choice theory & motivation - lagrange collegehome.lagrange.edu/educate/advanced programs/ed.s....

CHOICE THEORY AND STUDENT MOTIVATION

Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this project is my own or was done in collaboration with my Advisor. This project does not include

proprietary or classified information.

________________________________________________________________________Randolph Stephen Hardigree, Jr.

Certificate of Approval:

______________________________ ______________________________Donald R. Livingston, Ed.D. Sharon M. Livingston, Ph.D.Associate Professor and Co-Project Advisor Assistant Professor and Co-Project AdvisorEducation Department Education Department

Choice Theory & Motivation ii

CHOICE THEORY AND STUDENT MOTIVATION

A project submitted

by

Randolph Stephen Hardigree, Jr.

to

LaGrange College

in partial fulfillment of

the requirement for the

degree of

SPECIALIST IN EDUCATION

in

Curriculum and Instruction

LaGrange, Georgia

July 21, 2011

Choice Theory & Motivation iii

Abstract

This study focused on the application of William Glasser’s choice theory in a classroom

of freshman biology students in hopes of increasing student motivation and engagement

and, thereby, improving standardized test performance. Choice theory methods were

applied for a nine week period with a particular emphasis on cooperative learning teams.

Through the use of independent t-tests, student surveys, a colleague focus group, and a

school administrator interview, this action research study found no significant change in

standardized test scores but a distinctly positive influence on student attitudes and

engagement.

Choice Theory & Motivation iv

Table of Contents

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………….. iii

Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………...iv

List of Tables and Figures…………………………………………………………..v

Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………..1Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………...1Significance of the Problem………………………………………………...2Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks………………………………….. 3Focus Questions…………………………………………………………….4Overview of Methodology………………………………………………….5Human as Researcher……………………………………………………….6

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature………………………………………………...7External Control vs. Choice………………………………………………...7Needs We Are Driven By………………………………………………….. 9Learning Pictures…………………………………………………………... 12Total Behavior……………………………………………………………... 13Learning Teams……………………………………………………………. 13Organizational Change……………………………………………………...15

Chapter 3: Methodology…………………………………………………………… 17Research Design…………………………………………………………… 17Setting ……………………………………………………………………... 18Subjects and Participants……………………..……………………………. 18Procedures and Data Collection Methods…………..………………………19Validity, Reliability, Dependability, Bias, and Equity……….……………. 21Analysis of Data…………………………………………………………….23

Chapter 4: Results…………………………………………………………………..27

Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results……………………………………. 35Analysis……………………………………………………………………. 35Discussion…………………………………………………………………..40Implications…………………………………………………………………41Impact on School Improvement…………………………………………….42Recommendations for Future Research…………………………………….43

References…………………………………………………………………………..44

Appendices………………………………………………………………………….47

Choice Theory & Motivation v

Choice Theory & Motivation vi

List of Tables

Tables

Table 3.1 Data Shell…………………………………………………………..…….19

Table 4.1 Independent t-test: EOCT Scores………………………...……………....27

Table 4.2 Chi Square Statistic for Student Survey…………………………….……28

Choice Theory & Motivation 1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

This study will explored the problem of insufficient student engagement in

secondary schools. Specifically, the ideas presented in William Glasser’s (1988) Choice

theory in the Classroom were applied as an attempt to motivate and improve the test

performance of students in a freshman biology classroom. While the partial intent was to

measure any change in End of Course Test performance after Glasser’s innovations were

applied, equal emphasis was placed upon the effect of the innovations on the students’

feelings and attitudes toward coming to biology class.

The Georgia End of Course Test data for 2009-2010 left me wondering what

could be done to push more students beyond their current levels of performance. Across

the board, it seemed that many of the students were capable of scoring higher than they

did. Aware of the fact that I could not control out-of-school factors, I began to wonder if

America’s test-driven approach to education was prohibiting some students from a

fulfilling classroom experience that allowed them to succeed. If so, could something be

done in class to counteract this trend?”

Glasser (1988) estimates that American public high schools typically have about

fifty percent of their students successfully engaged in learning, while the other half either

disengage or drop out of school altogether (p. 3). He adds that this truth persists even in

affluent areas. Erwin (2005), a former teacher and current staff development specialist

and educational consultant asks, “What do we do in education that turns exuberant little

learning sponges into haters of all things educational?...Why is this happening? What can

we do about it?” (p. 16).


The methods used in this study attempted to answer the question, “Did applying

the suggested practices of Glasser’s choice theory affect the way students performed on

their End of Course Tests and the way they felt about biology class?”

Significance of the Problem

Glasser (1988) states that the problem of student motivation has really existed in

the U.S. since World War II . Today, this preexistent problem is more visible than ever,

because, “Scores on tests are well-publicized, and everyone involved in education feels

enormous pressure to improve or at least maintain their level of performance” (Erwin,

2005, p. 15).

In a regular education classroom, the problem of low motivation plays out in the

form of various behaviors and test scores. While I am known for having a problem-free

classroom and an excellent rapport with students, the issue of non-performance is

obvious in my students’ End of Course test scores. In 2010, 28% of my students failed

to meet required standards on the EOCT, and only 16% of my students exceeded

standards.

The data from my own student test scores were indicative of the general

achievement gap seen across the state of Georgia. In 2009, thirty-six percent of

Georgia’s test takers did not meet standards in biology (Georgia Department of

Education, 2009). So it seems that this problem is pertinent to all public science

educators.


Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks

This study, directed by Glasser’s choice theory, was closely connected to the

social constructivist theory of learning. Geelan (2006) stated, “Constructivist

perspectives on teaching and learning generally affirm two principles: (1) knowledge is

actively constructed by learners, rather than transmitted by teachers; and (2) new

knowledge is constructed on the foundations of students’ existing knowledge” (p. 53).

Specifically, social constructivism is subscribed to by LaGrange College Education

Department (2008) in Tenet One of its Conceptual Framework, where it is stated, “…

knowledge is constructed in a context of social relations…” (p. 3). Glasser (1988) agrees

that learning is influenced heavily by what happens in the social realm, stating, “On a

well-coached team, all players experience not only power but also a strong sense of

belonging, and it would not be amiss to say that there is a love for both each other and the

coach. The contrast between teams and classes is striking. What is so need fulfilling in

music, drama, and athletics is almost completely lacking in English, math, and history”

(pp. 75-76).

Tenet Two also coincided with Glasser’s choice theory and learning team

approach. Tenet Two states, “Fundamental to social constructivism, learning that is first

taught at the conceptual level in the classroom must be transferred to situations outside

the classroom (Fosnot & Perry, 2005). This requires that learners be active participants

in the learning process” (LaGrange College Education Department, 2010, p. 5).

“To apply constructivist principals, while simultaneously meeting the content and

testing requirements of state departments of education and local school boards,” as stated


in Tenet Two (LaGrange College Education Department, 2008), is also at the heart of the

learning teams model suggested by Glasser.

This study was directly connected to Tenet Three, Caring and Supportive

Classrooms and Learning Communities, in that it required me to put great thought and

effort into specific classroom strategies for positively affecting the students’ feelings,

learning experiences, and future lives.

Propositions One, Three, and Four of the National Board of Professional

Teaching Standards (NBPTS) for Experienced Teachers, state that teachers are

committed to students and learning, responsible for managing and monitoring student

learning, and that they think systematically about their practice and learn from experience

(LaGrange College Education Department, 2008). While test score expectations do

maximize the pressure placed on all teachers to perform, these three propositions were

truly at the heart of why I chose to explore choice theory and put great thought and effort

into the ways of engaging the most students and move them toward a more personal and

positive educational experience.

Focus Questions

A desire to find real ways to maximize the enjoyment of the learning process for

all students as well as curiosity as to whether increasing motivation could affect test

performance guided the formation of several focus questions. Whether it is right or

wrong, this is a season of American educational history during which accountability is

being directly linked to test performance. With this in mind, the first focus question

asked:


1. Did the application of Glasser’s choice theory have a positive effect on the

students’ EOCT performance for the Cells & Genetics domains?

More important to me, personally, was the challenge of affecting the attitudes and

feelings of the students I taught. I care deeply about making a personal connection with

my students and want to end each year confident that I was successful in this attempt.

This natural inclination led to the formulation of the second focus question, which asked:

2. How did my students and colleagues feel about the choice theory methods that

were applied to the classroom setting?

Finally, I was interested, as always, in proliferating anything proven to be effective in

helping me reach my goals as an educator and promoting authentic learning across the

school campus, while eliminating worthless practices. This naturally led to the third

focus question:

3. Did school leaders view choice theory as an innovation worthy of school-wide

application?

Overview of Methodology

This was an action research study, employing several methods of data collection.

Research was performed in public high school freshman biology classes in west central

Georgia. To assess focus question # 1, “Did the application of Glasser’s choice theory

have a positive effect on the students’ EOCT performance for the Cells and Genetics

domains?” quantitative data were secured from End of Course test results from 2010 and

2011. T-tests were used to analyze this quantitative test data. A survey utilizing a Likert


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 Researcher

I hold degrees in both Business Operations Management and Education. My

work in both fields has allowed me to participate in the process of education as well as

observe the products of education. My 16 years of classroom teaching, both at the

elementary and secondary levels, and my 18 years of parenting experience have allowed

me to observe human development from both an educational perspective and a 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 LITERATURE

External Control vs. Choice

Glasser’s (1988) choice theory is rooted in the idea that at least half of the

students in any classroom are disengaged from the learning process, thereby producing

no evidence of quality work or knowledge. A traditional instrumentalist approach to

education puts the power of education solely in the hands of the teacher (Glasser, 1988).

Even though Noddings (2003) points out that fun, productive classrooms depend on the

knowledge and artistry of the teacher, Glasser’s (1988) theory indicates that student effort

is a crucial variable in the equation and that teaching is impossible without it (1988).

Interestingly, the problem of the disengaged student appears to be a universal one,

present even in the classrooms of affluent communities (Glasser, 1988). Could it be that

there is a flaw in the traditional approach to education that Americans have known and

clung to for so long? America has tried to upgrade curriculum since the Sputnik

phenomenon, yet we still face the unresolved and ever-present puzzle of the disengaged

student (Glasser, 1988). Erwin (2005) notes that dislike of school is an ever-increasing

problem. Adding to this dilemma is today’s pressure cooker of standardized testing.

Noddings (2003) points out that today’s standards movement may push even more

students away from school with its dull and tireless pursuit of facts and skills than can be

tested easily. Erwin (2005) agrees that today’s testing mandates exert excessive pressure

upon teachers and students, which leads to resentment, absence, shut-down, and

disruption.

According to Glasser (1988), the prevalent mode of thought in America operates

within a paradigm of external control theory, in which we believe that what we do is


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 By

All organisms have needs, but Glasser (1988) says that one need unique to human

beings is the need for power. According to Glasser (1988), whenever any of our needs is

unmet – especially the need for power – we have a built in urge to behave in some

manner. Psychological needs are much more challenging, especially in the classroom,

because what meets them varies from one person to the next (Glasser, 1988). For

example, worries that typically prevail in the human psyche include, “…winning, our

honor, our pride, our integrity, our desire to be heard, our need to be right, who

recognizes us, whether we are achieving enough, rich enough, smart enough, 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 Pictures

Glasser (1988) says that most students begin school with a desire to learn because

of a certain pattern that prevails for most children in their early years: when we do what

our caretaker wants, we get love and attention. Upon school entrance, what teachers

want students to do is learn to read; and so begins a chain of events that can lead toward a

mindset of victory or defeat, depending upon the child’s readiness to read (Glasser,

1988). A student who is ready to read receives a good grade, pleases his teacher and

caretakers, receives praise, feels important, feels powerful, associates this power with

knowledge, and consequently places a picture in his mind of reading being a 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 Behavior

Glasser (1988) states that behavior is actually a product of four components:

acting, thinking, feeling, and physiology. While humans may not be able to control every

component, they do choose the sum of the components. These behavior choices are

usually an attempt to control ourselves our control others (Glasser, 1988).

Learning Teams

So how does a teacher incorporate opportunities for students satiate the needs that

they bring with them to school? Glasser’s (1988) mode of delivering such opportunities

is learning teams. He uses the well-functioning athletic team as an analogy for

understanding how academic learning teams should function. Glasser (1988) explains

that athletic teams typically have strong players and weak players. When a team

functions as it should, the weak players do not just relax and disengage, letting the

stronger players do all the work. Nor do the strong players resent the weak players for

their lesser abilities. The strong players actually encourage the weaker ones and help

them along. When the weak players do get their chance to play, their hard work and

points are valued by the team just as the strongest players’ contributions are. Members of


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 learning.

Organizational Change

According to Reeves (2009), change leadership is one of the biggest challenges

organizations face around the world, and education is no exception. Although change is

an everyday part of life and inherent to human existence, it is still something resisted by

individuals, groups, and especially organizations (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). Tsoukas and

Chia (2002) maintain that organizational change should not be viewed as something

extraordinary but should be viewed as the norm, and they refer to this as organizational

becoming. They promote the idea that organizations are sites of continually evolving

human action and argue that lack of change would be abnormal (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002).

Reeves (2009) states that leaders are often far better at announcing change than they are

carrying out change and that leaders often tend to launch a change agenda without clear

goals or action plans and without properly assessing their organization’s or their

colleagues’ readiness for change. Bearing in mind that change is inevitably accompanied

by fear and resistance, he adds that it is important for leaders to identify positively those

things that should not change, as well as naming things that colleagues can stop doing

before adding new tasks or requirements to the plate (Reeves, 2009). In so doing, Reeves

(2009) implies that leaders may be able to reframe change from something threatening

into a modification of practices that colleagues already do well, thereby affirming their


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: METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This action research study encompassed a nine week period focusing on the third

quarter of the academic year. Action research was the appropriate choice for this

endeavor as it involves an educator and a problem that is being addressed at the local

level through the trial of a new educational innovation (Charles & Mertler, 2002). The

purpose of the research was to appraise the effectiveness of William Glasser’s choice

theory as applied in a classroom setting; specifically, my classroom setting. Action

research is primarily for the benefit of the researcher and his/her subjects, although it may

prove to be applicable to others who have similar environments (Charles & Mertler,

2002). While action research traditionally affects a small nucleus of stakeholders, the

method is also becoming “a powerful vehicle for communicating to the larger public the

complex, day-to-day realities of teachers and children in schools” (Meyers & Rust, 2003,

p. 1). For comparison, End of Course data were secured from a control group comprised

of my students from the previous school year. Research centered on a treatment group

comprised of the students assigned to me during the semester concurrent with this

project.

The biology End of Course test is divided into separate domains, so data were only

collected from the Cells & Genetics domains, as it was the material being studied in the

classroom during the research period. Testing data were analyzed via independent T

tests.


Student surveys employing a Likert scale were used to access student’s feelings about

the innovations utilized during the research period. Survey responses were evaluated

through use of Chi Square analysis.

Feelings of my biology colleagues were examined by way of a focus group, which

was hosted by me at the end of the research interval. The focus group record was then

coded for themes.

Finally, interviews were conducted with my mentor administrator and my department

chairperson. Interview data were also coded for themes.

Setting

My research took place in the southeastern United States at a public high school that

was serving 1,343 students at the time of the study. The school is one of three public

high schools serving a county of almost 65,000 residents. The school’s student body

mirrors the county make-up, with a ratio of about 62% white, non-hispanic to 34% black

to 3% hispanic/latino origin to 1% other ethnicities. This location was chosen, because it

was my current place of employment. Access to this location was secured via written

permission from the school principal, an official research permission form required by

the county school system, and the required LaGrange College Institutional Review Board

permission documents.

Subjects and Participants

The subjects of this study were public high school biology students. Subjects

were a fair representation of the general population of the setting, as biology is a required


subject for all students and is not a subject area in which classes are ability leveled.

Subjects were selected by default due to the fact that they were assigned to my class

rosters for the current academic year.

Additional participants included my mentor administrator, department chair, and

fellow biology teachers. My mentor during this research was an assistant principal at my

school of employment and research who agreed to monitor my study and assist me in

gaining experience as a teacher leader. Other participants were chosen due to the fact

that we taught the same subject.

Procedures & Data Collection Methods

All data gathered during this project were applied toward the goal of evaluating

choice theory’s effectiveness as employed in the school learning environment. Table 3.1,

below, provides an overview of how the data were utilized and applied during the

research process.

Table 3.1 Data Shell

Focus Question Literature Sources

Type: Method, Data, Validity

How these data are analyzed

Rationale

Did 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:Interval

Type of validity:Content

Quantitative:Independent T-test

Effect Size

Quantitative:Provides evidence of significant differences in test performance


How did my students and colleagues feel about the choice theory methods that were applied to the classroom setting?

Glasser, W. (1988)

Noddings N. (2003)

Erwin (2005)

Method:Survey,Focus Group

Data:Student Surveys (Likert Scale)

Colleague Focus Group

Type of Validity:Construct

Quantitative:Chi Square Analysis

Qualitative:Coded for themes

Quantitative:Provides evidence of themes in student perceptions of choice theory

Qualitative:Provides evidence of themes in colleagues’ perceptions of choice theory

Did 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:Interview

Data:Interview Record

Type of Validity:construct

Qualitative:Coded for themes

Quantitative:Provides evidence of viability of new innovation for future use

William Glasser’s (1988) choice theory is built upon the concept that students learn

best and produce the highest quality of work when they experience four critical

ingredients of a successful classroom: belonging (which includes love), power, freedom,

and fun. These crucial elements were introduced through the avenue of learning teams.


Choice theory teaches that when students experience these elements, they will begin to

believe that education has value and that it is worth their efforts. Effective

documentation of strategies used and collection of data contributed to the validity of this

project.

To determine the effect of choice theory strategies on student outcomes, End of

Course test results were secured from school test administrators. It was imperative to

focus only on the EOCT domains that assessed the teaching that took place during the

research period (Cells and Heredity), so domains deemed irrelevant to this study were not

considered.

Evidence of the affective impact of choice theory innovations upon subjects was

secured via a student survey, which was presented in a Likert scale format (see Appendix

A). Colleagues participated in a focus group which was hosted by me to obtain a record

of their feelings about the Glasser innovations utilized (see Appendix B).

An interview was conducted with my mentor administrator to ascertain his

opinions of the viability of Glasser’s strategies in terms of being applied school-wide.

(see Appendix C).

Validity, Reliability, Dependability, Bias, and Equity

Quantitative interval data were gathered for focus question #1, “ Did the

application of Glasser’s choice theory have a positive effect on the students’ EOCT

performance for the Cells & Genetics domains,” by assessing student knowledge of state

biology standards via the state-mandated End of Course Test. Salkind (2010) explains


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 Data

Focus question #1, “Did the application of Glasser’s choice theory have a positive

effect on the students’ EOCT performance for the Cells & Genetics domains?” underwent

quantitative analysis by way of an independent t-test to determine if there were


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.


Validation

Consensual validation was achieved by conducting the study under the approval

and direction of the faculty members at both the administrative and instructional levels.

Faculty members were also participants in focus groups and interviews. According to

Eisner (1991), consensual validation requires that others of competent knowledge be in

one accord that the description, interpretation, evaluation, and thematic of the study are

correct.

Epistemological validation was ensured by way of comparing the resulting data

from the study to the information found in the review of the literature, especially the

expertise of Glasser. This comparison serves as evidence that the researcher remained

consistent with theoretical perspectives found in the literature as he conducted the study,

as indicated by Denzin and Lincoln (1998).

Credibility

Eisner (1991) describes structural corroboration as a coming together of evidence

to form a compelling whole. This type of credibility was secured through the study of

multiple data sources documented in the review of the literature. Great care was taken to

safeguard the precision and accuracy of the study so that the resulting data could serve as

convincing evidence for arriving at meaningful conclusions.

Transferability

The accuracy, consistency, and credibility with which this study was conducted

allowed for others to use it as a launching pad for further study in the area of choice


theory. This referential adequacy, as Eisner (1991) calls it, leads to a better perception

and understanding of choice theory by others.

Transformation

Lather (as cited by Kinchloe & McLaren, 1998) describes catalytic validity as the

degree to which the researcher expects to shape and transform the participants, subjects,

or school. It is the hope of the researcher that this study provided a positive, enjoyable,

and motivating experience for the subjects and that colleagues were left inspired to

explore the tenets of choice theory further.

This action research study included a nine-week period during which innovations

based on William Glasser’s choice theory were applied in a ninth grade public high

school biology classroom. The study included 129 subjects, as well as several colleagues

and a school administrator. Following the innovation period, data were collected via End

of Course Test results for the Growth and Heredity domains of biology, and also by way

of student and colleague focus groups and an administrator interview. The study was

conducted in such a way as to ensure validity, reliability, dependability, equity, and

freedom from bias. Qualitative and quantitative data analysis included independent t-

tests for test results, chi square analysis for survey results, and coding for themes in

transcripts of focus groups and interviews.


CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

Quantitative interval data for focus question #1, “Did the application of Glasser’s

choice theory have a positive effect on the students’ EOCT performance for the Cells &

Genetics domains?” were gathered from the 2010 and 2011 biology End Of Course Test

scores from the Cells & Genetics domains. These data were analyzed with a t-test for

independent means of the treatment group and the control group. Accepting the null

hypothesis would indicate that the performances of the treatment group and the control

group showed no significant difference. The decision to reject the null hypothesis was

set at p < .05. An effect size calculator was used to compute Cohen’s d for determining

whether the effect size was small (d = 0.0 – 0.20), medium (d = 0.20 – 0.50), or large (d =

0.50 or larger).

Table 4.1. Independent t-test: EOCT Scores

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances

Spring 2010 Spring 2011Mean 52.92 52.56Variance 310.88 321.94Observations 86 123Pooled Variance 317.39Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 207t Stat 0.14P(T<=t) one-tail 0.44t Critical one-tail 1.65P(T<=t) two-tail 0.88t Critical two-tail 1.97

T(207) = 0.14, p < .05


Table 4.1 shows the results of the independent t-test for EOCT scores to be T(207) = 0.14,p

> .05, indicating that there was not a significant difference between the performance of

the treatment group and the control group. The obtained value (0.14) did not exceed the

critical value (1.65); therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted. The Cohen’s d

calculation generated a result of d = 0.02, indicating a very small effect size.

Quantitative and qualitative data from focus question #2, “How did my students

and colleagues feel about the choice theory methods that were applied to the classroom

setting,” were secured from student surveys and a colleague focus group. Survey results

were examined via chi square analysis to determine which questions where significant

and which ones were not. Significance levels were reported at p < .05, p < .01, and p.

<.001 levels. The degrees of freedom were set at 4. Cronbach’s alpha was computed to

measure internal consistency reliability of the survey results. Salkind (2010) states that

internal consistency reliability is used when the researcher wants to know if the test item

measures what he/she intends for them to measure. In addition to survey analysis,

transcripts of the colleague focus group were coded for recurrent, dominant, or emerging

themes.

Table 4.2: Chi-Square Statistic for Student Survey

Survey Items

n=14

Survey Question χ2

Item 1 Did you feel a sense of belonging when you came to biology class?

93.23***

Item 2 Do you feel that you were friendly toward the other students during class?

119.03***

Item 3 Did you feel that your classmates were friendly 85.94***


toward you?

Item 4 Did you feel that your classmates supported you during group work?

73.42***

Item 5 Do you feel that you acted in a way that supported Mr. Hardigree?

112.21***

Item 6 Do you feel that you acted in a way that supported your classmates?

85.10***

Item 7 Do you think there is power in knowledge? 173.70***

Item 8 Do you feel like Mr. Hardigree has a sense of humor in class?

70.99***

Item 9 Do you feel that laughter is a part of our classroom atmosphere?

63.33***

Item 10 Did you feel that your team had a fair chance at winning points?

136.50***

Item 11 Did you feel like your team had any choice in deciding what to study?

11.36*

Item 12 Did you feel that your team had and choice in deciding how to be assessed?

31.36***

Item 13 Did you have freedom to choose how to spend your extra time when your work was complete?

84.07***

Item 14 Do you feel like Mr. Hardigree wants you to be satisfied with his class?

370.90***

* p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

As shown in Table 4.1, all survey questions except question 11 were found to be

highly significant at the p < .05, .01, and .001 levels, indicating that respondents

frequently answered the same way on these questions. Question 11 was found to be

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 RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to explore the effectiveness of William Glasser’s

choice theory methods upon freshman biology students with a desired goal of increasing

levels of student engagement, motivation to learn, and performance on the state End of

Course Test.

Analysis

Results of the 2010 and 2011 biology End of Course Test provided quantitative

interval data for focus question #1, “Did the application of Glasser’s choice theory have a

positive effect on the students’ EOCT performance for the Cells & Genetics domains?”

A t-test for independent means was used to analyze the performance of the control group

and the treatment group. The t-test results showed an obtained value (0.14) lower than

the critical value (1.65); thus, the null hypothesis was accepted. The data analysis did not

identify a significant difference between the performances of the two groups. This means

that, based on data only, the implementation of Glasser’s methods did not make a

difference in the students’ test performance. The Cohen’s d calculation generated a result

of d = 0.02, indicating a very small effect size. The t-test did measure what it was

supposed to measure. Only material from the Cells and Genetics domains was covered

during the research period, and these were the only two domains considered in the data

collection and analysis. I do not believe that these results are significant for reasons

addressed later in the discussion section of this chapter. The t-test results contradict

Glasser’s (1988) idea that students will learn more when teachers can meet the universal

needs of power, fun, freedom, and belonging in the classroom learning environment. The

results also contradict the findings of Yager, Johnson, and Johnson (1985) that students


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.

Implications

The quantitative findings generated by EOCT results cannot be generalized at this

time to population at large, as I believe they were tainted by the learning curve I was

working on as well as the short duration of this project. With further study, more

practice, and improved teacher skill, I believe that test scores would show an increase in

knowledge resulting from this innovation. Quantitative findings produced by the student

survey, in my opinion, are a true reflection of choice theory’s value and could be

generalized to a larger population. Qualitative findings resulting from the focus group


and interview revealed that colleagues and administrators see the choice theory

innovations as valuable tools for increasing student engagement at large and especially

with students who lack a home support system. This study could be replicated easily and

should be of interest to any public educator like myself who wants to increase the level of

student engagement and motivation in the classroom.

Glasser’s cooperative learning team approach had a profoundly affirmative effect

upon students. Although I believe the students would have benefitted more from working

in teams for the entire school year, even the nine-week research period produced

extremely positive survey responses. The students enjoyed coming to class each day and

were eager to work in their learning teams.

The study of Glasser’s choice theory influenced me greatly as a teacher. Teachers

in my area tend to feel paralyzed by the test-driven, broad, shallow curricular constraints

that we work under. This paralysis keeps us from feeling the freedom to explore new

innovations. This study forced me to explore something new, and in hindsight, I see that

this exploration is exactly what it will take to affect change at the state and national

levels.

Impact on School Improvement

This study prompted my department to be more aware of and open to new

innovations – especially cooperative learning teams. Much of our energy has gone

toward collaboration, common planning, and common assessment. This study provided a

perfect segue into experimenting with a new innovation as a department. The knowledge

I have gained through the study of Glasser’s choice theory will ultimately benefit the


entire school, as I will be able to conduct a staff development session built upon the

principles of choice theory.

Recommendations for Future Research

My foremost recommendation for anyone replicating this project, including

myself, is that the research period be extended for longer than nine weeks. Ideally, I

would recommend a study period for an entire academic year in which the students work

in cooperative learning teams. Length of the research period is especially pertinent to

standardized test performance. I believe this would give a more accurate measure of

whether choice theory innovations actually increase student knowledge over time.


References

Charles, C., & Mertler, C. (2002). Introduction to educational research. Boston, MA:

Allyn & Bacon.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). The fifth moment. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),

The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 407-430).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Eisner, E.W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of

educational practice. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Erwin, J. (2005). Put Back the Fun in Classrooms. Education Digest: Essential Readings

Condensed for Quick Review, 70(5), 14-19. Retrieved from ERIC

database.

Fosnot, C., & Perry, R. (2005) Constructivism: A psychological theory of

learning. In Catherine Twomey (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory,

perspectives and practice (pp. 8-38). New York: Teachers College Press.

Gardner, H. (1995). Leading minds: An anatomy of leadership. New York: BasicBooks.

Geelan, D. (2006). Undead theories: Constructivism, eclecticism, and research in

education. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Georgia Department of Education (2009). Testing brief; end-of-course tests; spring

2009; April 27, 2009 – June 5, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.doe.k12.ga.

Glasser, W. (1997). A new look at school failure and school success. Phi Delta

Kappan, 78(8), 596-602. Retrieved from ERIC database.

Glasser, W. (1988). Choice theory in the classroom. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Glasser, W. (2000). Every student can succeed. Chatsworth, CA: William Glasser, Inc.


Goodman, P. (1964). Compulsory miseducation. New York, NY: Horizon.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E.J. (1994). The new circles of learning:

Cooperation in the classroom and school. Alexandria, VA: Association

for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Kinchloe, J., & McLaren, P. (1998) Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In

N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research:

Theories and issues (pp. 260 – 299). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

LaGrange College Education Department [LCED] (2009). Conceptual framework.

LaGrange, GA: LaGrange College

Meyers, E., & Rust, F. (2003). Taking action with teacher research. Portsmouth, NH:

Heineman.

Noddings, N. (2003). Happiness and education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Reeves, D. (2009). Leading change in your school: How to conquer myths, build

commitment, and get results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development. Retrieved December 6, 2010 from netLibrary:

http://www.netlibrary.com.relay.lagrange.edu/Reader/

Salkind, N. J. (2010). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (Excel 2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shillingford, M., & Edwards, O. (2008). Professional school counselors using choice

theory to meet the needs of children of prisoners. Professional School

Counseling, 12(1), 62-65. Retrieved from ERIC database.

http://www.netlibrary.com.relay.lagrange.edu/Reader/


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 A

Student Survey

These questions apply only to the Cells & Genetics unit that we just completed.

Please circle a response to each question.

1. Did you feel a sense of belonging when you came to biology?

Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always1 2 3 4 5

2. Do you feel that you were friendly toward the other students?


3. Did you feel that your classmates were friendly toward you?


4. Did you feel that your classmates supported you during group work?


5. Do you feel that you acted in a way that supported Mr. Hardigree?


6. Do you feel that you acted in a way supported your classmates?


7. Do you think there is power in knowledge?



8. Do you feel like Mr. Hardigree has a sense of humor in class?


9. Do you feel that laughter is a part of our classroom atmosphere?


10. Did you feel that your team had a fair chance at winning points?


11. Did you feel like your team had any choice in deciding what to study?


12. Did you feel that your team had any choice in deciding how to be assessed?


13. Did you have freedom to choose how to spend your time when your work was complete?


14. Do you feel like Mr. Hardigree wants you to be satisfied with his class?



Appendix B

Focus Group Questions

1. What percentage of your students do you think are consistently engaged in learning?

2. Why are these students engaged in learning?

3. Why are the disengaged students disengaged?

4. What ideas do you have for helping disengaged students gain the vital belief that there is power in knowledge?

5. To what degree do you think students experience fun, freedom, belonging, & power in the classrooms of our school? Do you think these things are important?

6. How do you feel about using cooperative learning teams as an avenue for students to experience fun, freedom, power, and belonging in your classroom? What are the possibilities, advantages, and disadvantages?


Appendix C

Interview Questions

1. What percentage of students at our school do you think are consistently engaged in learning?

2. Why are these students engaged in learning?

3. Why are the disengaged students disengaged?

4. What ideas do you have for helping disengaged students gain the vital belief that there is power in knowledge?

5. To what degree do you think students experience fun, freedom, belonging, & power in the classrooms of our school? Do you think these things are important?

6. How do you feel about using cooperative learning teams as an avenue for students to experience fun, freedom, power, and belonging in your classroom? What are the possibilities, advantages, and disadvantages?

7. What are some of the keys to leading effective organizational change at the school level? What roadblocks have you run into when leading our school through an organizational change and how did you get around the roadblocks?

choice theory & motivation - lagrange collegehome.lagrange.edu/educate/advanced programs/ed.s....

Documents