Martin Dowson and Dennis M. McInerney (2003) What do students say about their motivational goals?: Towards a more complex and dynamic perspective on student motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology p 91–113
What is main methodology?
Inductive content analyses (also known as protocol analysis) (Ericcson & Simon, 1984; Jacob, 1987; Krippendorf, 1980; Patton &Westby, 1992). The protocol analyses essentially involved inducing coherent operational categories from students_ coded interview responses and from the coded observations of the researchers. This first meant assessing the _plain meaning_ of students_ statements (with reference to related observations) and then involved an examination of the contexts in which these statements were made.
What is sample and sample size?
86 students, 12–15 years old, students participated in the study. The students attended 15 classes in six schools, two elementary,and four secondary, in the Sydney metropolitan area.
What is context?
This qualitative investigation inductively identifies and describes the psychological parameters of middle-school students social and academic goals.
What are data collection methods?
The present study incorporates two types of inductive data collection: interviews and observations. Each of these was composed of more specific forms of data collection. The interviews included conversational (openended), semi-structured, and structured interviews, which cumulatively focused the study as it proceeded. The observations included structured classroom schedules and unstructured field notes.
Inge Bakkenes, Jan D. Vermunt, Theo Wubbels (2010) Teacher learning in the context of educational innovation: Learning activities and learning outcomes of experienced teachers Learning and Instruction 20 533-548
Teacher learning in the context of educational innovation
What is main methodology?
content-analyse of reports (using digital logs)
Every digital log consisted, in principle, of six reported learning experiences. These learning experiences were content-analysed in terms of learning activities and learning outcomes. Out of each learning experience text fragments were selected that referred to changes in knowledge, beliefs or practices and to the activities that led to such alterations. These fragments were summarized in the reported chronological order so a sequence could become visible.
What is sample and sample size?
Originally, a total of 100 teachers participated in the study. However, during the year of data collection six teachers fell out for various reasons, such as sickness and pregnancy, so 94 experienced teachers participated in the study, spread over 30 schools in different parts of the Netherlands.
What is context
The innovation focused on the higher grades (15-18 years of age) of upper level secondary education, the grades preparing for higher education. Interrater reliabilities were determined separately for learning activities (six categories), learning outcomes (four categories), changes in knowledge and beliefs (three categories), intentions for practice (three categories), changes in practices (two categories), and changes in emotions (three categories). Two independent raters coded subsets of the digital logs.
What are data collection methods?
Data were collected by e-mail through digital logs. The teachers were asked to describe a learning experience once every six school weeks, over a period of one year.
Panadero, E., Tapia, J.A. and Huertas, J.A. (2012). Rubrics and self-assessment scripts effects on self-regulation, learning and self-efficacy in secondary education. Learning and individual differences.
What is main methodology?
Content analyses
Self-regulation was measured through questionnaire and thinking aloud protocols.
What is sample and sample size?
One hundred and twenty third- and fourth-year secondary school students, 63 females and 57 males, from two public high schools in Madrid (Spain) participated in the study. The mean age was 15.9 years (SD=11 months).
What is context
This study compares the effects of two different self-assessment tools – rubrics and scripts – on self-regulation, learning and self-efficacy in interactionwith two other independent variables (type of instructions and feedback)
What are data collection methods?
Questionaties:
Questionnaire of Motives, Expectancies and Values, part A: goals and goal orientations (MEVA) (Alonso-Tapia, 2005). This questionnaire was used for assessing goal orientations as moderating variables.
Emotion and Motivation Self-regulation Questionnaire (EMSR-Q) (Alonso-Tapia, Panadero, & Ruiz, submitted for publication). This questionnaire includes 36 items answered in a five-point Likert scale.
Self-efficacy questionnaire. The self-efficacy questionnaire designed for this study includes eight specific items of landscape analysis,
Protocols:
On-line self-regulation index. To calculate this measure, students were asked to express their thoughts and feelings aloud while
analyzing the landscape. Thinking-aloud protocols are considered a good representation of the self-regulatory actions and metacognitive processes of students during an activity (Ericsson & Simon, 1993; Greene, Robertson & Croker Costa, 2011).
On-line self-regulation index plus. Thismeasure is similar to the previous one with the exception of a new type of proposition: checked proposition. This proposition is similar to the descriptive propositions, but before expressing the idea, the participant looked at the rubric or the script for information, a behavior that implies self-regulation. This measure is only applicable to the participants using the rubric or the script.
Learning index. Participants wrote their conclusions once they had finished the oral analysis of each of the three landscapes. The written texts were divided into propositions, and then were evaluated as correct or incorrect using a specific analysismodel for each landscape provided by two expert Social Science teachers.
intrainabroad 