I got this from Jaymie's multiply. :)

1. smoked
2. consumed alcohol
3. slept in the same bed with someone of the opposite sex
4. slept in the same bed with someone of the same sex
5. kissed someone of the same sex
6. had sex
7. had someone in your room other than family
8. watched porn
9. bought porn
10. done drugs

Total: 5

1. taken painkillers
2. taken someone else's prescription medicine.
3. lied to your parents.
4. lied to a friend.
5. snuck out of the house
6. done something illegal.
7. cut yourself.
8. hurt someone
9. wished someone to die.
10. seen someone die.

Total: 6

1. missed curfew.
2. stayed out all night.
3. eaten a carton of ice cream by yourself.
4. been to a therapist.
5. been to rehab.
6. dyed your hair.
7. received a ticket.
8. been in an accident.
9. been to a club.
10. been to a bar.

Total: 3

1. been to a wild party.
2. been to a Mardi Gras parade.
3. drank more than four beers in a night.
4. had a spring break in Florida.
5. sniffed anything.
6. wore black nail polish.
7. wore arm bands.
8. wore t-shirts with band names.
9. listened to rap.
10. owned a 50 Cent CD.

Total: 2

1. dressed Gothic.
2. dressed prep.
3. dressed punk.
4. dressed grunge.
5. stole something.
6. been too drunk to remember anything.
7. blacked out.
8. fainted.
9. had a crush on a neighbor.

Total : 3

1. snuck into someone else's room.
2. had a crush on your friend.
3. been to a concert.
4. dry-humped someone.
5. been called a slut.
6. called someone a slut.
7. installed speakers in your car.
8. broken a mirror.
9. showered at someone of the opposites sex's house.
10. brushed your teeth with someone else's toothbrush.

Total: 5

1. consider/considered Ludacris your favorite rapper.
2. seen an R-rated movie in theater.
3. cruised the mall.
4. skipped school.
5. had surgery.
6. had an injury.
7. gone to court.
8. walked out of a restaurant without paying/tipping.
9. caught something on fire.
10. lied about your age.

Total: 4

1. owned/rented an apartment.
2. broke the law in the police's presence.
3. made out with someone who had a gf/bf.
4. got in trouble with the police.
5. talked to a stranger.
6. hugged a stranger.
7. kissed a stranger.
8. rode in the car with a stranger.
9. been harassed.
10. been verbally harassed.

Total: 2

1. met face-to-face with someone you met online.
2. stayed online for 5 hours straight.
3. talked on the phone for more than 4 hours straight.
4. watched TV for 5 hours straight.
5. been to a fair.
6. been called a bad influence.
7. drink and drive.
8. prank-called someone.
9. laid on a couch with someone of the opposite sex.
10. cheated on a test.

Total: 5

Grand Total = 35 (tama ba?? naadd ba lahat?? haha! :))


 -If you have less than 10.. write [im an uber goody goody]

 -If you have more than 10.. write [im still a goody goody]

 -If you have more than 20..write [im average]

 -if you have more than 30..write [im a bad person]

 -If you have more than 40.. write [im a very bad person]

 -If you have more than 50.. write [im a horrible person]

[ Add a Comment ]

[ Add a Comment ]

Dahil sabi ng iba, kulang daw ung pinost ko dito sa tabulas, uulitin ko nalang ng pagpost.

sa open office, 83 pages lahat.

malalaki pa ung fonts.

baka naman

23 pages lang talaga pag kinopy nyo words kasi malalaki po ung fonts dun e ang liliit ng fonts dito.

Title:

THE INFLUENCE OF MUSIC ON CORE LEARNING. By: Eady, Isreal, Wilson, Janell D., Education, 00131172, Winter2004, Vol. 125, Issue 2

Database:

Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection

THE INFLUENCE OF MUSIC ON CORE LEARNING

Contents

1. REFERENCES

What effect does music have on the academic achievement and motivation to learn of students? Various studies and reports indicate that can contribute to the academic achievement, motivation, and to the development of creativity. This paper presents a review of literature that reports the benefits of integrating music across the curriculum.

Glenn (1992) observed that music can hone creativity through participation in one of the great art forms, Leng, Shaw and Wright (1990) believe we can examine higher creative and learning functions through the study of music, Gardner (1983) identifies musical intelligence as one of seven basic intelligences. Therefore, music may help students learn more and more effectively. Music can make a significant contribution to all of education in terms of student benefits by enhancing key developmental goals such as self-esteem and creativity (Music Educators National Conference, 1991), Various studies and observations indicate that music can influence learning in core subjects as well as contribute to the attainment of core goals of learning, Weisskoff (1981) explored selected outcomes of using the medium of commercially-recorded pop/rock music as an integral part of the instructional package in language arts. Comparisons were made between alternate learning conditions--music and no music--with respect to task performance and continuing motivation. The central question to be answered was: What effect does music have on children's task performance and continued motivation in language arts? In other words, would music enhance or take away from achievement and motivation in language arts? According to Weisskoff (1981) students who received the music condition scored significantly higher with regard to continuing motivation. The definition of continuing motivation in this study was the tendency of students to return to and continue working on tasks away from the instructional context in which they were initially confronted. This was measured by a simple three-item self-report device and a three-point Likert-type scale reflecting teacher perception of typical student behavior. In reference to task performance, there were no significant main effects or inter actions obtained. The music condition did not enhance achievement. This study clearly answered questions concerning the theory that music does serve as a motivational force for children. However, it has been found that background music during tasks does not enhance achievement. Music was found to serve neither as a positive force nor as a distraction to achievement. This finding is of particular interest in light of the significant relationship demonstrated between music and continuing motivation. The study pointed out that, students who were almost always unmotivated became motivated because of music.

Tucker (1981) compiled several reports concerning music and the teaching of reading. He reported that using music in teaching reading may enhance motivation and abilities of children, whether or not they are musically talented or intellectually above average. The back to basics approach to education is an important reason why music should be fused with reading in order to enhance the effectiveness of reading instruction. Many similarities exist between music and reading. Both use a symbol structure that can be decoded into sounds that have meaning. Visual and auditory discrimination are required in both subjects and are oriented to a left-to-right framework.

According to Cohen-Taylor (1981), popular song lyrics used as reading materials caused middle grades students to approach printed materials in a positive manner. Students had been approaching reading materials with apathy. However, when song sheets were introduced, students immediately became enthusiastic and excited about using lyrics as reading materials. Reading skills can be effectively taught using popular song lyrics. Some suggested activities involve working with word cards featuring favorite words of favorite songs, forming new sentences from words in favorite songs, guessing first lines of songs for which the teacher has supplied word configuration clues and creating crossword puzzles in which the entries are words in song titles.

A study done by Brunk (1981) validated the effectiveness of a socio-music curriculum. Music was integrated with social studies and science for young learners. The treatment curriculum consisted of two thirty-minute socio-music lessons per week throughout a semester instructed by classroom teachers. The comparison curriculum consisted of separate subject instruction in social studies, science, and music instructed by subject matter specialists. Learner performances on the achievement instrument were compared on two indices: (a) group mean score on social studies and science items, (b) group mean score on musical items. The socio-music treatment group attained a higher mean score on both indices than did the separate subject comparison group. The conclusion of this study was that learner achievement in social studies, science, and music concepts resulting from the integrated socio-music curriculum was superior to that resulting from the separate subject curriculum.

Popular Music Influences on Student Learning

Popular music was found to improve students' attitudes toward history and subject matter knowledge in a study done by McTeer and Bailey (1980). The study used two sections of senior high school students enrolled in classes in recent United States History. One section of the study was taught using the lecture-discussion method while the other section used a great amount of popular music to reinforce the study of history. Both the experimental class and the control class were drawn from the total number of recent United States History classes taught in a Metropolitan area in the Southeastern United States. Both classes met for fifty minutes during each school day. Both groups had the same teacher. In both areas of attitude and subject matter knowledge, the means of the gain-scores were greater for the experimental group.

Educational rap music provides motivation for students of Sonja Burdix (as cited in Merina, 1993) Indianapolis, Indiana. "This music, as a form of communication, causes students to appreciate poetry such as that of Langston Hughes", touts Burdix (p. 1). Students are involved in reciting poetry in the traditional manner and through setting poetry to rap beats. The rap beat versions cause students to become motivated and interested in reciting poetry, because of the students' familiarity with rap. Peter Brown (as cited in Merina, 1993) a former teacher in San Diego, California, describes rap music as being about power, communication and culture. According to Brown "Whatever rap is, it is here, and some teachers may find constructive uses for the music" (p. 1). Millions of students listen to rap music, as it contains words and rhythms of their world. An understanding of that can cause teachers to get closer to students. Since rap music is unifying an entire generation of various cultures, it should be used in the classroom as a multicultural approach education. Positive lyrics can be improvised and composed to a driving beat to add interest in lessons to be learned (Merina, 1993).

Vande Berg (1986) experienced jazz improvisation in the classroom permitting every child to participate in an active manner. A non-threatening environment is set in the classroom because no students' contributions to verbal exercises are perceived as right or wrong. Every contribution is a valid personal creation that is applauded by the class. Verbal exercises taken from newspaper articles can be read to a steady beat in the classroom. Various elements of music are changed during the reading process. Pitch, rhythm, volume, etc., using jazz inflections are altered in interesting ways. The trading of reading passages between students is enjoyable to the students during this improvisational process. Some students will want to read extended passages as solos. This trading of passages and soloing process is known as the call-response technique of improvisation.

As students read to a beat together in the classroom, they begin to feel the beat of the words and syllables. The natural rhythmic sound of words and syllables have long, short and a combination of long/short beats. Of course, during the improvisational reading process, one has the freedom to alter natural beats and create syncopated beats to lyrics. Syncopation is an interesting way of shifting accents of words and syllables from strong to weak beats. Shifting beats should enhance the feel of words and syllables. In jazz, the feel of beats is important in order to stimulate interest in the intended message of lyrics (Hodges, 1987). It has been witnessed by Vande Berg (1986) that as students become more efficient at rhythm reading in an improvisational manner, they want to move into improvisational singing.

Improvisational inflections are found in all forms of popular music. Popular music is also very appealing to students. Therefore, if it is integrated with reading exercises in a group fashion, students might develop as sense of joy for reading exercises. Jazz may be introduced at an early stage, as it usually provides additional motivation and tends to reinforce other aspects of students' progress (Hodges, 1987). Curnow (1987) pointed out that teaching a student how to use learned skills in a creative manner is an educator's most important function. One way to teach creativity is through the study of song lyric improvisation. Mixing improvisation and reading implies some promise for students to discover new insights when transforming and rearranging language to syncopated beats and sound and composition projects. Various writers on creativity argue that musical improvisation and composition should be as routine as writing an English composition or learning the multiplication tables. The goal of these activities in the classroom is not to master the art of composition but to stimulate involvement in the creative selection and arrangement of musical materials. Also, the goal is to develop skills in self-evaluation along with constructive self-criticism. Thompson (1980) recommends vocal improvisation as a medium for exercising the creative process. The act of improvising music allows students to exercise cognitive and affective decision-making. Improvisation involves creative thinking which is a dynamic mental process that alternates between divergent (imaginative) and convergent (factual) thinking (Webster, 1990).

A project called Monitoring Academic Progress of students (MAP), has been effective. The program was piloted using thirty students in a middle grades classroom. Workshops were held which included music, poetry and reading selections in order to raise self-concept and reading achievement. Students were provided opportunities to work together in writing lyrics for songs. Lyrics and reading passages were also selected that would encourage students to think of themselves and others in a positive fashion. Songs used include The Greatest Love and Lean On Me. Students wrote original works of poetry. Also, they presented poetry in forms such as concrete poetry and poster poetry. Reading and listening for comprehension activities were included in this project (Hadley & Hadley, 1990).

Technological Music and Learning

Technological music projects make for exciting learning on the part of students. Musical creativity (improvisation and composition) can be enhanced through the use of Musical Instrument Digital Interface (MIDI) technology. MIDI involves computers, electronic instruments and software for intercommunication. MIDI -compatible electronic keyboards are equipped with attachments that connect with other MIDI devices. Musical sound is encoded into digital information to be read by the computer. Aspects of musical sound, such as pitch, length, attack and instrument, are assigned numbers. As MIDI instruments receive these numbers from the computer, the appropriate sound is produced. The ability to create, edit, and re-create music is the ultimate power of MIDI, Students are interested in creating music and making it personal (Moore, 1992.

Student compositions utilizing the computer bring excitement, motivation and problem-solving to the learning process. As melodies are created through improvising with sounds, musical considerations, such as length of melodies and compositions, can be varied. For example, melodies of eight measures can be lengthened to sixteen measures by adding sounds. The significant value of this project is that it allows students to actually create music with the computer. The teacher should emphasize the idea that each student's composition is a distinct and valuable musical expression (Flagg, 1986).

MIDI technology can encourage divergent thinking through improvisation and composition, Webster (1990) presents the following scenario: Utilizing MIDI, a student would be able to sit at a music keyboard with a computer screen providing the sheet music. The student is able to improvise and compose brief fragments of music by playing on the music keyboard. Student fragments can be displayed on the screen (in traditional notation or in symbol forms) and is played through speakers. The student is able to continue working with many different musical elements and phrase patterns to expand the original fragment. When the student decides to stop, the improvised composition may be saved. As the student returns later, the saved work can be retrieved enabling continuation of the process until a final version is completed. The student could then print a copy of the sheet music and transfer the recording from the MIDI network to a cassette tape. This would allow parents and friends to experience and enjoy results of student's improvisation and composition,

MIDI 101 is an example of a network involving computers and MIDI instruments. Digital messages concerning what is played, how a sound is defined and other data are interpreted into musical sounds. Tiny microprocessors or computers are contained within all MIDI keyboards and MIDI-compatible instruments. The MIDI network allows the computer in one instrument to communicate with the computer in another instrument.

REFERENCES

Brunk, V. N. (1981), Validations of a sociomusic curriculum: Music integrated with social studies and science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A and M University, College Station, Texas.

Cohen-Taylor, G. (1981), Music in language arts instruction. Language Arts, 58 (3), 363-368.

Curnow, R. (1987). The jazz experience: A curriculum for creativity. New Ways for New Days in Music Education, 3, 12.

Flagg, H. S. (1986), A computer concert that showcases student compositions. Music Educators' Journal, 73 (4), 30-32.

Gardner, H. (1983), Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Glenn, K. (1992). The many benefits of music education--now and in the future. NAASP Bulletin, 76 (544), 1-4.

Hadley, W. H., & Hadley R. T. (1990), Rhyme, rhythm and reading for at-risk students. Thresholds in Education, 16 (2), 25-27.

Hodges, M. J. (1987). Jazz in the curriculum, Georgia Music News, 47 (4), 26,

McTeer, H. J. & Bailey, R. T. (1980). The effect of the teaching technique using popular music upon students' attitudes toward history and subject matter knowledge. A study conducted at South Cobb High School, Austell, GA. April Dialog, ERIC, ED 196 749.

Merina, A. (1993). Sounds of our times. Rap: tool or trouble. NEA Today, 11 (8), 1.

Moore, B. (1992). Music, technology, and an evolving curriculum, NAASP Bulletin, 76 (544), 42-46.

Music Educators' National Conference. (1991, March). Growing up complete: The imperative for music education. The report of the National Commission on Music Education, Reston, VA: Author.

Leng, X., Shaw, G L., & Wright, E. L. (1990). Coding musical structure and the trion of cortex. Music perception: An interdisciplinary journal, 8 (I) 49-62.

Shubart, Mark, (1990). Touching every child through arts. The School Administrator, 47 (10), 52.

Thompson, K. P. (1992), Integrating music into the curriculum: A recipe for success. NAASP Bulletin 76 (544), 47.

Tucker, Albert. (1981). Music and the teaching of reading: A review of the literature. Reading Improvement, 18(1), 14-19.

Vande Berg, K. (1986). Teaching jazz/show choir: The team approach. Georgia Music News, 47 (1), 39-41.

Webster, P. (1990), Creativity as creative thinking. Music Educator's Journal, 76 (9), 22-28.

Weisskoff, R. S. (1981). The relationship of pop/rock music to children's task performance and continuing motivation in language arts instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Connecticut, Hartford, CT.

~~~~~~~~

By Isreal Eady, Ed.D, Assistant Professor, Educational Administration Jacksonville State University and Janell D. Wilson, Ph.D., Professor, Secondary Education Jacksonville State University

Copyright of Education is the property of Project Innovation, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

EBSCOhost 2.0Coming July 2008Learn More

Title:

Motivation as an Enabler for Academic Success. By: Linnenbrink, Elizabeth A., Pintrich, Paul R., School Psychology Review, 02796015, 2002, Vol. 31, Issue 3

Database:

Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection

Motivation as an Enabler for Academic Success

Contents

1. Adaptive Self-Efficacy Beliefs as Enablers of Success

2. Adaptive Attributions as Enablers of Success

3. Intrinsic Motivation as Enabler of Success

4. Adaptive Goal Orientations as Enablers of Success

5. Future Directions and Limitations

6. Conclusion

7. References

Section: MINI-SERIES

Abstract. Student motivation as an academic enabler for school success is discussed. Contrary to many views, however, the authors conceive of student motivation as a multifaceted construct with different components. Accordingly, the article includes a discussion of four key components of student motivation including academic self-efficacy, attributions, intrinsic motivation, and achievement goals. Research on each of these four components is described, research relating these four components to academic achievement and other academic enablers is reviewed, and suggestions are offered for instruction and assessment.

Psychologists and educators have long considered the role of motivation in student achievement and learning (for a review see Graham & Weiner, 1996). Much of the early research on student achievement and learning separated cognitive and motivational factors and pursued very distinct lines of research that did not integrate cognition and motivation. However, since at least the 1980s there has been a sustained research focus on how motivational and cognitive factors interact and jointly influence student learning and achievement. In more colloquial terms, there is a recognition that students need both the cognitive skill and the motivational will to do well in school (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). This miniseries continues in this tradition by highlighting the contribution of both motivational and cognitive factors for student academic success.

The integration of motivational and cognitive factors was facilitated by the shift in motivational theories from traditional achievement motivation models to social cognitive models of motivation (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). One of the most important assumptions of social cognitive models of motivation is that motivation is a dynamic, multifaceted phenomenon that contrasts with the quantitative view taken by traditional models of motivation. In other words, these newer social cognitive models do not assume that students are either “motivated” or “not motivated” or that student motivation can be characterized in some quantitative manner between two endpoints on a single continuum. Rather, social cognitive models stress that students can be motivated in multiple ways and the important issue is understanding how and why students are motivated for school achievement. This change in focus implies that teachers or school psychologists should not label students as “motivated” or “not motivated” in some global fashion. Furthermore, assessment instruments that generate a single global “motivation” score for students may be misleading in terms of a more multifaceted understanding of student motivation. Accordingly, in the discussion of motivation as an academic enabler, many aspects of student motivation including self-efficacy, attributions, intrinsic motivation, and goals are considered.

A second important assumption of social cognitive models of motivation is that motivation is not a stable trait of an individual, but is more situated, contextual, and domain-specific. In other words, not only are students motivated in multiple ways, but their motivation can vary depending on the situation or context in the classroom or school. Although this assumption makes it more difficult for research and assessment efforts, it means that student motivation is conceived as being inherently changeable and sensitive to the context. This provides hope for teachers and school psychologists and suggests that instructional efforts and the design of classrooms and schools can make a difference in motivating students for academic achievement.

This situated assumption means that student motivation probably varies as a function of subject matter domains and classrooms (e.g., Bong, 2001). For example, within social cognitive models, motivation is usually assessed for a specific subject area such as math, reading, science, or social studies and in reference to a specific classroom or teacher. In some ways, this also fits with teachers' and parents' own perceptions and experiences as they find that some children are quite motivated for mathematics, whereas others hate it, and also observe these motivational differences with other subject areas as well. However, this implies that assessment instruments that assess general student motivation for school or academics may not be as useful as more domain or context specific assessment tools.

A third assumption concerns the central role of cognition in social cognitive models of motivation. That is, it is not just the individual's cultural, demographic, or personality characteristics that influence motivation and achievement directly, or just the contextual characteristics of the classroom environment that shape motivation and achievement, but rather the individual's active regulation of his or her motivation, thinking, and behavior that mediates the relationships between the person, context, and eventual achievement. That is, students' own thoughts about their motivation and learning play a key role in mediating their engagement and subsequent achievement.

Following from these three general assumptions, social cognitive motivational theorists have proposed a large number of different motivational constructs that may facilitate or constrain student achievement and learning. Although there are good theoretical reasons for some of these distinctions among different motivational theories and constructs, in many cases they can be confusing and less than helpful in developing applications to improve student motivation and subsequent learning in school (Pintrich, 2000a). Rather than discussing all the different motivational constructs that may be enablers of student achievement and learning, this article will focus on four key families of motivational beliefs (self-efficacy, attributions, intrinsic motivation, and goal orientations). These four families represent the currently accepted major social cognitive motivational theories (Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998; Graham & Weiner, 1996; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002) and, therefore, seem most relevant when thinking about how motivation relates to achievement and other academic enablers. For each of the four general components, the components are defined, a summarization is given for how the motivational component is related to student achievement and learning as well as the other academic enablers discussed in this special issue, and some implications for instruction and assessment are suggested. Although these four families are interrelated, it is beyond the scope of this article to present an interrelated model of self-efficacy, attributions, intrinsic motivation, and goal orientations. Readers interested in a more comprehensive overview may refer to Pintrich and Schunk's (2002) detailed discussion of motivational processes in schooling.

Adaptive Self-Efficacy Beliefs as Enablers of Success

A common layperson's definition of motivation is that it involves a strong personal interest in a particular subject or activity. Students who are interested are motivated and they learn and achieve because of this strong interest. Although interest as a component of student motivation will be discussed later, one of the more important motivational beliefs for student achievement is self-efficacy, which concerns beliefs about capabilities to do a task or activity. More specifically, self-efficacy has been defined as individuals' beliefs about their performance capabilities in a particular context or a specific task or domain (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy is assumed to be situated and contextualized, not a general belief about self-concept or self-esteem. For example, a student might have high self-efficacy for doing algebra problems, but a lower self-efficacy for geometry problems or other subject areas, depending on past successes and failures. These self-efficacy beliefs are distinct from general self-concept beliefs or self-esteem.

Although the role of self-efficacy has been studied in a variety of domains including mental health and health behavior such as coping with depression or smoking cessation, business management, and athletic performance, a number of educational psychologists have examined how self-efficacy relates to behavior in elementary and secondary academic settings (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Eccles et al., 1998; Pintrich, 2000b; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Schunk, 1989a, 1989b, 1991). In particular, self-efficacy has been positively related to higher levels of achievement and learning as well as a wide variety of adaptive academic outcomes such as higher levels of effort and increased persistence on difficult tasks in both experimental and correlational studies involving students from a variety of age groups (Bandura, 1997; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Students who have more positive self-efficacy beliefs (i.e., they believe they can do the task) are more likely to work harder, persist, and eventually achieve at higher levels. In addition, there is evidence that students who have positive self-efficacy beliefs are more likely to choose to continue to take more difficult courses (e.g., advanced math courses) over the course of schooling (Eccles et al., 1998). In our own correlational research with junior high students in Michigan, we have consistently found that self-efficacy beliefs are positively related to student cognitive engagement and their use of self-regulatory strategies (similar in some ways to study skills) as well as general achievement as indexed by grades (e.g., Pintrich, 2000b; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Welters, Yu, & Pintrich, 1996).

In summary, both experimental and correlational research in schools suggests that self-efficacy is positively related to a host of positive outcomes of schooling such as choice, persistence, cognitive engagement, use of self-regulatory strategies, and actual achievement. This generalization seems to apply to all students, as it is relatively stable across different ages and grades as well as different gender and ethnic groups (Bandura, 1997; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). From these findings, it seems clear that self-efficacy beliefs are related to several of the other academic enablers reviewed in this miniseries. In particular, self-efficacy has been associated with increased persistence relating it to engagement. Evidence has also been reviewed suggesting that self-efficacy promotes adaptive strategy use such as self-regulation suggesting that students with high self-efficacy beliefs will also be likely to use adaptive and appropriate study skills. In terms of social behavior, less is known about the relation of academic self-efficacy to peer relations. However, recent research suggests that both perceived social competence and the endorsement of social responsibility goals (adhering to social norms or rules) are associated with higher reports of academic self-efficacy (Patrick, Hicks, & Ryan, 1997). In summary, having generally positive self-efficacy is adaptive for school learning and achievement as well as other academic enablers, suggesting that schools should seek to develop positive self-efficacy beliefs in their students.

At the same time, two important caveats need to be stressed about attempts to facilitate positive self-efficacy beliefs in students. First, as noted earlier, self-efficacy is not self-esteem and the two constructs should not be confused. Self-efficacy is a judgment of task-specific capabilities and is based on actual accomplishments and success and failures, whereas self-esteem is a much more general affective evaluation of the self. The second caveat relates to the issue of inaccuracy in self-efficacy beliefs. The generalization about the positive link between self-efficacy and achievement may suggest that self-efficacy should always be as high as possible. However, it seems that it is more adaptive to have self-efficacy beliefs that are relatively accurate or calibrated to actual accomplishments (Bandura, 1997). For example, a novice mountain climber should have self-efficacy beliefs that match his actual skills, or are a little higher than actual skills, but are not so overly positive that he attempts a climb that is well beyond his capabilities. In the latter case, serious injury or even death could result from having overly positive beliefs about his capabilities for mountain climbing. In the same manner, students should not overestimate or underestimate their capabilities for schoolwork, rather they should have fairly accurate, but optimistic, beliefs about their efficacy to accomplish school work. This implies that teachers and other school personnel should attempt to foster positive, but accurate, self-efficacy beliefs.

In terms of instructional implications, self-efficacy is best facilitated by providing opportunities for students to succeed on tasks within their range of competence and through these experiences actually develop new capabilities and skills. Self-efficacy is not fostered by providing inaccurate or effusive praise to students in the absence of specific task accomplishments. This type of praise is meaningless and invalid and may foster inaccurate beliefs in students who think they are capable of some task, such as reading, when in fact they are not very good readers (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Therefore, it is important that educators calibrate tasks and assessments so that success is attainable. By having a variety of tasks in the classroom and multiple forms of assessments such as portfolios, essays, and project-based assessments, classroom teachers may be able to provide all students with opportunities to be successful, thus fostering self-efficacy among all students.

Self-efficacy is typically assessed using self-report questionnaires. For instance, as part of larger survey instruments to assess motivation, strategy use, and general attitudes about schooling, both Pintrich and his colleagues (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993) and Midgley and her colleagues (Midgley et al., 1998) have developed self-report measures of academic self-efficacy that can be used with a variety of students. In both the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ, Pintrich et al., 1993) mid Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS, Midgley et al., 1998), students respond to a series of statements by indicating how true the statement is for them. Items are typically rated using 5-point or 7-point Likert scales. These self-report measures are reliable for a broad range of students from fourth grade through college.

Although these measures were designed for research purposes, they can also be used by individual instructors to get a sense of students' efficacy beliefs in their classrooms. However, it is important to note that these measures are not norm-referenced assessments such as standardized intelligence or achievement tests. It is expected that students' responses differ depending on the context; therefore, norms should be established within a particular context or classroom. Furthermore, as noted earlier, motivation is context-specific. Therefore, teachers and school psychologists should think about the context in which efficacy is being assessed and adjust the items appropriately. For instance, if a teacher is interested in students' academic self-efficacy in math class, she or he should ask students questions about their feelings and beliefs in math, not about school in general.

Adaptive Attributions as Enablers of Success

Attribution theory, which focuses on attempts to understand why events occur, is another important line of research on achievement motivation (Graham & Weiner, 1996). Similar to other motivational theories, research on attributions did not focus initially on academic achievement. However, Weiner's (1985,1986) research relating attributions to students' behaviors and success in academic settings has done much to further an understanding of how attributions relate to learning in school. Although much of Weiner's research was conducted with college undergraduates, others such as Borkowski (e.g., Borkowski, Weyhing, & Carr, 1988) have applied attribution theory to elementary and secondary students.

Attribution theory suggests that when a failure or success occurs, such as failing a math exam or doing particularly well on an assignment, individuals will analyze the situation to determine the perceived causes for the failure or success (Weiner, 1986). These causes may be environmental factors, such as a distracting testing environment or bias on the part of the teacher, or personal factors, such as lack of knowledge, ability, or failure to prepare adequately for the exam. These perceived causes can be categorized into three causal dimensions: stability (how stable the perceived cause is), locus (whether the cause is internal or external), and controllability (whether or not the perceived cause can be controlled). Using these three causal dimensions, a specific cause can be categorized into one of eight cells. For instance, a student who fails an exam may say it is due to instructor bias (external, stable, controllable) or lack of ability (internal, stable, uncontrollable). According to attribution theory, it is the individual's focus on why success or failure occurred that explains specific psychological outcomes such as future expectancies, self-efficacy, and affect (Weiner, 1986). These psychological outcomes have been further linked to behavioral outcomes such as engagement and achievement.

In general, research on attributions suggests that for success it is adaptive to attribute the success to stable, internal factors such as ability, skill, or talent as these factors should also be present for future tasks (Weiner, 1986). Attributions to unstable but controllable internal factors such as effort are especially adaptive in that effort can be modified based on the demands of the situation. On the other hand, for failure, attributions to factors that are unstable are more adaptive. For instance, attributing failure to lack of effort (unstable, controllable, internal) not only allows the student to protect his or her self-worth, it also helps the student to see a way to avoid failure in the future (by exerting more effort). Attributing failure to bad luck (unstable, uncontrollable, external) can also be adaptive because it means that the circumstances perceived to cause the failure may not be present in future situations.

Researchers who focus on children with learning disabilities or underachieving children find similar patterns of adaptive and maladaptive attributions; however, they further suggest that effort attributions be associated with strategy use (Carr, Borkowski, & Maxwell, 1991; Licht, 1983). That is, rather than attributing success to effort, success should be attributed to effortful strategy use. This may be especially important for children with learning disabilities in that effort may not always lead to success. Furthermore, rather than attributing failure to lack of effort alone, attributing failure to the lack of strategy use or use of inappropriate strategies helps dispel the inappropriate belief that effort always leads to success, but still helps to convey the idea that success is possible.

Although attribution theory does not suggest a direct link of adaptive attributions to academic achievement and other academic enablers, some indirect links can be made via other psychological processes. For instance, adaptive attributions are associated with higher expectancies for success, enhanced academic self-efficacy, and positive affect such as pride or hopefulness (Weiner, 1986). These psychological outcomes are in turn associated with engagement (persistence and choice) and study skills (via self-efficacy), as well as actual achievement. Carr et al. (1991) also suggested that attributions to external factors hinders the acquisition of strategies because external attributions provide little reason for children to learn strategies—suggesting that attributions are important for learning strategies.

Attribution theory is useful for school psychologists and practitioners in that individuals' beliefs about the causes of events can be changed through feedback and other environmental manipulations. In particular, teachers' reactions following success or failure can influence students' attributions suggesting that the teacher plays an important role in the types of attributions students make (Graham, 1984). For example, a teacher's expression of pity following failure makes it more, likely that a student will attribute the failure to low ability (internal, stable, uncontrollable).

In addition to teachers' reactions, teachers can influence students' attributions by providing feedback to students following success or failure (Licht, 1983; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). In doing so, it is first important for teachers to assess whether success or failure has occurred for a particular student based on the student's judgments of success or failure. Following this, the teacher should consider the situation and help the student make adaptive but accurate attributions. For failure settings, it is useful for students to attribute the failure to unstable causes as this helps to ensure that there is a possibility for success in the future. For instance, it is often adaptive to attribute failure to lack of effort or inappropriate strategy use. If the failure was due to lack of appropriate strategy use, it is not useful to tell the student to try hard. Rather, the teacher may need to work with the student to help them develop the strategies and skills necessary to succeed in the future. For success, attributions to effort are also adaptive, especially if the student did indeed try hard. It is also adaptive to attribute success to appropriate strategy use as this helps to encourage the use of strategies in the future and is internal. However, success is also possible without great effort, so when appropriate, it is also adaptive to attribute success to talent or skill.

Research on attributions has used a variety of methodologies to assess students' attributions including experiments, think-aloud protocols, and analysis of written material (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Some of these methodologies could be adapted for informal assessment by instructors. For instance, rather than creating experimental situations and assessing students' attributions through think-aloud protocols or rating scales, teachers or school psychologists could talk informally with students about why they think they succeeded or failed in a specific situation. Based on these discussions, teachers would be able to develop a better understanding of the attributional responses of students in their classes and determine whether they should help certain students retrain their attributional responses to success and failure.

Intrinsic Motivation as Enabler of Success

The concept of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation is certainly prevalent within social-cognitive models of motivation and is thus included in this review of motivation as an academic enabler. Intrinsic motivation is defined as motivation to engage in an activity for its own sake, whereas extrinsic motivation refers to motivation to engage in an activity as a means to an end (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Given the space constraints of this article, it is not possible to discuss all the various lines of research that fall under the heading of intrinsic motivation. Therefore, this section focuses on personal and situational interest. However, it should be noted that there are many other multidimensional perspectives of intrinsic motivation that deserve mention, such as Deci and Ryan's (e.g., Deci, 1980; Deci & Ryan, 1085, 1991) self-determination theory. In this theory, one of the defining features of intrinsic motivation is high personal interest in the task or activity. Readers are urged to explore these other aspects of intrinsic motivation. Sansone and Harackiewicz's (2000) edited book on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is an excellent starting place.

As discussed earlier, interest reflects what most laypeople think of when they think of motivation. However, similar to other constructs in motivation, interest is also multidimensional and should not be thought of as simply liking or not liking a particular task or domain. For instance, whereas interest in general is defined as the interaction between the individual and his or her environment (Krapp, Hidi, & Renninger, 1992), interest theorists have distinguished between personal or individual interest and situational interest (Hidi, 1990; Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000; Krapp et al., 1992).

Personal interest reflects an individual's interest in a particular topic or domain (Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000). It is often measured by students' reports of how much they like or enjoy a particular activity or domain. Personal interest is thought to be somewhat stable over time and is partially a function of individuals' preferences as well as aspects of the task (e.g., Malone & Lepper, 1987). In contrast, situational interest is based entirely on the features of the learning context and may be short term or long lasting (Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000). For the most part, the researchers who have studied situational interest have been reading researchers who have focused on how different aspects of text can generate and sustain interest.

Building on this important work, Mitchell (1993) sought to further expand the notion of situational interest beyond the reading domain. He suggested that situational interest could be broken into two factors: catch and hold. Catch factors are thought to stimulate students (i.e., “catch” their attention: Mitchell, 1993). They include innovative or novel instructional techniques such as using an exciting computer program, having students learn course material by playing a game, or allowing students to work on a group project together. In contrast, hold factors are thought to empower students by making the content meaningful so students view the content as useful, or by encouraging students' involvement in the task (Mitchell, 1993). For instance, emphasizing how a particular mathematics lesson is useful for bookkeeping or planning a budget may help to make the material more meaningful to students. Providing activities that encourage active student involvement such as small group work or discussions rather than lectures is also useful for promoting the hold factor of situational interest. Interest researchers have given increased attention to the hold factor as it seems to be a better predictor of continuing interest than the catch factor (Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter, & Elliot, 2000).

Both personal and situational interest have the potential to influence academic achievement and other academic enablers. For instance, personal interest is positively associated with achievement (see Krapp et al., 1992) as well as with the use of deeper cognitive strategies (Schiefele, 1991) for children and adults. As might be expected, personal interest is also associated with increased attention and persistence (Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000). The relation of situational interest to achievement and other academic enablers is similar. Situational interest can enhance achievement by engaging students in the task or activity. Furthermore, both the catch and hold components of situational interest should be associated with other academic enablers such as persistence and strategy use, at least for the time during which situational interest is activated (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002).

For teachers and school psychologists, these results suggest that academic achievement, study skills, and engagement can be increased by tapping into students' interests. This can be done by building upon personal interest or creating situational interest. That is, allowing students to work on topics they find personally interesting may help them to engage in such a way that they use better strategies for learning and ultimately achieve at higher levels. One way to capitalize on personal interest is to allow students to pick topics for class projects or reports. Admittedly, it is difficult to design classroom activities that capitalize on the personal interest of all students in the classroom; therefore, educators should also consider ways to enhance situational interest.

Teachers trying to enhance situational interest should think about how to promote both catch and hold factors. For instance, when designing classroom activities, having an exciting experiment in science or using an innovative computer program in social studies may spark situational interest and engage students at that particular moment. This is useful for engaging students in a specific activity, but may not translate into interest in future activities. Therefore, teachers should also consider how to promote the hold factor of situational interest, such as trying to make the topic meaningful to students. This may be done by capitalizing on the utility of what is being learned (e.g., helping students see that the material is useful for things outside of school or for future goals).

In terms of assessment, measures of personal interest tend to be behavioral, such as continued engagement during free time or a few self-report items assessing liking or enjoyment (e.g., Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001). For situational interest, researchers are beginning to develop self-report measures of catch and hold (e.g., Harackiewicz et al., 2000); however, these measures are still under development for college students and are not yet useful for elementary and secondary classroom educators. Teachers wishing to assess the degree of situational interest in their classes may want to observe informally students' reactions to different instructional techniques or talk with students about what aspects of the activities they find exciting or meaningful.

There are also more general measures of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation that may be useful to school psychologists and teachers. For instance, Harter (1981) developed a self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation in the classroom that can be used as part of a diagnostic battery to assess students' motivational orientation. This scale consists of five subscales; three scales assess motivational components (preference for challenge, curiosity/interest, mastery) and two scales assess cognitive-informational structures (independent judgment, internal criteria). The survey was designed to be used with upper elementary students and consists of a 4-point forced-choice format in which students must indicate whether they are similar to the intrinsically or extrinsically motivated students. Teachers who want to assess personal interest may find the third subscale (curiosity/interest) particularly useful. However, as this scale measures motivation at a global level, those using this scale may wish to consider making the items specific to a particular class or subject area.

Gottfried's (1985) Children's Academic Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (CAIMI) can also be used to measure children's intrinsic motivation. This self-report scale consists of five subscales. Four of those subscales measure intrinsic motivation separately for four topic areas (reading, math, social studies, science) and the fifth subscale assesses intrinsic motivation more generally. In contrast to Harter's (1981) scale, the CAIMI does not measure intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. Rather, this scale assesses high versus low intrinsic motivation. As with other self-report measures, this scale can be used for upper elementary through college-aged students.

The MSLQ, developed by Pintrich and his colleagues (Pintrich et al., 1993) also includes intrinsic and extrinsic goal orientations and can be used to assess intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for junior high through college students. A task value scale, also included in the MSLQ, consists of interest, importance, and utility. Although task value is not the same as personal interest, it does contain a personal interest component. Therefore, this scale may be of use to educators who wish to assess students' interest in a particular topic area. Again, it is recommended that these scales be used to assess students' motivation in a particular context.

All of the self-report scales described thus far use students' reports of their intrinsic motivation. Although there are measures that use teacher ratings such as the Teacher Rating of Academic Achievement Motivation (TRAAM; Stinnett, Oehler-Stinnett, & Stout, 1991), we believe that the internal nature of intrinsic motivation (as well as the other motivational constructs discussed in this article) makes students' own self-reports more accurate assessments of their motivation. Thus, although teacher ratings may correlate with student ratings, the students' own ratings should provide more accurate descriptions of students' intrinsic motivation (Gottfried, 1985).

Adaptive Goal Orientations as Enablers of Success

The final perspective for motivation discussed in this article is achievement goal theory. Achievement goal theory is one of the most prominent theories within motivational research today (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Goal theory proposes that there are two general goal orientations that concern the purposes individuals are pursuing when approaching and engaging in a task. Achievement goal theorists have used a variety of labels to refer to these two goals including learning and performance goals (Dweck & Leggett, 1988), task and ability goals (Maehr & Midgley, 1996), task-involved and ego-involved (Nicholls, 1984), and mastery and performance goals (Ames, 1992; Elliot, 1997; Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Harackiewicz, Barron, & Elliot, 1998). Although there are slight variations in the interpretation of these goals under these various labels, they will be referred to here as mastery and performance goals for simplicity. Mastery goals orient learners to “developing new skills, trying to understand their work, improving their level of competence, or achieving a sense of mastery based on self-referenced standards” (Ames, 1992, p. 262). In contrast, performance goals orient learners to focus on their ability and self-worth, to determine their ability by outperforming others in competitions, surpassing others in achievements or grades, and receiving public recognition for their superior performance (Ames, 1992).

In the literature on mastery and performance goals, the general theoretical assumption has been that mastery goals foster a host of adaptive motivational, cognitive, and achievement outcomes, whereas performance goals generate less adaptive or even maladaptive outcomes (Ames, 1992). Moreover, this assumption, particularly the adaptive mastery goal assumption, has been supported in a large number of empirical studies on goals and achievement processes (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988, Pintrich, 2000c; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). The logic of the argument is that when students are focused on trying to learn and understand the material and trying to improve their performance relative to their own past performance, this orientation will help them maintain their self-efficacy in the face of failure, ward off negative affect such as anxiety, lessen the probability that they will have distracting thoughts, and free up cognitive capacity, thus allowing for more cognitive engagement and achievement. In contrast, when students are concerned about trying to be the best, get higher grades than others, and do well compared to others under a performance goal, there is the possibility that this orientation will result in more negative affect or anxiety, increase the possibility of distracting and irrelevant thoughts (e.g., worrying about how others are doing rather than focusing on the task), and that this will diminish cognitive capacity, task engagement, and performance.

In our own empirical research at Michigan, we have found similar patterns in our data for mastery goals. That is, mastery goals have been positively related to cognitive strategy use and self-regulation as well as performance. These studies have shown that junior high students who report higher levels of mastery goals are more likely to use elaboration and organizational strategies as well as to be more metacognitive and regulating (Pintrich, 2000b; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). The assumption that performance goals are maladaptive for all outcomes, however, has not been confirmed in our work with junior high school students (Pintrich, 2000b; Wolters et al., 1996) or the work of others with college students (e.g., Harackiewicz et al., 1998).

This changi