Choice Theory & Motivation - LaGrange College



CHOICE THEORY AND STUDENT MOTIVATIONExcept 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.Sharon M. Livingston, Ph.D.Associate Professor and Co-ProjectAdvisorAssistant Professor and Co-Project AdvisorEducation DepartmentEducation DepartmentCHOICE THEORY AND STUDENT MOTIVATIONA project submittedbyRandolph Stephen Hardigree, Jr.toLaGrange Collegein partial fulfillment ofthe requirement for thedegree ofSPECIALIST IN EDUCATIONinCurriculum and InstructionLaGrange, GeorgiaJuly 21, 2011AbstractThis 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.Table of ContentsAbstract……………………………………………………………………………..iiiTable of Contents…………………………………………………………………...ivList of Tables and Figures…………………………………………………………..vChapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………..1Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………...1Significance of the Problem………………………………………………...2Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks…………………………………..3Focus Questions…………………………………………………………….4Overview of Methodology………………………………………………….5Human as Researcher……………………………………………………….6Chapter 2: Review of the Literature………………………………………………...7External Control vs. Choice………………………………………………...7Needs We Are Driven By…………………………………………………..9Learning Pictures…………………………………………………………...12Total Behavior……………………………………………………………...13Learning Teams…………………………………………………………….13Organizational Change……………………………………………………...15Chapter 3: Methodology……………………………………………………………17Research Design……………………………………………………………17Setting……………………………………………………………………...18Subjects and Participants……………………..…………………………….18Procedures and Data Collection Methods…………..………………………19Validity, Reliability, Dependability, Bias, and Equity……….…………….21Analysis of Data…………………………………………………………….23Chapter 4: Results…………………………………………………………………..27Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results…………………………………….35Analysis…………………………………………………………………….35Discussion…………………………………………………………………..40Implications…………………………………………………………………41Impact on School Improvement…………………………………………….42Recommendations for Future Research…………………………………….43References…………………………………………………………………………..44Appendices………………………………………………………………………….47List of TablesTablesTable 3.1Data Shell…………………………………………………………..…….19Table 4.1Independent t-test: EOCT Scores………………………...……………....27Table 4.2Chi Square Statistic for Student Survey…………………………….……28CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTIONStatement of the ProblemThis 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).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 ProblemGlasser (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.Theoretical and Conceptual FrameworksThis 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 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 QuestionsA 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: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: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:Did school leaders view choice theory as an innovation worthy of school-wide application?Overview of MethodologyThis 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 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 school-wide application?” Reflection was completed and coded for themes after completion of interviews.Human as a ResearcherI 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 socio-familial 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.CHAPTER TWO: Review of the LiteratureExternal Control vs. ChoiceGlasser’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 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 shift in our thinking by helping us be cognizant of our own choice in every behavior that we engage in.Needs We Are Driven ByAll 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, good-looking, 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 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 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)Learning PicturesGlasser (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 need-satisfying 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 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 BehaviorGlasser (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 TeamsSo 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 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.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 team-based anizational 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 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. CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGYResearch DesignThis 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.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.SettingMy 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 ParticipantsThe 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 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 MethodsAll 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 ShellFocus QuestionLiterature SourcesType: Method, Data, ValidityHow these data are analyzedRationaleDid the application of Glasser’s choice theory have a positive effect on the students’ EOCT performance for the Cells & Genetics domains?Glasser, W. (1988)Yager, , Johnson, & Johnson (1985)Zeeman, R. (2006)Method:2010 & 2011 Biology EOCT scores from the Cells & Genetics Domains Data:IntervalType of validity:ContentQuantitative:Independent T-testEffect SizeQuantitative:Provides evidence of significant differences in test performanceHow 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)Method:Survey,Focus GroupData:Student Surveys (Likert Scale) Colleague Focus GroupType of Validity:ConstructQuantitative:Chi Square AnalysisQualitative:Coded for themesQuantitative:Provides evidence of themes in student perceptions of choice theoryQualitative:Provides evidence of themes in colleagues’ perceptions of choice theoryDid school leaders view choice theory as an innovation worthy of school-wide application?Noddings, N. (2003)Reeves, D. (2009)Tsoukas, H. and Chia, R. (2002)Method:InterviewData:Interview RecordType of Validity:constructQualitative:Coded for themesQuantitative:Provides evidence of viability of new innovation for future useWilliam 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 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 EquityQuantitative 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 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 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 DataFocus 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 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.ValidationConsensual 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). CredibilityEisner (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.TransferabilityThe 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 theory. This referential adequacy, as Eisner (1991) calls it, leads to a better perception and understanding of choice theory by others.TransformationLather (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 t-tests for test results, chi square analysis for survey results, and coding for themes in transcripts of focus groups and interviews.CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTSQuantitative 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 Scorest-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances?Spring 2010Spring 2011Mean52.9252.56Variance310.88321.94Observations86123Pooled Variance317.39Hypothesized Mean Difference0df207t Stat0.14P(T<=t) one-tail0.44t Critical one-tail1.65P(T<=t) two-tail0.88t Critical two-tail1.97?T(207) = 0.14, p < .05Table 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 SurveySurvey Itemsn=14Survey Questionχ2Item 1Did you feel a sense of belonging when you came to biology class?93.23***Item 2Do you feel that you were friendly toward the other students during class?119.03***Item 3Did you feel that your classmates were friendly toward you?85.94***Item 4Did you feel that your classmates supported you during group work?73.42***Item 5Do you feel that you acted in a way that supported Mr. Hardigree?112.21***Item 6Do you feel that you acted in a way that supported your classmates?85.10***Item 7Do you think there is power in knowledge?173.70***Item 8Do you feel like Mr. Hardigree has a sense of humor in class?70.99***Item 9Do you feel that laughter is a part of our classroom atmosphere?63.33***Item 10Did you feel that your team had a fair chance at winning points?136.50***Item 11Did you feel like your team had any choice in deciding what to study?11.36*Item 12Did you feel that your team had and choice in deciding how to be assessed?31.36***Item 13Did you have freedom to choose how to spend your extra time when your work was complete?84.07***Item 14Do you feel like Mr. Hardigree wants you to be satisfied with his class?370.90**** p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001As 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 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.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.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 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.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.CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTSThe 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. AnalysisResults 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 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, “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 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 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 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 decision-making 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 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.ImplicationsThe 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 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 ImprovementThis 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 entire school, as I will be able to conduct a staff development session built upon the principles of choice theory.Recommendations for Future ResearchMy 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.ReferencesCharles, 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 , 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.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 PublicationsLaGrange College Education Department [LCED] (2009). Conceptual framework. LaGrange, GA: LaGrange CollegeMeyers, 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: , 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.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.Appendix AStudent SurveyThese questions apply only to the Cells & Genetics unit that we just completed.Please circle a response to each question.Did you feel a sense of belonging when you came to biology?Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always1 2 3 4 5Do you feel that you were friendly toward the other students?Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always1 2 3 4 5Did you feel that your classmates were friendly toward you?Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always1 2 3 4 5Did you feel that your classmates supported you during group work?Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always1 2 3 4 5Do you feel that you acted in a way that supported Mr. Hardigree?Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always1 2 3 4 5Do you feel that you acted in a way supported your classmates?Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always1 2 3 4 5Do you think there is power in knowledge?Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always1 2 3 4 5Do you feel like Mr. Hardigree has a sense of humor in class?Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always1 2 3 4 5Do you feel that laughter is a part of our classroom atmosphere?Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always1 2 3 4 5Did you feel that your team had a fair chance at winning points?Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always1 2 3 4 5Did you feel like your team had any choice in deciding what to study?Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always1 2 3 4 5Did you feel that your team had any choice in deciding how to be assessed?Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always1 2 3 4 5Did you have freedom to choose how to spend your time when your work was complete?Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always1 2 3 4 5Do you feel like Mr. Hardigree wants you to be satisfied with his class?Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always1 2 3 4 5Appendix BFocus Group QuestionsWhat percentage of your students do you think are consistently engaged in learning?Why are these students engaged in learning?Why are the disengaged students disengaged?What ideas do you have for helping disengaged students gain the vital belief that there is power in knowledge?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?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?Appendix CInterview QuestionsWhat percentage of students at our school do you think are consistently engaged in learning?Why are these students engaged in learning?Why are the disengaged students disengaged?What ideas do you have for helping disengaged students gain the vital belief that there is power in knowledge?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?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?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? ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download