traditional, deductive approach, which is confirmed by these
teachers’ frequent use of the “teacher-as-a-sculptor” metaphor. Student activity does not automatically
lead to IBSE. Biology teachers seems to be more oriented towards genuine student-centred approaches
than physics teachers, a result which is substantiated by a pilot-study including 77 pre-service teachers (28
physics teachers, 18 biology) reported in (Krogh 2006). In a survey designed to explore differences in the
Ethos of school physics and biology, pre-service teachers were asked to rank various statements indicating
their priorities related to the teaching of their subject. Significant differences were found between teachers
of physics and biology on the following three dimensions: Life-World Relation, Organization, and
Motivation. Biology teachers emphasized aspects of biology that represented authentic parts of the
student’s life-world; while physics teachers were oriented towards presenting the strangeness of physics.
Furthermore, biology teachers were more aware of the importance of giving room to social interaction and
learning than their physics colleagues. Finally, biology teachers applied motivational thinking where
variation of teaching was an important parameter, while physics teachers were more focused on cognitive
challenge as a main driving force offered to students.
All the available studies of physics in upper secondary school (Krogh and Thomsen 2000a; Danmarks
Evalueringsinstitut 2001; Krogh 2006) support the picture of physics teachers as being rather distant from
IBSE-oriented practices. The study from The Danish Evaluation Institute used a rich empirical base from
students and teachers to arrive at the following conclusion: “Many students say that there is far too much
teacher-led whole-class instruction, and many teachers share the view that this approach is the most
efficient when it comes to communicating content clearly and within short time” (p. 44). The evaluation
committee concludes that most physics teaching is conducted in a traditionalized manner that is
inconsistent with contemporary pedagogy, and the teaching does not facilitate students’ autonomous
learning (p.44).
The earlier mentioned investigation of teaching style in physics classrooms (Krogh and Thomsen 2000b),
showed that only one (!) of the hundred classrooms could be characterized as constructivist/studentcentered. In other words, constructivist/student-centered orientations were definitely not implemented in
Danish physics classrooms when the investigation was carried out in 1999. In a later study (Krogh 2006)
6
including an empirical analysis of The Ethos of School Science1, a rich mix of empirical evidence was used to
establish the Ethos of School Physics as a pattern along eight dimensions, including the Life-world Relation,
Organization, and Motivation dimensions. The investigation corroborates the characteristics of physics as
remote from students life-worlds, organized in individualizing manners, having a cognitive oriented
understanding of students’ motivation. Other highly significant and IBSE-related characteristics of school
physics were its Epistemological Closure, and its Communicative One-sidedness, indicating that students are
generally not engaged in finding answers to their own questions. The communication is dominated by
transmission and teacher directed talk, and the communication is mainly based on scientific terms,
representations, and genres. All significant characteristics of the empirical Ethos of School Physics imply
that physics excludes students and their experiences, in other words the opposite of the IBSE-intentions.
As a part of the evaluation of a major reform of Danish upper secondary school2 Beck & Zeuner have
investigated changes in teachers’ teaching practice (Zeuner et al. 2008). The survey was based on reports
from 2500 teachers across the curriculum. The participants were classified into 6 categories based on their
valuing of two bipolar dimensions - individual vs. social learning and students’ production of knowledge vs.
students’ reproduction of knowledge. Beck & Zeuner classified teachers into categories related to “didactic
paradigms”, but their work is impaired by somewhat arbitrary numerical criteria used to discriminate
between categories. However, it seems fair to say that most teachers (including science) appear in an
undifferentiated middle-ground where productive/reproductive and social/individual aspects of learning
are balanced, and where they are flanked only by minor groups of teachers who could be characterized as
clear-cut constructivist and objectivist, respectively. The data presented indicate that there are
approximately 50% more objectivist than constructivists among physics teachers, and twice as many
constructivists as objectivists among biology teachers. This confirms the traditional difference between the
two school subjects, but it also paints a less rigid picture of physics teachers than previous studies.
However, Beck & Zeuner’s research is based on teachers’ self-reports, while the previous studies also
included students’ perceptions of what was going on in the classroom. There is a need to triangulate the
recent findings of Beck & Zeuner with data from students, in order to validate the apparent reform-induced
development towards more IBSE oriented practices in science teaching.
Danish initiatives to improve IBSE and teachers’ motivational practices
Danish educational policy has long been concerned about students’ lack of interest in science and
motivation for pursuing S&T careers. A Committee set up by the Danish Ministry of Education (Andersen et
al. 2003) recommended that sustained students’ interest in science should be used as a success-criteria for
the Science-for-all-effort they proposed (p. 18). A subsequent Committee provided a national strategy for
Science, Technology & Health education (Arbejdsgruppen til forberedelse af en national strategi for Natur
2008). The strategy included an aim to enhance students’ interest in STH, and an aim to ensure better
quality and relevance of STH-teaching at all levels of the educational system. This report addressed
1
With the The Ethos of School Science Analysis, TESSA-framework
In 2005 there was a big reform of Danish upper secondary school, as part of this reform all learning objectives were stated in
terms of competences instead of compulsory content specification. New interdisciplinary subjects were introduced, intended to
reveal to students the characteristic features of the scientific enterprise, and to let students recognize the relative strengths and
limitations of knowledge produced within scientific, humanist and social science epistemologies, respectively. These new subjects
institutionalized cooperation, between teachers of different science subjects and between teachers of science and teachers from
other faculties. These radical changes in curricula and organizational structures would be expected to increase transfer of teacher
knowledge and teaching strategies, and induce changes in orientations towards teaching and teaching practices.
2
7
students’ interest in science both from a “recruitment” perspective and a science-for-all-perspective. The
Danish report was clearly inspired by a concurrent international report (Osborne and Dillon 2008), but
unlike the original the Danish report assumes that the two legitimate concerns can be reconciled.
A particular recommendation is to improve relevance of content and quality of pedagogy as a means to
stimulate students’ learning and interest (p.19). Of special importance to the present review is that the
Danish report refers to IBSE as “a tool to get science into a dialogue with more adolescents, in particular
with more girls” (p. 8). Furthermore, the report sees teachers’ subject matter knowledge and PCK as
ultimate prerequisites to enhance students’ learning and interest in science (p.18). Therefore, teachers’
PCK and development of science teachers’ traditional practices are important target areas in the national
strategy outlined.
However, rhetoric is one thing, and practical educational policy is another. The Ministry of Education has
launched very few initiatives to address the issue of students’ interest and motivation for science. In 1999
the Ministry of Education launched a major Development Program for upper secondary school but no
particular emphasis was given to the promotion of students’ interest and motivation in science. More
recently, the government has decided to establish a number of regional resource-centers for science
education being proposed by a strategic committee. Little is known about the actual mission-statements of
these resource-centers and even less is known about the strategies that they might apply to engage science
teachers, and if/how they might help teachers motivate students. A reasonable guess is that they will not
target this issue explicitly, but simply claim that improving quality of teaching in general terms will
automatically improve students’ affective outcomes.
During the last years there have been a number of initiatives aiming at the improvement of young peoples’
interest in science, but symptomatically most of these initiatives are directed towards development of
teachers’ practice and external agents, i.e. private foundations or EU, have funded them.

DASG (Danish Science Gymnasia) was started in spring 2006 and has been funded for a 5 year
period by the Lundbeck-Foundation. DASG is a network of gymnasia with a high commitment to
develop teaching in mathematics and science. Two of three aims of DASG are to promote students’
interest in math and science, and to motivate students to pursue S&T-careers. These aims are only
implicitly addressed in the local projects taking place at individual schools, but many of these
projects are oriented towards IBSE. The 2007 themes were: data-capture, use of satelliteobservations-of-earth and nano-technology in science teaching, and the use of CAS and ICT in math
teaching. The underlying motivational thinking seems to be that modernizing teaching by
introducing front-line technology will draw students’ interest and attention to science. But research
indicates that this rationale might be counter-productive when it comes to the recruitment of girls
to science. DASG has typically engaged 200-250 teachers a year in thematic development projects,
the projects have mainly been driven by participant teachers supported only by a few research
informed courses.
A number of evaluation reports are available from the webpage of the evaluator (IND, Copenhagen
University, http://www.ind.ku.dk/udvikling/projekter/dasg2008/ ). These evaluations indicate that
the teachers are quite satisfied with their participation, but the project’s impact on teachers’
8
practices is not documented. Typical products are teaching sequences developed by individuals or
pairs of teachers and materials from pilot-projects which are disseminated only through the project
homepage.

Science Team K was another initiative funded by the Lundbeck-Foundation from 2003-2007. The
aims were to improve science teaching and promote the interest in S&T among students from
lower and upper secondary school. Its strategy was to achieve these aims by investigating and
facilitating the formation of “Local School Science Cultures” (LSSC’s) with 18 schools in a rural area
in Denmark. More than 100 teachers and school administrators were involved in the project. Again
in this project the aims of improving teaching and students’ interest in science were only implicitly
addressed. External funding was mainly used to buy new lab-equipment and participation in events
like the “Danish Festival of Science”, an annual event to promote and celebrate science. The
initiative documented (Sølberg 2007) a number of incitements and barriers to the establishment of
LSSC’s. Actual changes in teaching practices were not documented, but pre- and post-tests of
students’ interest in science using ROSE-items showed that girls’ interest in science improved, but
boys’ interest in science tended to be unaltered.

IFUN (“Interesse und Fachübergreifendes Unterricht in Naturwissenschaften”, 2005-2007) was a
collaboration between the University of Southern Denmark (SDU), Leibniz Institut für die Pädagogik
der Naturwissenschaften Kiel, University College Syd and some gymnasia in Denmark and in
Germany. It was partially funded by the EU’s Intereg III A program. The second phase of the project
intended to answer the research question: “How can science teaching be organized to improve
students’ interest in science?”. The cornerstone of the project was to involve teachers in
developing sequences of interdisciplinary teaching that “to a larger extent than usual teaching in
science builds on students’ own interests and the needs of particular occupations (?)”. How these
contradictory aims might be achieved cannot be read from the project homepage and it has not
been possible to find any research documentation of the activities and/or its impact on students’
interest.
Learning to motivate – engaging teachers with motivational theory
We have found only a few research studies describing in-service teacher training explicitly aiming at the
improvement of teachers’ motivational practices, and only one of these involved science teachers from
upper secondary schools (Cherubini, Zambelli, and Boscolo 2002). Cherubini et al designed a professional
development course with 36 teachers (various subjects, including science) from elementary, middle and
high schools in Italy. The intervention was organised as 10 3-hour course-units at weekly intervals, and the
units were structured around three ‘thematic cores’: 1) Sharing and discussion of participants’ school
experiences related to students’ motivation and de-motivation. The group discussions and reflections were
sustained by an introduction to motivational theories e.g. task-value, self-regulation, students’ attributions,
and self-efficacy. 2) Making participants aware of the possibility of systematically collecting data from the
classroom. This awareness was combined with a presentation of data-collection instruments and some
practical activities and group discussion. 3) Teachers’ analyzing, planning and discussing potential
interventions supporting motivating teaching (a starting point for a subsequent action research project with
the participating teachers). Analysis of teacher reflections from the three levels of schools revealed highly
9
significant differences between the teachers’ motivational thinking. Elementary and middle school teachers
essentially characterized the positive situations as a combination of ‘attractive’ didactic activities, while
high school teachers tended to link greater motivation to student characteristics (bright, hardworking) and
a good classroom culture and learning environment (serious work habits, reciprocal respect). At the end of
the in-service teacher training the teachers showed an increased ability and interest in reflecting with
colleagues (and researchers) on their students’ motivational problems, and an increased interest in
collaborative planning of educational interventions. Most importantly, the intervention had produced
“remarkable changes in most participants’ beliefs regarding the teacher’s role in developing students’
positive orientation to study and instruction” (p. 286).
Another study (Stipek et al. 1998) involved 24 mathematics teachers from elementary school in a
professional development program aiming at the enhancement of teachers’ classroom practices and
students’ motivation. The teachers were divided into three groups (intensive intervention, support,
control). The intervention was organized as a 1-week summer workshop, followed by biweekly meetings.
Motivation was only one of four components addressed in the intervention. Only 1 of the days in the
summer workshop and approx. 10 hrs of the biweekly meetings focused at motivation issues. The
motivational issues explicitly addressed were ability/effort-attributions, self-efficacy, goals (masteryperformance) and emotions (shame, fear, anxiety, pride). Teachers’ classroom practices were video-taped,
and the recordings were used for a coding of teachers’ and students’ behaviour in the classroom. In
addition, students also filled out a questionnaire concerning their motivation. The results showed that
teachers in the intervention group systematically scored better than the other groups on all motivational
measures (emphasis on effort, mastery orientation, encouragement of student autonomy, providing
substantive feedback etc.). However, the differences were only significant when the intervention group was
compared with the control group. But one must be aware of the size of the teacher groups as they only
consisted of 7-9 teachers, and this low sample-size may erode otherwise significant results.
Martin (Martin 2008) investigated the effect of a multidimensional educational intervention to improve
selected high-school students’ academic motivation. The intervention consisted of 13 student-modules
built around “The Motivation and Engagement Wheel” developed by Martin. This represents a pragmatic
selection of elements of self-determination, goal orientation, self-efficacy, self-worth and attributional
theory etc. The intervention had a positive effect on students’ motivation, showing an increase in valuing,
mastery orientation, persistence, and other targeted parameters.
In addition to these intervention studies, there is a rich literature using motivational theories as theoretical
lenses for analytical purposes. Often their practical implications are farfetched, and transfer and utility to
practice is questionable. However, some studies like the one of Green (Green 2002) are so concrete that
they relate directly to specific elements of practice (here studying explicit verbal motivational practices in
exemplary teachers’ classrooms with expectancy-value-theory as a lens). This gives useful insights into the
ways teachers communicate expectancies and task-value to students.
Motivation in science classrooms - a multidimensional construct
Through our work with this literature review we have observed a clear difference between the studies
performed by motivational psychologists and classroom intervention focusing on teachers’ and students’
10
motivational practice. Studies carried out by motivational psychologist are often restricted to the
exploration of a single motivational theory, being appropriate for work having a theoretical purpose. In
contrast, intervention studies involving teachers and students are more practice related, and the
complexity of active classrooms calls for a multidimensional approach. In this case the authors’ personal
experiences with science teaching in upper secondary schools coincide with the emerging recognition of
classroom complexity. In the research community there is a growing realization (see quotations in Martin
2008, p.241) that narrow theoretical understanding has little to offer practical teaching and developmental
issues. Instead more effort should be made to arrive at “use-inspired basic research” and more integrative
frameworks. In particular, Pintrich (Pintrich 2003) has underscored the importance of considering,
conceptualizing, and articulating a model of motivation from salient theorizing related to self-efficacy,
attributions, valuing, control, self-determination, goal orientation, need achievement, and self-worth. Ford
(Ford 1992) also has attempted to integrate the salient and seminal multiplicity of motivational theories
into a single theoretical framework. However, Ford’s framework is of a more general nature and has more
to offer to theoretical understanding of motivation than classroom research and development.
The intervention studies mentioned above all share a common feature: their multidimensional and
pragmatic approach to selecting and combining elements of a number of motivational theories. For the
design of our teacher training modules and our teacher training package we will be using a similar
approach.
Motivational theories and constructs of importance to our S-TEAM-project.
Guided by recommendations in the research literature (Pintrich 2003; Martin 2008) (e.g. Pintrich 2003;
Martin 2008) and grounded in our experiences as teachers of secondary science education we have decided
to build our intervention around elements from a number of motivational theories. The next part of the
review briefly describes the selected theories, core components and constructs. More elaborate
descriptions can be found in the central references entered, or in some of the general textbooks on
motivation in education (Pintrich and Schunk 2002; Ford 1992; Brophy 2004).
Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy was first introduced as a motivational construct by Bandura, who has build a highly influential
research program around it (Bandura 1997). Self-efficacy is a person’s situation-specific belief that he or
she can succeed in a specific domain or task. Generally, students will be more inclined to take on a task if
they believe they can succeed. Students with high self-efficacy in a task are more likely to make more of an
effort, and persist longer, than those with low efficacy. The stronger the self-efficacy or mastery
expectations, the more active the efforts. On the other hand, low self-efficacy provides an incentive to
learn more about the subject. As a result, someone with a high self-efficacy may not prepare sufficiently for
a task. Research shows that the ‘optimum’ level of self-efficacy is a little above ability, which encourages
people to tackle challenging tasks and gain valuable experience. Often the key to motivating and engaging
struggling learners is to get them to believe that they can succeed (Margolis and McCabe 2006)
Self-efficacy is not a static attribute, but is affected by a person’s experiences and is postulated to change
according to four sources – emotional arousal (physiological reactions), vicarious learning, enactive mastery
and social (verbal) persuasion.
11
A number of studies have documented that Self-efficacy is the best predictor of students’ persistence and
achievement (Fencl and Scheel 2005). Bandura has explored the nature of the relation, and found that Selfefficacy has both direct and in-direct influence on e.g. students’ achievement (Bandura 1997).
Self Determination Theory (SDT)
SDT is another major motivational research program, initiated by Deci and Ryan (Deci et al. 1991; Ryan and
Deci 2000). According to self-determination theory, intrinsic motivation arises from three “innate needs”:
autonomy, relatedness and competence. The basic needs perspective has been extracted from research
undertaken both within and outside of educational settings. Typically the research has revealed how
external regulation influences students’ (and others) Self-Determined behavior and tend to undermine
their intrinsic motivation. A large number of studies have documented how teachers’ actions and teaching
strategies interfere with students’ opportunities to fulfil their basic needs (Reeve 2002; Martin and Dowson
2009; Black and Deci 2000).
Attributional theory
Attribution theory is a cognitive theory of motivation, assuming that individuals are rational decision
makers and have a drive towards understanding and mastering their interactions with the environment.
Especially they would like to understand the causal determinants of their own and others behaviors.
Perceived causes or ‘attributions’ of actions are crucial as they may incite or prevent future actions. In a
series of important studies (see references in Pintrich and Schunk 2002, p.93) B. Weiner has provided both
rationale and important explication of the theory for use in educational settings. Here, a number of
perceived causes are emphasized, first of all ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck (Weiner 1979).
Furthermore the attributions are categorized according to three causal dimensions, indicating whether they
are stable (or can be changed), have internal (or external) locus to students, and are controllable (or not) to
students. Particularly powerful are students’ perceptions of what causes failure. If these are attributed to
stable traits, that a student cannot control it does not make much sense to the student to engage in work
to improve performance. In such a case attributions clearly are dysfunctional, from a learning perspective.
Functional attributions are optimistic; they tell learners that success is possible and that making an effort
and using strategies in a correct way is likely to lead to success. Most importantly, it has been
demonstrated that students’ attributions can develop, as a consequence of long-term, focused effort from
teachers and others (Margolis & McCabe, 2006).
Goal orientation (and Self-regulation)
Generally, Goal Orientations are defined as purposes individuals have for engaging in specific behaviors. A
number of dichotomies have been established as highly relevant to describe achievement motivation and
learning behavior. Ames (Ames 1992) has emphasized goal-orientations as being either Mastery or
Performance-oriented, where a mastery-orientation is associated with deep engagement with the task and
greater perseverance in the face of setbacks. Performance-orientation means that individuals are oriented
towards extrinsic indicators of success and external recognition. Research has consistently found that a
performance-orientation leads to de-motivation when ever students’ perform badly.
Closely related with Ames’ notions of Mastery/Performance-orientations are the dichotomy of Ego- and
task-involvement proposed by Nicholls et al (Jagacinsky and Nicholls 1984). Task-involvement is associated
with a genuine engagement with the task for its own sake, while ego-involvement implies that engagement
12
is driven by external factors (e.g. praise) or confirmation of how good one is/self-appraisal. Egoinvolvement is stimulated by evaluative situations in which the emphasis is on competition and
comparison. From a learning perspective ego-orientation is problematic because it makes it draws
attention and effort away from processing the task towards rewards or self-appraisal processes. The
consequence is surface learning and deteriorating motivation as a response to bad performance or
evaluation from others.
Task involvement is stimulated by situations where greater understanding or acquisition of new skills is
considered as an end in itself. Task involved subjects believe more in the efficacy of effort, and they often
work harder to obtain their goals. Task involvement can be elicited by telling subjects to “concentrate on
the task, try to see it as a challenge, and enjoy mastering it” (Graham 1994).
Among other valuable contributions to goal-orientation theories we have found the distinction between
approach and avoidance goals (Elliot 1997) important, as it differentiates two distinct versions of
performance-orientation. An Approach orientation makes for a positive drive to outperform others, while
an Avoidance orientation results in a negative motivation to perform, simply to avoid failure and looking
dumb.
The Self-regulation theory of Boekarts et al (Boekaerts and Corno 2005) operates with two types of goals
that students enter to educational settings: Growth Goals (mastery) and Well-being goals, which the
students strive to balance. Compared to traditional goal-orientation theories the category of Well-being
goals is an important extension (also present in the Taxonomy of Human Goals (Ford 1992, p.88)).
Students’ self-regulation is further facilitated when students has access to well-refined volitional strategies
manifested as good work habits. This enhances their capacity to stay on the growth track (i.e.
metacognitive knowledge to interpret strategy failure and knowledge of how to buckle down to work). If
they do not have any suitable strategies when a stressor blocks learning, they will get of the well-being
track (Boekaerts and Corno 2005).
Expectancy-value
Many motivational theories include some kind of expectancy and value constructs, but the one proposed
by Eccles and Wigfield and co-workers is probably the most useful when it comes to academic motivation
(Wigfield, Eccles, and Rodriguez 1998; Eccles and Wigfield 2002). The authors have built a very complex
model of achievement behaviour, but the two most important factors are expectancy and task value.
Expectancy is perceived probability of success (very closely related to efficacy beliefs), and task value has
been found to have several flavours (attainment value, intrinsic interest, utility value, and perceived costs).
Only when students have both reasonable expectations to succeed and the task is considered of (task-)
value motivation will be strong enough to drive actual behavior.
Emphases for implementation of selected motivational theories in science
education
Self-efficacy
Collaborative learning has been found to positively contribute to the self-efficacy of students in
introductory physics and chemistry courses (Fencl and Scheel 2005).
13
Strategies requiring students to interact socially or to creatively and conceptually work with course content
were fund to be the most effective at building students’ physics self-efficacy (Fencl and Scheel 2005). Some
of the strategies also influenced Classroom Climate (Question and answers, inquiry labs, and conceptual
problem assignments). Learning outcomes improved within the collaborative and inquiry oriented setting,
but the relation between student outcomes and self-efficacy measures was not explored in any detail.
Apparently, the collaborative learning setup offers opportunities for one or more of the four fundamental
sources of Self-efficacy to be functional (see Bandura 1997, chapter 3 serves as a general sourcebook for
ideas of interventions).
Enactive mastery: Enactive mastery experience is the most influential source of efficacy information.
Experiencing success is essential to boost confidence and the willingness to keep trying. Consequently,
struggling learners must have assignments and tasks of moderate challenge, where they can succeed with
moderate effort, giving them a chance to do well and to interpret their success in ways that strengthen
their self-efficacy. Instructional tasks should be designed at a level slightly above the learner’s current
performance level – moderately challenging. Teachers should regularly assess present levels of
achievement and plan accordingly. However, "the impact of performance attainments on efficacy beliefs
depends on what is made of those performances" (p. 81). The extent to which people build their efficacy
from enactive mastery experiences depends on Preexisting Self-knowledge Structures, Perceived Task
Difficulty, Effort Expenditure, Selective Self-monitoring and Reconstruction of Enactive Experiences (see
Bandura, chapt. 3 for more details). All of these aspects hold potential for intervention, and some overlap
with constructs from other theories (e.g. Effort Expenditure overlap with elements of attribution theory).
Vicarious experience: Struggling learners can benefit from observing friends model a task, where they
demonstrate a skill or a learning strategy. The modeller often verbally explicates what he is doing and
thinking at each step, thereby making it possible for a struggling learner to develop an internal imagery
needed to conceptualize and implement the targeted skills and learning strategies. By observing how
coping models overcome mistakes, struggling learners of similar ability often realize they also have a
change to achieve.
Verbal persuasion and feedback: On some occasions it might be relevant to persuade students to persist
with certain learning tasks. However, in most classroom settings it seems more relevant to provide learners
with formative and task-oriented feedback, which may convince them that they can manage the task
(Margolis and McCabe 2006; Fencl and Scheel 2005). Notice here, that motivational theories tend to
overlap: specific actions may benefit students from several theoretical perspectives, and a particular action
may have a direct influence on constructs of one motivational theory, and indirectly influence constructs of
another.
Physiological reaction: As Bandura puts it: “Therefore, the fourth major way of altering efficacy beliefs is to
enhance physical status, reduce stress levels and negative emotional proclivities, and correct
misinterpretations of bodily states" (p. 106). Struggling learners sometimes have a negative physiological
reaction before, during and after engaging in a challenging task. Relaxation training and ways to challenge
irrational thoughts might be helpful for some students (Margolis and McCabe 2006).
14
Goal orientation (and Self-regulation)
Teachers can organise classroom structure to promote students mastery orientation. Epstein (Epstein 1989)
(Epstein 1989) has developed an intervention scheme with the acronym TARGET, which describes how
master orientations can be facilitated. The TARGET scheme focuses on six modifiable aspects of classroom
structure: types of tasks, lines of authority, means of recognition, grouping methods, evaluation practices
and use of time (Ames 1992). The Table from Ames (Ames 1992) relates specific Instructional Strategies to
Student Motivation Patterns in the TAR and E-dimensions of TARGET:
Structure
Instructional Strategies
Motivation Patterns
Task
Focus on the meaningful aspects of
learning activities
Focus on effort and learning
Design tasks for novelty, variety,
diversity, and student interest
Design tasks that offer reasonable
challenge to students
Help students establish short-term, selfreferenced goals
Support development and use of
effective learning strategies
Authority
Focus on helping students participate in
the decision making
Provide “real” choices where decisions
are based on effort, not ability
evaluations
High intrinsic interest in
activity
Attributions to effort-based
strategies
Use of effective learning and
other self-regulatory
strategies
Active engagement
Positive affect on high effort
tasks
Feelings of belongingness
“Failure-tolerance”
Give opportunities to develop
responsibility and independence
Support development and use of selfmanagement and monitoring skills
Evaluation/
Recognition
Focus on individual improvement,
progress, and mastery
Make evaluation private, not public
Recognize students’ effort
15
Provide opportunities for improvement
Encourage view of mistakes as part of
learning
Classroom investigations have shown that each of these instructional strategies can improve students
effort and engagement, but they are mutually dependent and interact in a multiplicative manner (Ames
1992).
These findings clearly overlap with recommendations from research on Self-regulated learning, e.g. in the
appraisal of tasks and opportunities to learn (Boekaerts and Corno 2005; Boekaerts 2002). Teaching of
specific learning strategies to promote students’ self-regulation is described in (Margolis and McCabe
2006). Among the recommendations are:

Organising learning situations in such a way that students are encouraged to begin the learning
process by generating learning goals from their own goal hierarchy.

Designing teaching that allows students to experience situational meaningfulness.

Students become concerned with emotional well-being (instead of mastery goals) when
environmental cues signal that things are not going well. Here students’ willingness to maintain
learning goals and persist toward mastery in the face of difficulty depends on their awareness of
and access to volitional strategies. Students’ ability to overcome obstacles improves, when they can
call upon such an meta-cognitive understanding of volitional strategies. An instructional focus on
meta-cognitive skills and strategies is beneficial.

Further, classroom culture can facilitate self-regulation, when teachers provide models, serve as
coaches and establish environments conducive to self-regulation (Boekaerts and Corno 2005). The
use of learning communities is suggested as an example of a supportive learning environment.
Self Determination Theory
The application of SDT in education has recently been reviewed by Niemiec and Ryan (Niemiec and Ryan
2009). More specific investigation of how specific classroom strategies can promote students’ selfdetermined behavior (sense of competence, relatedness, and autonomy) can be found in (Reeve 2002).
Here Reeve and co-workers have found ways to classify teachers’ orientations/dispositions as being
autonomy-supportive or controlling. Next they have identified “what autonomy-supportive teachers do”
(see Table NN). Here various teacher instructional behaviours are listed, and it is indicated whether these
behaviours are more frequent among autonomy- supportive teachers (AS>C) or among controlling teachers
(C>AS). Most importantly we have summarized the outcome-results from the text of Reeeve in an
additional outer-right column. This indicates if the instructional behaviour is positively related to students’
sense of self-determination (SDT) and/or competence (Comp).
16
Reeve et
al
(1999)
Deci et al
(1982)
Students’
perception
Teacher’s instructional behaviors

Time spent talking
AS=C
C>AS

Time spent listening
AS>C
-
SDT+Comp

Time spent holding instructional material
C>AS
-
-SDT

Time given to students for independent work
AS>C
AS>C
SDT+Comp

Solutions given
C>AS
C>AS
Teacher’s Conversational Statements

Directives/Commands
C>AS
C>AS

Should, Must, Have-to statements
AS=C
C>AS

Deadlines Statements
-
AS=C

Praises of Quality of Performance
AS>C
AS>C

Praises of Student
AS=C
C>AS

Encouragements
AS=C
-

Criticisms
-
C>AS

Hints given
AS=C
AS=C
Comp

Solutions/answers given
C>AS
C>AS
-Comp

Questions of what student want
AS>C
AS=C

Controlling questions
AS=C
C>AS

Responses to student-generated questions
AS>C
-

Self-disclousure statements
AS=C
AS=C

Empathic, Perspective-taking Statements
AS>C
-

Give students opportunity to talk
Comp
Comp
Comp
17
A number of SDT-recommended instructional behaviours can be derived from the Table: Compared to
controlling teachers autonomy supportive teachers spent more time listening to the students and they give
students’ more time for independent work, besides they more often respond to student-generated ideas
and they praise quality performance, in addition they are more empathic and able to take students’
perspective than controlling teachers.
Teachers can also increase students’ sense of autonomy by exposing them to interesting and worthwhile
tasks fostering an internal locus of control, which can promote a task rather than an ego involvement and
cultivate a sense of volition. Students’ perception of choice can be facilitated by a flexible interpersonal
environments and opportunities to choose how, when and with whom they want to work with the task.
The subjective perceived locus of control, high volition, and perceived choice and highly intertwined.
Summing it up, an autonomy-supportive context will facilitate development of students’ self-regulation
(identified regulation) by the following means: (1) providing the students with a meaningful rationale as to
why the task or lesson is important (2) establishing an interpersonal relationship that emphasizes choices
and flexibility rather than control and pressure; and (3) acknowledging and accepting the negative feelings
associated with engaging in arduous activities (Reeve 2002).
At the personal level it requires certain personal skills to be an autonomy supportive teacher such as an
ability to: take the perspective of the student, acknowledge students’ feelings, provide rational for requests
and uninteresting lessons, and an ability to communicate in a non-controlling language (Reeve 2002).
Autonomy support requires a willingness to enter into relationships from the students’ perspective to
encourage initiative, nurture competence, and communicate in ways that are non-controlling and
information-rich (Reeve 2002, p.190). The relatedness-dimension of SDT (and a selection of other
motivational theories) is discussed by (Martin and Dowson 2009) who summarize the following points from
research to teachers’ interactivity practice (p. 344):
a) “Students’ sense of support (e.g., being liked, respected, and valued by the
teacher) predicts their expectancies for success and valuing of subject matter.
Indeed, support from teacher is a consistently influential factor in motivation and achievement
(Goodenow, 1993a).
b) Students who believe that their teacher is caring also believe they learn more
(Teven & McCroskey, 1997).
c) Students’ feelings of acceptance by teachers are associated with emotional, cognitive, and
behavioral engagement in class (Connell & Wellborn, 1991).
d) Teachers who support a student’s autonomy tend to facilitate greater motivation,
curiosity, and desire for challenge (Flink, Boggiano, & Barrett, 1990).
e) Teachers higher in warmth tend to develop greater confidence in students
(Ryan & Grolnick, 1986).
Conversely, research also supports the following conclusions:
f)
When teachers are more controlling, students tend to show less mastery motivation
18
and lower confidence (Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman, & Ryan, 1981).
g) Teachers who are not perceived as warm typically evince lower motivation
and achievement among students (Kontos & Wilcox-Herzog, 1997b).”
Attributional theory
The most important recommendation of attribution theory is that teachers develop attributional awareness
and systematically stress that success and failure are due to controllable factors and not to students’
dispositions or traits. Another important aspect is maintaining positive beliefs capabilities, sustaining a
belief that performance can change, e.g. as a consequence of access to new strategies (Margolis and
McCabe 2006; Pintrich and Schunk 2002).
Students’ attribution can be based on “informational cues” such as prior performance history and social
norms, or it can be based on “indirect attributional cues” such as teacher communication and feedback.
Adequate feedback should be specific, task-oriented, formative and accurate, instead of being overly
positive in order to maintain students’ self-esteem (Pintrich and Schunk 2002, p.136): ”Students will not
believe teachers’ attributions that are not credible”.
Unintentionally teachers may provide attributional cues through their interactivity with students (Graham
1994, p.34), often in subtle and situated ways:

“Pity vs. anger” (affective displays by teachers), “the emotional reaction of teachers may be among
the most important antecedents of perceived personal competence”. Depending on the situation
both affective reactions from teachers may deliver dysfunctional attributional cues.

“Praise vs. Blame” or ”Praise and lack of blame”. Generally these ego-oriented cues should be
avoided or used with great caution, e.g. with an awareness that lack of blame in a situation where
peers are blamed for similar performances will be decoded by a student as an implicit low-ability
positioning.

Criticism can convey much positive information and praise.

“Help vs. neglect”: Help might function as a low ability cue, especially when it is un-solicited.
Depending on the student neglect may be decoded as trust that he will manage on his own or as
teacher’s abandoning him.

Instrumental help vs. gratuitous help. The type of help also can give away cues, e.g. providing tools
or hints when appropriate functions very differently from supplying answers outright (the
‘gratuitous’ type). Gratuitous help tend to induce ‘learned helplessness” on the side of the learner.
Instruments used to assess motivational constructs
Self-efficacy instruments:
Pajares has summarized the use of efficacy instruments (Pajares 1996):
19
“Researchers assess self-efficacy beliefs by asking individuals to report the level, generality, and strength of
their confidence to accomplish a task or succeed in a certain situation (see Table 1). In academic settings,
self-efficacy instruments may ask students to rate their confidence to solve specific mathematics problems
(Hackett & Betz, 1989), perform particular reading or writing tasks (Shell, Colvin, & Bruning, 1995), or
engage in certain self-regulatory strategies (Bandura, 1989). Assessments of other expectancy beliefs
include asking students to report how well they expect to do in an academic subject (i.e., performance
expectancies, Meece, Wigfield, & Eccles, 1990), whether they understand what they read (i.e., perceptions
of competence, Harter, 1982), and whether they are good in an academic subject (i.e., academic domainspecific self-concept, Marsh, 1992; also ability perceptions, Meece et al., 1990)”.
More specifically, Bandura himself has provided examples and guidance in constructing efficacy-scales
(Bandura 2006). Of particular relevance to the present research project with teachers Bandura has
developed and validated a Teacher Self-efficacy Instrument, and series of research studies have applied the
STEBI-A/B (“Science Teaching Efficacy Beliefs Instrument”) to explore teachers efficacy beliefs. The use of
STEBI-B was reexamined in a recent publication (Bleicher 2004).
An example of efficacy instruments for use with students within the area of college Biology can be found in
(Baldwin, Ebert-May, and Burns 1999).
Self-Determination Theory Instruments:
The Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) has been used extensively to study aspects of SDT. It can be
downloaded from the homepage of University of Rochester
http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/IMI_description.php , where its use and its psychometric
properties are documented by Ryan and colleagues. From the same homepage specific instruments to
measure Perceived Autonomy Support (“The learning climate questionnaire”) also can be downloaded.
Goal-orientation instruments:
One of the dominant instruments to study students’ goal orientations and their relation to classroom and
teacher characteristics is the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales by Midgley and others. Its use and
psychometric properties is documented in the Manual that can be downloaded from a homepage related
to the inventors (Midgley and et al 2000).
Students’ attributions instrument:
Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ) (Peterson 1982) comprises twelve hypothetical situations consisting
of six positive and six negative events. Each situation is followed by four questions, to which respondents
are firstly required to provide a major cause of the situation. The following three questions evaluate the
three fundamental attribution dimensions and hence measure the degree to which the subject’s response
is internal or external (i.e., locus), stable or unstable, and global or specific.
20
References
1. Abell, S. Research on Science Teacher Knowledge. In Handbook of Research on Science Education.
Edited by S. Abell and N. Lederman. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers, 2007.
2. Ames, C., "Classrooms - Goals, Structures, and Student Motivation," Journal of Educational
Psychology 84, no. 3 (1992): 261-271.
3. Andersen, H. M., "Veje til motivation og læring", Steno Department, Aarhus University, 2007).
4. Andersen, H. M. and L. B. Krogh, "Science and mathematics teachers' core teaching conceptions
and their implications for engaging in cross-curricular innovations.," Submitted for publication in
NorDiNa April 2009 (2009).
5. Andersen, H. M. and V. G. Nielsen. Kemi i gymnasiet - elevernes opfattelse af faget i 1.g/1.htx.
2003. Center for Naturfagenes Didaktik, Aarhus Universitet (In Danish). CND's skriftserie no 6.
6. Andersen, N. O. et al. Fremtidens Naturfaglige Uddannelser - Bd.1: Strategiplan 2003-2008 og
videre frem. 2003. København, Undervisningsministeriet (In Danish).
7. Arbejdsgruppen til forberedelse af en national strategi for Natur, Teknik og Sundhed. Et fælles løft.
2008. Copenhagen, Danish Ministry of Education.
8. Baldwin, J. A., D. Ebert-May, and D. J. Burns, "The development of a college biology self-efficacy
instrument for nonmajors," Science Education 83, no. 4 (1999): 397-408.
9. Bandura, A. Efficacy - the exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman, 1997.
10. Bandura, A. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In Adolescence and education, Vol. 5: Selfefficacy beliefs of adolescents. Edited by F. Pajares and T. Urdan. Greenwich, CT: Information Age,
2006.
11. Black, A. and E. Deci, "The Effects of Instructors' Autonomy Support and Students' Autonomous
Motivation on Learning Organic Chemistry: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective," Science
Education 84 (2000): 740-756.
12. Bleicher, R. E., "Revisiting the STEBI-B: Measuring Self-efficacy in Pre-service Elementary Teachers,"
School Science and Mathematics 104, no. 8 (2004): 383-391.
13. Boekaerts, M. and L. Corno, "Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and
intervention," Applied Psychology-An International Review-Psychologie Appliquee-Revue
Internationale 54, no. 2 (2005): 199-231.
21
14. Boekaerts, Monique, "Bringing about change in the classroom: strengths and weaknesses of the
self-regulated learning approach - EARLI Presidential Address, 2001," Learning and Instruction 12,
no. 4 (2002): 589-604.
15. Brophy, J. Motivating Students to Learn. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2004.
16. Cherubini, G., F. Zambelli, and P. Boscolo, "Student motivation: an experience of inservice
education as a context for professional development of teachers" , Teaching and Teacher Education
18, no. 3 (2002): 273-288.
17. Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut. Fysik i skolen - skolen i fysik. Evaluering af fysik i det almene
gymnasium. 2001. København, EVA, Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut.
18. Deci, E. L. et al., "Motivation and Education - the Self-Determination Perspective," Educational
Psychologist 26, no. 3-4 (1991): 325-346.
19. Dolin, Jens Volmer et al. Autentisk fysik. 2001. København, Roskilde Universitetscenter.
20. Eccles, J. S. and A. Wigfield, "Motivational beliefs, values, and goals," Annual Review of Psychology
53 (2002): 109-132.
21. Elliot, A. J. Integrating the "classic" and "contemporary" approaches to achievement motivation: A
hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. In Advances in motivation
and achievement, vol.10. Edited by M. Maehr and P. Pintrich. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1997.
22. Epstein, J. Family Structures and Student Motivation: A Developmental Perspective. In Research on
Motivation in Education, vol.3. Edited by C. Ames and R. Ames. San Diego, CA: Academic Press,
1989.
23. Fencl, Heidi and Karen Scheel, "Engaging Students. An Examination of the Effects of Teaching
Strategies on Self-Efficacy and Course Climate in a Nonmajors Ppysics Course," Journal of College
Science Teaching 35, no. 1 (2005): 20-24.
24. Ford, M. E. Motivating Humans - goals, emotions and personal agency beliefs. London: Sage
Publishers, 1992.
25. Gardner, P. L., "Attitudes to science: A review," Studies in Science Education 2 (1975): 1-41.
26. Graham, Sandra. Classroom Motivation From an Attributional Perspective. In Motivation. Theory
and Research. Edited by Harold F O'Neil and Michael Drillings. Hillsdale: Lawrance Erlbaum
Associates Inc., 1994.
27. Green, S., "Using an expectancy-value approach to examine teachers' motivational strategies,"
Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002): 989-1005.
28. Grossman, P. L. The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York:
Teachers College Press, 1990.
22
29. Jagacinsky, C. and J. G. Nicholls, "Conceptions of Ability and Related Affects in Task Involvement
and Ego Involvement," Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, no. 5 (1984): 909-919.
30. Krogh, L. B., "'Cultural Border Crossings' within the physics classroom – a cultural perspective on
youth attitudes towards physics", Steno Department for Studies of Science and Science Education,
2006).
31. Krogh, L. B., P. Arnborg, and P. V. Thomsen. GFIII-rapport: Hvordan gik det så med
fysikundervisningen og elevernes udbytte? - 2.g-opfølgning på GFII-undersøgelsen. 3, del A. 2001.
CND's skriftserie.
32. Krogh, L. B. and P. V. Thomsen. GFII-rapport nr. 1: Undervisningsstil og læringsudbytte - en
undersøgelse af fysikundervisningen i 1.g. 1. 2000a. Det Naturvidenskabelige Fakultet, Aarhus
Universitet. CND' skriftserie.
33. Krogh, L. B. and P. V. Thomsen. Teaching Style and learning outcomes. Paper presented at The XVIII
edition of the GIREP International Conference, August 27 to September 1 2000. 2000b. Barcelona,
GIREP. Conference Proceeding
34. Krogh, L. B. and P. V. Thomsen, "Studying students´ attitudes towards science from a cultural
perspective but with a quantitative methodology: border crossing into the physics classroom,"
International Journal of Science Education 27, no. 3 (2005): 281-302.
35. Magnusson, S., J. Krajcik, and H. Borko. Nature, Sources, and Development of Pedagogical Content
Knowledge for Science Teaching. In Examing Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The Construct and its
Implications for Science Education. Edited by J. Gess-Newsome and N. Lederman. New York: Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 1999.
36. Margolis, Howard and Patrick McCabe, "Improving Self-Efficacy and Motivation: What to Do, What
to Say," Intervention in School and Clinic 41, no. 4 (2006): 218-227.
37. Martin, A. J., "Enhancing student motivation and engagement: The effects of a multidimensional
intervention", Contemporary Educational Psychology 33, no. 2 (2008): 239-269.
38. Martin, A. J. and M. Dowson, "Interpersonal Relationships, Motivation, Engagement, and
Achievement: Yields for Theory, Current Issues, and Educational Practice”, Review of educational
research 79, no. 1 (2009): 327-365.
39. Midgley, C. and et al. Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales. 2000.
http://www.umich.edu/~pals/PALS%202000_V13Word97.pdf, University of Michigan.
40. Niemiec, C. P. and R. M. Ryan, "Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom applying self-determination theory to educational practice," Theory and Research in Education 7
(2009): 133-144.
41. Osborne, J. and J. Dillon. Science Education in Europe: Critical Reflections. Report to the Nuffield
Foundation. 2008. London, Kings College.
23
42. Osborne, J., S. Simon, and S. Collins, "Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its
implications," International Journal of Science Education 25, no. 9 (2003): 1049-1079.
43. Pajares, F., "Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Academic Settings," Review of educational research 66, no. 4
(1996): 543-578.
44. Peterson, C. Semmel A. von Baeyer C. Abramson L. Metalsky & Seligman, "The Attributional Style
Questionnaire," CognitiveTherapy and Research 6 (1982): 287-300.
45. Pintrich, P. R., "A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and
teaching contexts," Journal of Educational Psychology 95 (2003): 667-686.
46. Pintrich, P. R. and D. H. Schunk. Motivation in Education - Theory, Research and Applications. 2nd
ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merril Prentice Hall, 2002.
47. Reeve, Johnmarshall. Self-Determination Theory Applied to Educational Settings. In Handbook of
Self-determination Research. Edited by E. L. Deci and R. M. Ryan. Woodbridge: University of
Rochester Press, 2002.
48. Rocard, M. et al. Science Education Now - A Renewed Pedagogy for the Future of Europe. 2007.
Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
49. Ryan, R. M. and E. L. Deci, "Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being," American Psychologist 55, no. 1 (2000): 68-78.
50. Schibeci, R. A., "Attitudes to science: an update," Studies in Science Education 11 (1984): 26-59.
51. Sølberg, J., "Udvikling af lokale naturfaglige kulturer", Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitet, DK,
2007).
52. Stipek, D. et al., "Can a teacher intervention improve classroom practices and student motivation in
mathematics?", Journal of Experimental Education 66, no. 4 (1998): 319-337.
53. The Danish Evaluation Institute. Physics within the school - the school within physics. 2001. The
Danish Evaluation Institute, In Danish.
54. Weiner, Bernard, "a Theory of Motivation for Some Classroom Experiences," Journal of Educational
Psychology 71, no. 1 (1979): 3-25.
55. Wigfield, A., J. Eccles, and D. Rodriguez, "The Development of Children's Motivation in School
Contexts," Review of Research in Education 23 (1998): 73-118.
56. Zeuner, L. et al. Lærerroller - stabilitet og forandring. 68. 2008. Odense, DK, Institut for Filosofi,
Pædagogik og Religionsstudier, Syddansk Universitet. Gymnasiepædagogik.
24