Citation
Preservice Teachers' Interests and Pedagogical Judgments

Material Information

Title:
Preservice Teachers' Interests and Pedagogical Judgments
Creator:
PARR, KATHYN M. ( Author, Primary )
Copyright Date:
2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Classrooms ( jstor )
Education ( jstor )
Mathematical domains ( jstor )
Mathematical variables ( jstor )
Mathematics ( jstor )
Preservice teachers ( jstor )
Standardized tests ( jstor )
Students ( jstor )
Teachers ( jstor )
Websites ( jstor )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Kathyn M. Parr. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
8/31/2011
Resource Identifier:
658219707 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

PRESERVICE TEACHERSÂ’ INTEREST S AND PEDAGOGICAL JUDGMENTS By KATHRYN M. PARR A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Kathryn M. Parr

PAGE 3

This document is dedicated to the Tracy Linderholm for not only believing in my competence, but giving me the means to become competent, for allowing me to make the big decision autonomously, and for giving me a sense of relatedness by always being concerned about my needs and giving me a shoulder to cry on.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my committee members, and me ntors, Dr. Tracy Linderholm and Dr. Patricia Ashton, for their encouragement, us eful feedback, and insistence on quality. I thank Dr. John Bengston for his questions and ideas. I thank my family and friends for their constant love and support in times both bleak and bright in the course of this long process. I especially thank Nicole Morgan for assisting in collecting data and coding responses, Helena Cong for reading and providi ng feedback on early drafts, and Pinray Huang for riding shotgun in my soul. Finally, I thank the preservice teachers for inspiring and participating in this thesis.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................vi ii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE.......................................................................................4 Self-Determination Theory...........................................................................................5 Competence...........................................................................................................6 Autonomy..............................................................................................................8 Relatedness..........................................................................................................10 Interest....................................................................................................................... .13 Purpose of the Study...................................................................................................17 Prior Measures............................................................................................................17 3 METHOD...................................................................................................................22 Participants.................................................................................................................22 Materials and Measures..............................................................................................23 Demographic Questionnaire................................................................................23 Interest.................................................................................................................23 Pedagogical Judgments.......................................................................................24 Procedure....................................................................................................................26 Analysis......................................................................................................................2 7 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................28 Reasons for Career Choice.........................................................................................28 SAT and ACT Scores.................................................................................................28 General Academic Interest, Domain Interest, and Topic Interest..............................29 Pedagogical Judgments...............................................................................................31 General Academic Interest and its Relation to Pedagogical Judgments.....................32 Specific Domain Interest and its Relation to Pedagogical Judgments.......................33

PAGE 6

vi 5 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................38 APPENDIX A PEDAGOGICAL SCENARIOS.................................................................................47 B QUALITATIVE DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSE PATTERNS..............................49 C ZERO-ORDER CORRELATION MATRIX.............................................................51 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................55 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................58

PAGE 7

vii LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1. Means and standard deviations of time (in min) spent on academic pages...............29 4-2. Number of participants w ho visited each academic domain.....................................30 4-3. Means and standard deviations for pedagogical judgment scores..............................32 4-4. Partial correlation matrix of general academic interest and pedagogical judgment variables controlling fo r SAT or ACT scores..........................................................33 4-5. Partial correlation matrix of social studies interest and pedagogical judgment variables controlling fo r SAT or ACT scores..........................................................34 4-6. Partial correlation matrix of science interest and pedagogi cal judgment variables controlling for SAT or ACT scores..........................................................................35 4-7. Partial correlation matr ix of literature interest and pedagogical judgment variables controlling fo r SAT or ACT scores..........................................................36 4-8. Partial correlation matr ix of mathematics interest and pedagogical judgment variables controlling fo r SAT or ACT scores..........................................................36 C-1. Zero-order correlation matrix pedagogical judgment variables................................51

PAGE 8

viii Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Ma ster of Arts in Education PRESERVICE TEACHERSÂ’ INTEREST S AND PEDAGOGICAL JUDGMENTS By Kathryn M. Parr August 2006 Chair: Tracy Linderholm Major Department: Educational Psychology Teaching is a profession of making judg ments, generally with the goal of increasing student outcomes in terms of co mpetence, autonomy, and relatedness. This study explored how preservice teachersÂ’ intere st in academic domains may relate to their judgments. Preservice teachersÂ’ ( N = 56) interest was measured using a website, containing links to four academic pages (eg., social studies, science, mathematics, and literature). Participants browsed the website for 15 minutes. The range of time spent on academic pages was 0 to 15 minutes ( M = 5.71, SD = 3.87). Participants were asked to write a response to four written scenarios presenting pedagogical dilemmas, one from each of the four subject areas. Results were analyzed in terms of interest at the topic level, domain level, and general academic level. Topic interest, as measured by participantsÂ’ discussion of the topic in their responses, wa s significantly correlated with competence, autonomy, concern, and affective orientation. Contrary to the hypothesis, time spent on specific domain pages was not significantly relate d to pedagogical judgments of the same

PAGE 9

ix scenario, but was often more strongly corre lated with judgments to scenarios of a different domain. Negative correlations be tween times on different academic domains and low alpha coefficients for the rated pe dagogical variables across scenarios suggest lack of consistency for both the general a cademic interest variable and the collapsed pedagogical judgment variables; therefore results of analys es involving these variables should be interpreted with caution. Results s uggest, but are not conclusive, that general academic interest predicted the quality of preservice teachersÂ’ judgments. Specifically, preservice teachers who spent more time viewing academic webpages showed higher levels of competence goal or ientation, promotion of autonom y, and concern for students in their response to the scenarios presented to them.

PAGE 10

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION One model for understanding the pr actice of teachi ng is that of teacher as decisionmaker . Shavelson (1983) provided a review of research on teachers’ judgments and decisions concluding that “ teachers behave rationally with respect to the simplified models of reality that they construct ” (p. 393). These judgments are made by integrating information from observations as well as ev aluating and comparing current conditions to previously lived experiences. The model assu mes that teaching is a process of making reasonable judgments with th e goal of optimizing students’ outcomes (Shavelson, 1983). However, most people are generally unaware of how they make their judgments and may not be most influenced by valid informati on. Instead, judgments are greatly influenced by plans and schemas for what a classroom s hould look like; a judgment is made when something is wrong, such as lack of stude nt involvement or behavioral problems. Teachers make judgments based on what they perceive as the problem and what they perceive as possible courses of action. Howeve r, teachers typically choose not to change the lesson and only consider a few possibl e courses of action without evaluating alternatives (Shavelson, 1983). Interest, defined as a recognition of value in an object or event, is reflected in the individual’s perception of possi bilities for action, representa tion of these possibilities to the self, and the setting, re solving, and resetting of challenges (Renninger, 1992). Teachers set, give students means to resolv e, and reset challenges for students. The greater a teacher’s perception of possibilities regarding a su bject, the more alternatives

PAGE 11

2 the teacher will perceive regarding relevant curriculum, assessment, and feedback. Therefore, teachersÂ’ interest may be a significa nt factor in teachers Â’ ability to recognize alternative courses for action and, consequently, influence the judgments they make in the classroom. The hypothesis of the present study is that there is a significant relationship between preservice teachersÂ’ interests, as measured by their choice of contents when viewing website, and the judgments they ma ke in response to pedagogical scenarios. Furthermore, preservice teachersÂ’ judgments will be evaluated in terms of Deci and RyanÂ’s (2000) self-determination theory because the theory matches the goals of education that include meeting student sÂ’ needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness. In addition, to extend the theory to teachers who have not yet practiced, preservice teachers were selected as particip ants. Allowing preservice teachers to respond to pedagogical judgments gives them an opport unity to think about classroom scenarios and may be useful in improving teacher educa tion programs. Therefore, a more specific hypothesis is that preservice teachersÂ’ intere st in academic domains is related to the extent that their judgments reflect the goals of increasing student competence, autonomy, and relatedness. The literature review presented in Chapte r 2 regarding this ge neral hypothesis is organized in the following manner: First the to pic of teacher judgment s will be described and then more specifically how teacher sÂ’ goals of competence, autonomy, and relatedness influence student outcomes, followed by a discussion of the concept of interest and attention, the m echanism through which interest influences decision-making. The chapter will conclude with a description of the questions this study aims to answer,

PAGE 12

3 the principal hypotheses, and the new methods that are used to measure both judgments and interest.

PAGE 13

4 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Teaching is a process of making judgments with the objective of promoting student interest, competence, and pe rsonal and social developmen t. Based on WoodÂ’s (1983) and YingerÂ’s (1986) description of ill-structured problems, judgment will be defined as the process of making a response or evaluation to a situation that doe s not have a solution that can be arrived at by simple induction. J udgments are made when the situation evokes a range of possible actions that are often not clear and the ou tcome of most actions is not known with any degree of certainty, though some actions are related to more probable outcomes. Yinger provided this description of the problems that teachers face: Uncertain practical problems require uni que and idiosyncratic approaches to solution because of their strong ties to sp ecific contextual fact ors, the uncertainty and competition among goals and the ground for decision, and the unpredictability of uniquely configured events. (p. 275) YingerÂ’s description of the problems teachers fa ce matches the definition of ill-structured problems indicating that teaching involves a great deal of judgment often based on incomplete information and competing goals. On the basis of a review of literature on teachersÂ’ judgments, Shavelson (1983) created a model of teachersÂ’ judgments. In th is model, available information, the nature of the task, and the individual differences between teachers are factors that influence teachersÂ’ classroom judgments. Shavelson de scribed individual differences between teachers in terms of their beliefs and concep tions of the subject matter. For example, teachers may have different beliefs about th e malleability of intelligence or how the

PAGE 14

5 topics within a subject are interrelated. An additional difference be tween teachers that may influence their judgments is their interest in both the topic and the subject domain in general because interest allows for more effi cient processing of information (Hidi, 1990; McDaniel, Waddill, & Finstad, 2000) and better perception of the possibilities for action (Renninger, 1992), qualities th at enhance judgment making. Although outcomes are uncertain when making a judgment, judgments that increase the probability of meeting one’s goals because they include consideration of the most relevant information and multiple possibilities for action are regarded as better (Shavelson, 1983; Wood, 1983). For teachers, general goals of education include promoting students’ competence, autonomy, a nd relatedness. Researchers have found that promotion of competence (Grant & Dwec k, 2003), autonomy (Assor, Kaplan, & Roth, 2002) and relatedness (Furre r & Skinner, 2003) are asso ciated with both student achievement and psychological wellbeing. Th erefore, an appropriate criterion for evaluating teaching judgments is the extent th at the judgments reflect an aim to support the basic psychological needs of competen ce, autonomy, and relatedness described by self-determination theory. Self-Determination Theory Self-determination theory proposes that humans have basic psychological needs to develop and maintain psychological growth, in tegrity, and well-being. People need to feel competence, relatedness, and autonomy in bot h their immediate situations and over time or else they will suffer significant negative consequences. According to Deci and Ryan (2000), “To the degree that these organismic processes are hindered by non-favorable conditions—specifically when one’s context is excessively controlling, overchallenging, or rejecting—they will, to that degree, be supplanted by alternative, often defensive or

PAGE 15

6 self-protective processes” (p. 229). In li ght of this concern, proponents of selfdetermination theory have recommended th at teachers should promote a classroom environment that supports competence, re latedness, and autonomy. Although Deci and Ryan have maintained that all three needs are necessary and none can be neglected to achieve psychological well-being, they also found that autonomy and competence are more strongly related to intrinsic motiva tion, suggesting that in academic settings a secure sense of relatedness should become a more distal priority, with increasing competence and promoting autonomy as more prominent teaching goals. Each aspect of the self-determination theory will now be described in detail. Competence Competence is the knowledge and ability to function, develop, or respond. According to self-determination theory, indi viduals who are not pr ovided opportunities to experience competence are less likely to e ngage their current sk ills or develop new abilities (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Because a pr imary goal of education is to develop students’ knowledge and ability in a va riety of domains, developing students’ competence should be a priority in teachers’ judgments. Teachers who rate increasing their students’ competence as a priority have mastery goals. Individuals who hold mastery goals believe that effo rt has a direct effect on outco me and orient toward learning new skills, understanding, and improving using self-referenced standards (Ames, 1992). Mastery goals facilitate persis tence in the face of obstacles, are associated with coping strategies such as planning and positiv e reinterpretation, and predict academic improvement (Grant & Dweck, 2003). Competence or mastery goal orientations are often contrasted to other goal orientations such as performance goal orie ntations (Ames, 1992; Grant & Dweck, 2003)

PAGE 16

7 and affective goal orienta tions (Dweck, 1999; Prawat, 1995). Performance goals are normative, so that view of success is depe ndent on performance of others, and are focused on demonstrating a positive outcome rath er than on the process of learning or the meaning of the outcome. For instance, a te acher who holds performance goals for her students may have the goal that all of her students make an “A” on the next test. This teacher would then construct her lessons and assessments based on the goal of her students making an “A.” In this example, the teacher is likely to consider a superficial lesson as adequate when followed by a supe rficial assessment because the goal is achieved. The teacher is less likely to chal lenge her students because this may hinder progress toward her goal. A teacher with comp etence or mastery oriented goals would be more inclined to challenge students because this is consistent with a goal focused on learning new skills and increasing unders tanding. Dweck (1999) recommended that teachers even apologize when students perf orm perfectly as it is a sign that the assignment was too easy and the students s hould have been given a more challenging task. However, teachers are sometimes concerned with the influence that decreasing praise and increasing the am ount of challenge will have on students’ self-esteem. Teachers whose primary concern is students’ fe elings hold affective goals. These teachers may be content with providing content that is merely entertaining or providing feedback with the goal of increasing positive affect rather than feedback that provides information about competence. Prawat (1985) interviewe d 40 elementary school teachers from 24 schools regarding the teachers’ general goals or priorities, what they considered to be desirable teacher and student characteristics, and their class procedures. Twice as many

PAGE 17

8 teachers gave responses that indicated pre dominantly affective goals than teachers who indicated predominantly cognitive or compet ence goals. Interestingly, the teachers who most consistently emphasized affective goals over competence goals were the least likely to increase studentsÂ’ positive affect. Dweck ( 1999) suggested that praise, when used to promote self-esteem, will actually increase studentsÂ’ passivity and dependence on others for their sense of worth. Praise used effusively for work or behavior s that students should be expected to do easily is controlling. Such pr edominantly affectiv e goals may hinder the fulfillment of competence needs by sugges ting that increased challenge is beyond the studentsÂ’ capabilities and in terfere with satisfaction of their autonomy needs by leading students to depend on feedback from othe rs for their positive self-worth. Thus, competence need fulfillment is often associat ed with another basic psychological need, autonomy. Autonomy Autonomy is the ability to self-direct oneÂ’s thoug hts and actions. Autonomy supportive judgments allow students to devel op and approach their personal goals and interests. Teachers who s upport autonomy tend to suppor t initiative, understand the studentsÂ’ perspectives, create opportunities for choice, encourage student decisionmaking, promote valuing the task, promote in terest, encourage questions, and resist giving directives and solutions (Reeve, Bolt, & Cai, 1999). Assor et al. (2002) provide evidence indicating that foster ing relevance is particularly important in promoting autonomy, whereas suppressing criticism pl ays a significant role in suppressing autonomy. In fact, many behaviors regarded as supporting autonomy, such as providing choice, may still be somewhat controlling if not based on a foundation of meaningfulness

PAGE 18

9 to the student. For example, when all of the provided choices are uninteresting or oppressive, the opportunity to choose does not lead to a sense of autonomy. Autonomy is often contrasted with c ontrol because promoting autonomy means allowing others to take re sponsibility for their own decision-making. Because many teachers are very concerned with classroom management, the topic of autonomy often leads to debate. Is classroo m management at odds with a concern for supporting studentsÂ’ autonomy? Using a longitudinal, naturali stic design, Kosir (2005) investigated elementary teachersÂ’ classroom manageme nt styles and discerned two distinct orientations: behavioral and cognitive-behavioral. Behavior al style was described as managerial with a goal of order and complia nce in the classroom; cognitive-behavioral style was described as instruc tional with a goal of increasin g studentsÂ’ self-discipline, emotional regulation, cooperation, and integrity. All teachers must ma nage their classes; however, the patterns of teachersÂ’ responses yielded significant differences in studentsÂ’ motivation and independent mastery. Kosir found that when teachers held a cognitivebehavioral orientation towa rds classroom management, th eir students showed higher levels of both motivation and independent mastery. Although teachers generally want to increa se motivation and independent mastery in students, teachers may differ in terms of the extent they perceive classroom management or increasing student understand ing as their primary objective. Warfield, Wood, and Lehman (2005) conducted a study in which seven elementary teachers videotaped their lessons and developed pers onal action plans to perceived dilemmas in their classroom. Four of th e teachers wrote primarily of dilemmas regarding classroom management, whereas the other three wrote about their role in increasing student

PAGE 19

10 understanding of concepts. Although all seven of the teachers participated in a week-long workshop concerning increasing studentsÂ’ le arning autonomy, concern with classroom management seemed to hinder some of the teachersÂ’ ability to implement autonomyenhancing strategies in the classroom. St udents of teachers perceiving primarily classmanagement dilemmas were often unclear in their explanations, interrupted by the teacher, and not encouraged to discover and correct their own mistakes; students of the teachers concerned with dilemmas of in creasing studentsÂ’ mathematical thinking provided clear rationales and were questioned by both the teacher and their peers about their strategies. These findings suggest that teachersÂ’ perception of what constitutes a problem influences the strategies they us e and in turn studentsÂ’ ability to learn autonomously. Relatedness Similar to autonomy, the relatedness component of self-determination theory is based on how an in individual in teracts with others. As social creatures, people need to feel connection and caring with others. Although Deci and Ryan (2000) used the term relatedness , the concept is synonymous with the term belongingness and supported by research conducted by Baumeister and Leary (1995). Specifically, Baumeister and Leary proposed the belongingness hypothesis, that peopl e are driven to form and maintain at least one significant pos itive relationship that allows fo r frequent, positive, and enduring interaction. The hypothesis, supported by an extensive review of empirical and theoretical studies, is similar to Deci and Ry anÂ’s (2000) self-determi nation theory in that interpersonal relationships are viewed as fundamental. Baumeister and Leary analyzed the ways and extent to which interpersonal relationships a ffect psychological well-being, the relatedness component of self-determination theory. They found that people generally

PAGE 20

11 form social bonds relatively eas ily, spontaneously classify info rmation in terms of social relationships, classify information about in -group members differently than the same information might be classified for ou t-group members, and that concerns for belongingness influence peopleÂ’s cognition in that people interpret situations and events in terms of implications on th eir relationships. The need to feel connected to others can be satiated; Baumeister and Leary found that increasing the number of close attachments tends to have diminishing positive effects. However, people who do not have adequate supportive relationships have grea ter stress and are less likely to have high levels of happiness than those who main tain supportive relationships. Teachers can provide relational suppor t through interpersonal involvement; teachers who have relational goals tend to try to understand and accept the studentÂ’s perspective, promote empathy, indicate that both negative and positive feelings are okay, and self-disclose. Although many teachers may promote affective goal orientations (Prawat, 1985) with the ai m of meeting studentsÂ’ need s for relatedness, affective orientations emphasize positive affect, whereas Deci and Ryan (2000) suggested that attempting to understand studentsÂ’ emotions whether negative or positive is more beneficial for meeting studentsÂ’ needs of rela tedness. If Deci and Ryan are correct, one potential criterion for teachers to meet studentsÂ’ needs of re latedness is to be concerned about their thoughts, feelings, and needs and to consider studentsÂ’ expressions at face value when making judgments. Although Deci a nd Ryan suggested that relatedness plays a less vital role in student motivation than competence or autonomy, Furrer and Skinner (2003) found that relatedness offers a unique contribution to engagement over autonomy. Furrer and Skinner provided self-report ques tionnaires to 641 students between third and

PAGE 21

12 sixth grade regarding their relatedness to thei r parents, teacher, and peers, their perceived control in the academic domain, and their engagement/disaffection in the classroom. TeachersÂ’ reports on student engagement/disaffe ction and the studentsÂ’ grades were also collected. As the number of potential relati onships (e.g., parent, teacher, peers) that provided feelings of relatedness decreased, so did studentsÂ’ self-re ported feelings of engagement. Although relatedness to each of th e three types of social partners uniquely predicted studentsÂ’ emotional engagement, stude ntsÂ’ feelings of rela tedness to teachers seemed to be the most influential factor, particularly for boys and older students. In summary, judgments are responses to situations that invol ve a high level of uncertainty in terms of the range of possibl e actions and the outcom es of those actions. TeachersÂ’ judgments can be analyzed in terms of the extent that they are aimed to meet studentsÂ’ psychological needs of competen ce, autonomy, and relatedness. Shavelson (1983) described multiple factors that ma y influence a teacherÂ’s judgment in the classroom, including available information, th e nature of the task, and the teachersÂ’ beliefs. An additional factor, previously unexplored, that may also influence teachersÂ’ judgments is teacher interest. The concept of interest can be explored on multiple levels, the teacherÂ’s interest in the topic, domain, or academics in general. Interest would be expected to influence judgments in genera l due to the effects of interest on an individualÂ’s allocation of attentional res ources (McDaniel et al ., 2000) and ability to recognize possibilities for action (Renninger, 1992). TeachersÂ’ judgments are often based on incomplete information and in a short pe riod of time. The information that teachers attend is likely to have significant influen ce on their judgments. Indi viduals automatically attend information that is relevant to their interests (Hidi, 1990; McDaniel et al., 2000).

PAGE 22

13 Teachers who are interested in the task and in formational features of the topic are more likely to attend information about the task th an teachers who are interested in non-task features of the situation, such as classr oom management. Teachers may be differentiated on their focus on the academic task or classroom management, and this difference may influence student outcomes such as competen ce and autonomy (Kosir, 2005; Warfield et al., 2005). The teachersÂ’ point of focus, whet her on studentsÂ’ behavi or or learning, may reflect the teachersÂ’ interest in the task. Although the influence of teachersÂ’ intere st on their judgments and goals has not been explored, it may be expected that teacher s who are interested in a topic or task are more able to promote interest in their st udents by revealing the va lue of the task and using the task to promote competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Teachers who are unable to recognize how the task is satisfy ing their own psychological needs may be unable to facilitate studentsÂ’ ap preciation of the task. Thus, in this thesis I proposed that interest would be associated with teachers Â’ judgments, based part icularly on the selfdetermination theory. To furthe r explore this possible associat ion, the relevant literature on interest is reviewed next. Interest Dewey (1913) described intere st as a dynamic and active concern with a material, object, or skill. A task of interest is perceived in terms of its relationship to the individual as well as its relationship to other things, as pa rt of a whole. The produc t of the task is not the only part valued, instead it may be regarded as the culminating experience of the task. If a person identifies with the task, then engagi ng in the task is found to be a necessity in order to be oneself. In fact, Dewey explaine d that the longer and more elaborate the task, the greater the opportunity for interest to develop. In addition, a task must not only

PAGE 23

14 represent some aspect of the self, it also must provide for gr owth—there must be challenge. Thus, interest can be understood as a mechanism for growth and challenge, which are important in meeting people’s psychological needs. From this general definition of interest, supported by most researchers, two primary branches of research concerning interest ha ve been delineated: the influence of the individual’s specific preferences for particul ar domains and the effect of environmental factors (situation and material) that trigge r situation-specific interest (Krapp, Hidi, & Renninger, 1992). The indivi dual’s preferences or individual interests are considered relatively stable and are associated with increased knowledge, positive emotions, and greater value to the self. In th is investigation, general academic interest is assumed to be a relatively stable form of interest. The second line of research is on the characteristics of the learning environment, usually texts, that tend to stimulate a situation-specific interest that may develop into an enduring individua l interest. Situation-specific interest is thought of as an emotional state aroused by s timuli in the situation’ s stimuli (Schiefele, 1991). Two types of valence are a ssociated with emotional stat e, a feeling related valence associated with a topic and a value related va lence, referring to the personal significance of the topic. Krapp (2002) not ed that although interest is associated with a generally positive valence, it does not exclude negative experiences during the process, such as feeling pressure or struggling. In this investigation, topic a nd domain interest are assumed to be situation-specific because these forms of interest are considered more dynamic in nature. Based on these assumptions about intere st, the process of how interest may relate to judgments will now be described.

PAGE 24

15 Because people cannot focus on everything, interest becomes a mechanism for detecting value; interest guides people to what they are prepar ed to see or are looking for. Interest enables someone to perceive the valu es of an object, idea, or situation (Dewey, 1913; Renninger, 1992). Note that interest does not distort the worl d, but rather brings specific features of the event or object into fo cus. The role of interest in focusing peopleÂ’s attention may explain the differences in teach ersÂ’ perception of problems in the studies by Kosir (2005) and Warfield et al. (2005). On the basis of cumulative research on in terest, Hidi (1990) pr oposed that interest allows individuals to use attentional re sources more effectively by spontaneously allocating resources to the interesting aspects of the context. Intere sted individuals would then have additional resources that can be utilized for other tasks (McDaniel et al., 2000). The mechanism of spontaneous attention allo cation may explain the association between interest and increased comprehension, reca ll, cognitive organization, and persistence (Hidi, 1990). Ainley, Hidi, and Berndorff (2002) suggested that intere st connects students to the task or object and ma intains that connection long e nough to promote learning. This connection is likely due to the recognition of th e value of the task or objects to the self (Dewey, 1913). Because interest in an object requires recognizing its value, the more teachers are attuned to the value of the content they are teaching, the greater interest they will promote in the topic. Recognition of how a topic is relevant to personal growth may enable teachers to recognize how the topic is also relevant to the personal growth of students. In the constrained environment of the classroom, teachers who are highly interested in the domain may be better equipped to quickly process available information and develop

PAGE 25

16 courses of action because interest enables au tomatic allocation of attentional resources (McDaniel et al., 2000). Because judgments are based on the perception of what the problem is and what courses of action are possible (Wood, 1983), teachersÂ’ interests may act as a lens for understandi ng classroom situations and possible solutions. The more meanings and value a teacher perceives in a t opic, the more alternatives for action they will generate. In addition, Dewey (1913) proposed that interest is the recognition of the relevance of the task or object to personal gr owth. Thus interest may influence judgment due to its role in attention allocation, value perception, and relevance recognition. People make judgments based on a percei ved problem and possible courses of action (Wood, 1983). A problem is identified when the current situati on is inconsistent with what individuals belie ve should be happening base d on their goals (Shavelson, 1983). Therefore, teachers who have goals of increasing studentsÂ’ competence, autonomy, and relatedness will seek information that is related to these goals. Once a problem is identified, individuals consider courses of action. Teachers have limited time and, due to the cognitively demanding nature of teaching, limited cogn itive resources to devote to problem solving. A possible mechanism for enabling teachers to allocate attentional resources to making a judgment is their interest in the relevant topic or domain because attention is automatica lly allocated to interesting information (McDaniel et al., 2000). The main hypothesis for this thesis is th at teachers who are more interested in the topic or domain in which the pedagogical probl em is situated will make judgments that are more effective in meeting the educatio nal goals of increasing studentsÂ’ needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness. A s econdary hypothesis is that teachers who are

PAGE 26

17 more interested in academics in general will also make judgments be tter designed to meet students’ needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Purpose of the Study There is need for research differentiating preservice teachers who value the subject matter and its mastery from those who pursue t eaching for reasons that may not relate to academics, such as increasing children’s self-e steem. Interest in academic domains is a factor, previously unexplored, that may predict teachers’ judgments. The purpose of this study was to explore the extent to which pres ervice teachers’ intere st in academics at three levels—topic, relevant academic domai n, or academics in general—predicts the degree that their judgments reflect compet ence goals, promote autonomy, and promote relatedness. Specifically, preservice teachers revealed their interests through their selection of topics to view online and provided judgments to a series of pedagogical scenarios. Prior Measures The measures used in this study differ fr om previous measures of interest and judgment. Teachers’ pedagogical judgments are often measured by having teachers recall their thought processes, and in terest is often measured us ing questionnaires. However, these measures inadequately capture indivi duals’ thinking and c hoices at the time of engagement. Teachers’ judgments have been measured primarily using a method of simulated recall (Shavelson, 1983). This methodology involves playing back a tape or video of the teacher’s class. The teacher then watches or listens to the recording and describes what they were thinking while they were engage d in the behaviors depicted. This method allows the researcher to better understand th e motivations and reasoning for the selected

PAGE 27

18 behaviors. However, Yinger (1986) critic ized this methodology on multiple grounds. First, teachers often notice events on recording that they did not remember while immersed in the situation. It is unlikel y that the teachers simply ignore the new information and base their “reas oning” on their original memory. Also, when attending to the recording, teachers are observing the events from a different perspective than when the events took place; therefore, different info rmation may be available. Teachers are also observing the recording with an increased opportunity to re-a nalyze the situation due to fewer time constraints and removal of the need to put a decision into action. Thus the teachers’ are making sense of the recorded teaching episodes rather than their lived experience (Yinger, 1986). Finally, because many of teachers’ behaviors are based on routines, and therefore automatic, there are probably few conscious thoughts to remember. In addition to the critique of cued recall as a measure of teacher thinking processes, many preservice teachers have taken cour ses that emphasize the importance of competence, relatedness, and particularly au tonomy. Thus, it might be concluded that preservice teachers will provide comments ba sed on these constructs without truly understanding or espousing them. In a study of elementary math ematics teachers, Warfield et al. (2005) found th at the teachers’ comments a bout their beliefs regarding teaching and learning reflected the rhetoric about educational reform yi elding little if any variability, but the researcher s were better able to understa nd the differences between the teachers’ beliefs by analyzing the comments th e teachers made about their students and perceived dilemmas. Therefore indirect m easures, such as pedagogical dilemmas, may

PAGE 28

19 reveal teachersÂ’ beliefs and goals more accura tely than direct measures such as selfreport. Instead of relying on teachers to explai n their own behaviors, researchers can understand what information teachers are attend ing and what their goals are by analyzing teachersÂ’ immediate judgments to teaching scenarios. Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman, and Ryan (1981) used a series of eight short vi gnettes that described typical problems in school to measure the extent that teache rsÂ’ judgments promoted autonomy. TeachersÂ’ scores on the scenario measure were positively correlated with studentsÂ’ rating of the teachersÂ’ autonomy promotion in the classr oom. In addition, the te achersÂ’ judgments to the scenarios predicted their studentsÂ’ pref erence for challenge, curiosity, perceived competence, and general self-esteem in thei r fall and spring classrooms. Thus, responding to hypothetical scenarios can be an adequate measure of teachersÂ’ judgments. However, the Deci et al. (1981) measure is limited to teachersÂ’ judgments about their autonomy promotion and provided specific options fr om which to choose. The construct of judgment, like the construct of interest, may be more accurately measured if participants reveal their goals in a free response format as was done in the current investigation. One last measurement issue must be consid ered with regard to investigating the quality of preservice teachersÂ’ judgments. Ther e is a well-established, positive correlation between performance on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and problem solving skills (e.g., Maier & Casselman, 1970). Thus by statistica lly controlling for ability reflected in SAT or ACT scores, as was done in the cu rrent study, a more accurate measure of the relation between interest and judgment can be ascertained.

PAGE 29

20 Like measures of judgments, the most co mmon measures of interest have been criticized on validity issues. Questionnaires as measures of interest have been criticized in terms of the question of whether they are actually measuring the construct of interest (Ainley et al., 2002). The measures often includ e questions that are more associated with expectation (prior to engaging in activity) or remembering (after the activity). In addition, questionnaires often lack context and are influenced by concern for social norms. Because interest is conceptualized as dynamic and object-specific (Ainley et al., 2002; Dewey, 1913; Krapp et al., 1992), measur es of interest should reflect this specificity. A person can not be me rely “interested”; he or she must be interested in some thing. The specificity of interest has posed a problem for measurement because individuals vary greatly in terms of what interests them. Even if it were feasible to present every possible topic of interest, so much variance would lead to difficulties in discerning patterns. Ainley et al. and Renninger (1992) have used participants’ choices and the amount of time interacting with a text or object to measure in terest. However, the Ainley et al. method measured participants’ interest on a very limited number of topics based on four texts. Renninger’s method allowed participants to reveal their interest in particular toys during free play, but the method of observa tion is very time consuming. Furthermore, Renninger has suggested that pe ople may not be capable of articulating their interests reliably. Intere st is associated with the act ivities that individuals choose and one can surmise another’s interests by obs erving the choices in activities made when not under duress. To capture the specificity of interest, in th is study I measured participants’ interests by calculating the amount of time spent on we bpages categorized into specific domains.

PAGE 30

21 Individuals may have interests reflected in multiple sites with only limited time to choose among them; therefore this methodology may no t capture participan tsÂ’ full range of interests. However, the choices participants made in real-time reflected a degree of their interests. In addition, topic interest was determined by pa rticipantsÂ’ choice of topicrelevant words in describing how they would respond to pedagogical scenarios.

PAGE 31

22 CHAPTER 3 METHOD Participants Fifty-seven students (53 females, 4 males, M = 20.4 years of age) in their first semester of the teacher education program at a large southeastern state university volunteered to participate. Th is asymmetric gender distribution is common in elementary teaching programs, as well as in the teachi ng field. Students in the teacher education program are assumed to be preparing to teac h elementary grades; however one participant reported that she planned to teach “high school, overseas.” Students must apply for admission to the teacher education program ; requirements include either a minimum ability score (SAT or ACT) or a minimum grade-point average if transferring from another college. Participants reported their SAT or ACT scor es and responded to a brief survey regarding their reasons for becoming a teacher. College aptitude tests such as the SAT have been found to be correlated with problem-solving ability for both males and females, particularly the mathematics s ection (Maier & Casselman, 1970). However, because ACT scores are represented as one score, the combination of verbal and mathematics sections on SAT was used to be co nsistent. The data of one participant were incomplete due to technical errors and were removed from the analyses, leaving a total of 56 participants in the study.

PAGE 32

23 Materials and Measures Demographic Questionnaire Participants responded to a brief questionna ire. The first part of the questionnaire asked for their name, gender, and initials (i n order to match to the website viewing). Next, participants described why they were seeking a degree in education. Finally, participants reported their SAT and ACT scor es or gave me permission to obtain their SAT and ACT scores from their transcript. Interest People are not always reflective about their interests; therefore methods that require participants to identify their interests may not be reliable (Renninger, 1992). Interest, however, is reflected in a person’s choices and how they spend time. In this study, interest was measured at three levels: ge neral academic interest, domain interest, and topic interest. For general academic interest and domain interest , I used a method of measuring participants’ interests that allowed the participants to c hoose which topics they would read. Topic interest was measured by rating the level of topic interest in the participants’ response to pedagogical scen arios described in the next section. A website was designed using the univer sity’s WebCT template. The website tracked what time the participant began view ing any of the eight content pages. The content pages included four academic areas: social studies, mathematics, science, and literature and four non-academic areas: roman ce, media, sports, and household tips. Each content page included links to multiple webs ites. For example, the content page “Now and Then,” representing social studies, in cluded web site pages such as National Geographic and History Orb.

PAGE 33

24 In addition to choice, interest can be reflected in time spent on task (Ainley et al., 2002; Renninger, 1992). Participants spent a to tal of 15 minutes on the website and could choose the order and amount of time spent in each topic area but were encouraged to go to at least two topic areas. The amount of time spent on all academic content pages combined yielded the academic time . The time spent on each content page was determined by subtracting the time the participant began looking at webpages on a different content page from the time they be gan looking at the origin al content page. For example, a participant spent 3 minutes looking at social studies pages in Now and Then, spent 7 minutes on pages related to the media in Popular Press, and spent 5 minutes on sites related to literature in Written Word. In this example, the academic time would be 8 minutes (3 + 5 = 8). Finally, to determine if domain or genera l academic interest might have influenced preservice teachersÂ’ choice to become an e ducator, a question was asked regarding why they chose a teaching career (see previous description of Demographic Questionnaire). To summarize, interest was measured in te rms of choice of website domains, mentioning the topic in responding to the scenario, and as a potential reason for choosing a career in education. Pedagogical Judgments Four written pedagogical scenar ios were then distributed to the participants at the end of the 15 minutes spent on the website. Each scenario posed an ill-structured problem necessitating a judgment situated in a clas sroom; each academic domain was represented in a scenario (e.g., social studies, mathematic s, science, literature). Participants were asked to give a written response to all four scenarios (see Appendix A).

PAGE 34

25 I and another researcher, who has a bach elorÂ’s degree in psychology and previous experience with coding, indepe ndently coded participantsÂ’ written responses to all the scenarios on a Likert scale that ranged from 1 ( least characteristic of ) to 5 ( most characteristic of ) on expression of topic interest, co mpetence goal orientation, promotion of autonomy, concern for the students, a nd affective goal orientation. Expression of interest was rated on the basi s of participantsÂ’ mentioning aspects of the topic, for example quoting lines from the poem. Competen ce was rated on the basi s of participantsÂ’ response indicating a desire to improve stude nt understanding or skill. Autonomy was rated on the basis of responses allowing students to think or behave independently as well as giving a rationale for consequences (R eeve et al., 1999). Concern for students and affective goal orientation are potential manife stations of a goal for relatedness. Concern for students was rated on the basis of pa rticipants mentioning and making a judgment based on studentsÂ’ feelings such as cu riosity, boredom, or confusion. Affective orientations were rated on the basis of promoting positive mood in students, for example by joking or distracting students from negativ e emotions. ParticipantsÂ’ responses were generally in the form of a paragraph in wh ich they expressed what they believed the teacher should do in the situation, ofte n putting themselves in the situation. The researchersÂ’ ratings were averaged for each variable yielding a score. In addition, the average score for each characteri stic was also analyzed. For instance, a participant might have a competence orientation of 4.5 in science, 1.5 in social studies, 4 in literature, and 4 in mathematics for an average competence score of 3.5. Here are examples of two responses, ve rbatim, to a scenario in which the teacher is teaching a

PAGE 35

26 lesson on density when a few students begin dropping objects into a fish tank in the classroom. LS: I would ask Suzanne Why do you want to throw your textbook in (rhetorical question). Have a discussion stating that y ou would want to throw something in the tank that would benefit th e fish; not you! The fish cannot read the text book. Note that LS did not address the subjec t matter of density at all, but rather “discussed” the matter of fish tank maintenance. He did not seem to notice or be excited about the students’ testing of density. In addition, by aski ng a rhetorical question, the participant did not seem concerned with wh at the students were thinking at the time. In comparison, the focus of the next re spondent, TLG, is on the subject matter of density. She discussed the problem and allowe d the students to explore density on their own in a more controlled setting as well as test hypotheses. The responses of LS and TLG show clear differences that were reflected in the ratings. TLG: I stop Suzanne for a second and decide to move the lesson to another section of the room where we set up a “float” tank . Rather than using the fish tank we use a big bucket of water and I allow the students to test objects that won’t be ruined if thrown in. We discuss beforehand if they th ink it will float or not and why? From there we discuss what density actually means and how it is measured. (Ie. If something has a density less than 1 it will float) The scores of the two researchers and the average for these two responses were as follows: LS: competence (1,1; 1), autonomy (1,3; 2) , affective (4,4; 4) , concern (1,1; 1), interest (1,1; 1). TLG: competence (5,5; 5), aut onomy (5,5; 5), affective (3,3; 3), concern (5,5; 5), interest (5,5; 5). Procedure After participants read and signed an in formed consent form, they logged onto a website using their student id entification. Participants brow sed the website for 15 minutes and were encouraged to browse at least two content pages. I used a stopwatch to keep track of the 15-minute time allotment. After browsing the website for 15 minutes,

PAGE 36

27 participants logged off of the website and were given a packet including the four scenarios, each on a separate page, and a br ief questionnaire, includi ng a request for their SAT and ACT scores. Participants responded dir ectly on the page and were not restricted by time. When the participants completed th e packet, they were thanked and offered a piece of candy. Analysis ParticipantsÂ’ SAT or ACT scores were used to control for participantsÂ’ ability. The data were analyzed using a partial correla tion; amount of time spent on academic pages was correlated with the general characteristic scores controlling for SAT or ACT scores. In addition, time spent on specific content page s was analyzed with the scores pertaining to the same content, controlling for SAT or ACT scores. For example, time spent on literature pages was correlated with scores on the poetry scenario. With this method, the hypothesis that general interest in academics a nd domain interest signi ficantly influences preservice teachersÂ’ judgments, independe nt of learning abil ity, was examined.

PAGE 37

28 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Reasons for Career Choice Participants described why they chos e a career in edu cation, and several participants gave multiple reasons. The most common responses were a love of children ( n = 31, 55%), making a difference or because the job is important ( n = 24, 43%), and teaching as the only career they had considere d, that they had always wanted to teach ( n = 8, 14%). Two participants described th emselves as enjoying learning (4%). SAT and ACT Scores Participants reported their SAT or ACT scor es if they remembered them or gave me permission to obtain the scores. Most ( n = 50, 87.7%) gave me permission to verify their scores. Participants who remembered th eir scores and allowe d verification reported their scores correctly. All participants either reported scores or allowed me to acquire the scores; therefore data from all participan ts who completed the study were analyzed. These scores were used to control for abilit y. SAT scores were used for 51 participants ( M = 1139.6, SD = 103.17). ACT scores were used for 5 participants ( M = 23.8, SD = 4.27). ACT and SAT scores were standardized by using linear tran sformation based on z scores using the means and standard deviat ions from College Board (2001) and American College Testing (2001). Each participantsÂ’ sc ore was subtracted from the mean of the national pool of students who took the tests in 2001, when most of the participants probably completed the test, then divided by th e standard deviation of the national pool

PAGE 38

29 of students who took the test in 2001. For ex ample, a participant who earned an 1170 on the SAT was given the transcribed sc ore of .67, (1170 1020) / 224 = .67. The transformed scores ranged from -0.54 to 1.98 ( M = .54, SD = .50). General Academic Interest, Domain Interest, and Topic Interest Interest was measured at three levels. Ge neral academic interest was measured by the amount of time spent on all academic pages combined. Domain interest was measured by the amount of time spent on pages within a specific academic domain (i.e., science, mathematics, social studies, and literature). Topic interest was measured by ratings of scenarios, described in the following secti on. The total amount of time possible to view webpages was 15 minutes. The time participants spent on academic pages on the website varied from 0 to 15 minutes. However, the average time spent on academic pages was only a little over one third of the total time ( M = 5.71 minutes, SD = 3.87). Overall, most participants ( n = 52, 92.9%) viewed at least one academic page, but 12 participants (21.4%) viewed all academic pages combin ed for a minute or less. The means and standard deviations for amounts of time spent on each domain page as well as all academic pages combined are presented in Table 4-1. Table 4-1. Means and standard deviations of time (in min) spent on academic pages M SD Social Studies 2.55 2.57 Science 1.37 2.69 Mathematics 0.59 1.36 Literature 1.28 1.65 Academic (combined) 5.71 3.87 Note . Means and standard deviati ons are reported for the total sample of 56; total amount of time to view webpages was 15 minutes.

PAGE 39

30 The time spent on specific domain pages s howed limited variability. Participants spent the least time on the mathematics page and the most time on the social studies pages. Table 4-2 presents the number of pa rticipants who visited each domain page as well as the number of participants who vi sited the domain for more than a minute. Although 54% of participants spent more than a minute on social studies pages ( M = 2.55, SD = 2.57), only 25% of participants spent more than a minute on science related pages ( M = 1.37, SD = 2.69), and 11% spent more than a minute on mathematics pages ( M = .59, SD = 1.36). The variability for time spent on social studies pages, from 0 minutes to 12 minutes, was greater than the variability for time spent on literature and mathematics pages. However this difference ma y be an overestimation of actual interest as many participants viewed the pages in order and the social studies pages were first. In addition, although 32% spent at more than a minute on literature pages ( M = 1.28, SD = 1.65), no participant spent more than 5 minutes on literature pages. In general, participants showed low levels of general academ ic interest and low levels of interest in each of the academic domains, with the possible exception of social studies. Table 4-2. Number of participants who visited each academic domain n n > 1 min Social Studies 46 30 Science 26 14 Mathematics 21 6 Literature 31 18 Academic (combined) 52 44 Note . Total sample size was 56. The amounts of time spent on each academic domain were negatively, though not significantly, correlated with each other. Cons tructing the general academic time variable

PAGE 40

31 from the negatively correlated domain times vi olates the principle that variables should not be constructed from negatively correlate d components. Therefor e, results pertaining to the variable of general academic interest should be interpreted with caution. However, the lack of correlation is not surprising because the amount of time spent on any domain webpage necessarily took away from the possi ble amount of time participants were able to view other domain pages. Participants who viewed any one academic page for over a minute ( M = 2.55, SD = 1.02) chose to view significantly more than one academic webpage, t (41) = 9.86, p = .00 (one-tailed), whereas those who did not view any academic domain page for more than a minute ( M = 1.21, SD = 1.12) did not view significantly more than one academic domain page, t (13) = .72, p = .25 (one-tailed). Pedagogical Judgments The alpha coefficient for reliability betw een the two coders was .83 for all ratings; the alpha coefficient between ratings for each scenario was .87 for science, .79 for social studies, .83 for literature, and .81 for mathema tics. The correlations between ratings for each pedagogical judgment variable were .70 for affective orientation, .78 for autonomy, .80 for concern, .83 for competence, and .83 for t opic interest. Values greater than .70 for consistency estimates are generally consider ed acceptable (Stemler, 2004). However, the alpha coefficients for each pedagogical judgm ent variable were low: .10 for affective orientation, .41 for autonomy, .47 for compet ence, .50 for concern, and .63 for interest, indicating that either the ra tings of the pedagogical judgment variables across scenarios were not consistent or the participantsÂ’ re sponses relative to the pedagogical judgment variables were not consistent . For example, a participantÂ’s response to the science scenario may have been rated high on compet ence, but the same participantÂ’s response to the social studies scenario may have b een rated low on competence. The lack of

PAGE 41

32 consistency among the ratings of the scenar ios for the pedagogical judgment variables suggests lack of internal reliability for the variables created by collapsing judgment ratings across scenarios. Results of analyses of these variables should be interpreted with caution. Most participants showed a low level of competence orientation (69.6% were rated at the midpoint 3 or below, M = 2.65) and topic interest (82.1% were rated at the midpoint 3 or below, M = 2.30). Participants generally scored above the midpoint for promotion of autonomy (60.7% were rated above 3, M = 3.16), concern for the needs of the students in the scenario s (66.1% were rated above 3, M = 3.25), and affective orientation (96.4% we re rated above 3, M = 3.59). Table 4-3 provides the average scores for each pedagogical judgment variable. Patterns of responses emerged for each scenario; a description of the pattern of responses fo r each scenario is pr ovided in Appendix B. Table 4-3. Means and standard deviati ons for pedagogical judgment scores Academic Domain Topic Interest Competence Autonomy Concern Affective Social Studies 2.28 (1.0) 2.46 (.88) 2.73 (1.08) 3.15 (1.25) 3.46 (.61) Science 2.54 (1.20) 2.85 (1.37) 3.18 (1.17) 3.52 (1.50) 3.53 (.68) Mathematics 2.37 (1.22) 2.82 (1.13) 3.32 (.56) 2.78 (1.24) 3.03 (.35) Literature 2.02 (1.01) 2.45 (.91) 3.39 (.65) 3.56 (.81) 4.35 (.67) General 2.30 (.61) 2.65 (.68) 3.16 (.54) 3.25 (.77) 3.59 (.31) Note . Ratings of pedagogical judgments ranged from 1 ( very characteristic of ) to 5 ( not characteristic of ). General Academic Interest and its Relation to Pedagogical Judgments A partial correlation between the time spen t on academic pages and each of the five rated pedagogical judgment variables was cal culated, controlling for SAT or ACT scores. After controlling for SAT or ACT scores, time spent on academic pages was significantly

PAGE 42

33 related to competence ( pr = .31; p < .05), autonomy ( pr =.40, p < .01), and concern ( pr = .31, p < .05). Notably, competence, autonomy, and concern were also significantly related to participants Â’ topic interest in th e subject of the scenario. The amount of time participants spent on the academic sites was not related to topic interest in the scenario subject, which may reflect a difference between domain and topic in terest. None of the variables were related to the participantsÂ’ expression of an affective orientation. Table 44 provides a matrix of the pa rtial correlations among the variables across scenarios. Table 4-4. Partial correlation matrix of general academic interest and pedagogical judgment variables controlling for SAT or ACT scores Academic Time Topic Interest CompetenceAutonomy Concern Affective Academic Time 1.00 Topic Interest .18 1.00 Competence .31* .76** 1.00 Autonomy .40** .65** .69** 1.00 Concern .31* .66** .71** .65** 1.00 Affective -.01 .06 .23 .11 .09 1.00 Note . * p < .05. ** p < .01. Specific Domain Interest and its Relation to Pedagogical Judgments A partial correlation between the time spent on academic pages of each specific domain and each of the five pedagogical j udgment variables was calculated, controlling for SAT or ACT scores. For example, time spent on mathematics pages was related to ratings for the fractions scenario. Notably, th e variance in time spent on literature and mathematics pages was small; the maximum amount of time any participant spent on pages in these domains was 5 minutes on the literature pages and 7 minutes on mathematics pages. Because of the limited vari ability in time spent on these pages, it is not surprising that there were no signifi cant relations found betw een the time spent on

PAGE 43

34 these pages and any of the pedagogical judgmen t variables in either the literature or mathematics scenarios. However, the correl ations between specific domain interest and the pedagogical judgment variables do provide some information about the distinctions between affective orienta tion and the other pedagogical judgment variables. Time spent on social studies pages controlling SAT or ACT scores was significantly related to affective goals ( pr = .27, p = .048). The partial correlations between the amount of time spent viewing social studies pages and the pedagogical judgment variables for the social studies scenario are presented in Table 4-5. Table 4-5. Partial correlation matrix of soci al studies interest a nd pedagogical judgment variables controlling fo r SAT or ACT scores Social Studies Time Topic Interest CompetenceAutonomy Concern Affective Social Studies Time 1.00 Topic Interest .00 1.00 Competence .05 .74** 1.00 Autonomy .21 .36** .35** 1.00 Concern .23 .53** .45** .49** 1.00 Affective .27* .21 .27* .40** .27* 1.00 Note . * p < .05. ** p < .01. The science pages showed the greatest range in time, as one participant spent all 15 minutes viewing science pages and 30 sp ent no time viewing the science pages. However, the average amount of time spen t on science pages was only 1.34 minutes, possibly limiting the extent th at relations between the am ount of time spent viewing science pages and ratings of the participantsÂ’ pedagogical judgments could be found. Table 4-6 presents the partia l correlations found between the time spent viewing science webpages and pedagogical judgment variables for the science scenario. The amount of

PAGE 44

35 time spent viewing science pages was not sign ificantly related to any of the pedagogical judgment variables for th e science scenario. However, when SAT or ACT was not cont rolled, the amount of time spent viewing science pages was significantly related to pedagogical judgment variables for the mathematics scenario, specifica lly competence orientation ( r = .26, p = .05) and affective orientation ( r = .27, p = .04). These were the only si gnificant correlations across domains, but correlations were sometimes stronger acro ss domains than with in the domain. This finding is contrary to the hypothe sis that time spent viewing pages in a domain would be related to pedagogical judgments to scenarios in the same domain indicating there may be a validity concern with the measure of domain interest or that the academic domains may share variance not accounted for in this model. Table 4-6. Partial correlation matrix of science interest and pedagogical judgment variables controlling fo r SAT or ACT scores Science Time Topic Interest CompetenceAutonomy Concern Affective Science Time 1.00 Topic Interest .26 1.00 Competence .26 .90** 1.00 Autonomy .03 .61** .57** 1.00 Concern .13 .70** .71** .82** 1.00 Affective .21 .29* .29* .26 .33* 1.00 Note . * p < .05. ** p < .01. For the literature scenario, affective orientation was negatively related to competence ( pr = -.30, p = .028); whereas competence, in terest, autonomy, and concern were all positively related to each other. The partial correlations re lated to the domain of literature are presented in Table 4-7.

PAGE 45

36 Table 4-7. Partial correlation matrix of literature interest and pedagogical judgment variables controlling fo r SAT or ACT scores Literature Time Topic Interest CompetenceAutonomy Concern Affective Literature Time 1.00 Topic Interest -.06 1.00 Competence -.12 .45** 1.00 Autonomy -.15 .17 .36** 1.00 Concern -.18 .33* .67** .52** 1.00 Affective .16 -.10 -.30* -.07 -.26 1.00 Note . * p < .05. ** p < .01. For the mathematics scenario, competence was positively correlated with topic interest, autonomy, and concern, but negativ ely correlated with affective orientation. Concern was also positively correlated with topic interest and autonomy. The partial correlations related to the domain of mathematics are presented in Table 4-8. Table 4-8. Partial correlation matrix of ma thematics interest and pedagogical judgment variables controlling fo r SAT or ACT scores Mathematics Time Topic Interest CompetenceAutonomy Concern Affective Mathematics Time 1.00 Topic Interest .14 1.00 Competence .08 .43** 1.00 Autonomy .03 .33* .31* 1.00 Concern -.01 .34* .76** .46** 1.00 Affective -.15 .28* .45** .23 .38** 1.00 Note . * p < .05. ** p < .01. The time spent on domain pages is often more positively correlated with the pedagogical ratings across scenarios than for the responses to the scenario of the same domain. The amount of time spent on science pages was more strongly correlated with

PAGE 46

37 the ratings of the responses to the mathem atics scenario than the time spent on the mathematics pages, specifically for the ra tings of competence, autonomy, concern, and affective orientation in the mathematics scenar io. Social studies time was more positively correlated with the ratings for concern in the science, literature, and mathematics scenarios than time spent on pages of the respective domains. Social studies time was more positively correlated with the rating fo r autonomy in the literature scenario than time spent on literature pages. Time spent on literature pages was more positively correlated with competence for the mathematic s and social studies scenarios than time spent on the respective webpages. Finally, ma thematics was more positively correlated with autonomy ratings for the science and literature scenarios than for the time spent on the respective webpages. In sum, domain interest was not related to the ratings of pedagogical judgments in any domain except social studies, and in th at case the only significant correlation was between time on social studies and affectiv e goal orientation. Furthermore, examination of the pattern of zero correl ations among the variables (see Appendix C) reveals that in several instances correlations are stronge r between variables across domains than between domains. For example, the correlati on between science time and math autonomy ( r = .20) was higher than between math time and math autonomy ( r = .03). This pattern of results is contrary to the hypothesis that time spent viewing pages in a domain is related to pedagogical judgment s to scenarios in the same domain and raises questions about the validity of the time measures w ithin domains and the specific pedagogical judgment variables.

PAGE 47

38 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to examine preservice teachersÂ’ academic interests and the relation between these interests and the quality of their pedagogical judgments. To summarize the results, regarding their re asons for choosing a car eer in education, no participant indicated interest in multiple a cademic domains or even a single academic domain. In addition, preservice teachers varied in their interest in academic domains as measured by their choices in time spent viewing academic and nonacademic webpages and in their pedagogical judgments regardi ng the promotion of st udentsÂ’ psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness as measured by their responses to teaching scenarios. The average amount of time spent viewing academic related webpages was 5.71 minutes out of 15 minutes, i ndicating that particip ants spent almost twice as much time on non-academic pages. This finding suggests that most of the prospective teachers in this study may be less interested in academic domains than they are in topics such as sports, me dia, romance, and household tips. Based on findings that interest influences factors necessary for making judgments, namely attention (McDaniel et al., 2000) and ability to develop possibilities for action (Renninger, 1992), a hypothesis of this study was that preservice teachersÂ’ interests predict their pedagogical of support for studentsÂ’ psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Interest was expl ored at three levels within this study: (a) topic interest was measured by participantsÂ’ responses to a specific topic and the extent they described the topic (e.g., density in a scenario about a scie nce lesson), (b) domain

PAGE 48

39 interest was measured by the number of minutes participants viewed webpages within an academic domain, and (c) participantsÂ’ time on all academic pages combined was used as a measure of a general interest in academics. Th e results of this study will be discussed in terms of those three levels. First, with regard to topic interest, partic ipantsÂ’ interest in the scenario topic is related to their support for autonomy, competence, and concern, a potential manifestation of relatedness. This finding s uggests that topic interest is a factor in predicting preservice teachersÂ’ judgments as they pertain to peda gogical scenarios; however the finding is not conclusive because both coders were aware of the hypothesis that interest is related to the quality of pedagogical judgments. Second, with regard to domain interest, out of 20 correlations, only one significant relationship was found between the amount of time spent view ing the specific subject matter domains and the ratings of pedagogi cal judgments for the respective domain scenarios. The lack of significant correlations may be due to the lack of variability in viewing time for the webpages, but the pa ttern of significant correlations showing stronger relations betw een variables across domains than between domains, such as the higher correlation between scie nce time and math autonomy ( r = .20) than between math time and math autonomy ( r = .03), suggests that limited va riability does no t completely account for the lack of relationships within dom ains. This pattern of correlations raises questions about the validity of the measures of domain-specific academic interest and the ratings of pedagogical judgments. Participants may have chosen to view non-academic pages for reasons other than lack of intere st, such as the layout of the template or personal events in their lives such as we dding plans. To address the question of the

PAGE 49

40 validity of the measures, future studies should investigate a variety of aspects about these measures, including providing more time for partic ipants to interact w ith topics or objects of interest. Third, based on DeweyÂ’s (1913) definition of interest as object specific, research on interest is often limited to either topic interest or domain interest. However, the variability in the amount of time spent on all academic pages combined suggests that interest may be more broadly conceived: Par ticipants varied in terms of their general interest in academics, in addition to do main and topic interest. Although webpages had information on specific topics, reflecting intere st as object specific , the amount of time on all academic pages combined is a significant predictor of participantsÂ’ judgments. This finding suggests that there is a common fact or in viewing any academic page. Although individuals may have varying interests in sp ecific topics on the we bpages, the amount of time individuals view academic pages reflects an interest in academics in general. The findings of this study support the hypothesis that the more inte rested the teachers are in academics, the more likely it is that th eir pedagogical judgments will promote competence and autonomy, and show concern fo r studentsÂ’ needs. However, constraining the time that participants could spend on the website meant that the longer they spent on one subject reduced the amount of time that they could spend on another website. This aspect of the measurement of general academic interest resulted in negative correlations among the specific domain measures of intere st. The appropriatene ss of constructing a measure from negatively correlated compone nts is questionable. As a result the significant relationships between general academic time and the pedagogical ratings should be considered suggestive rather than conclusive.

PAGE 50

41 In addition to finding support for the hypot hesized relation betw een interest and quality of pedagogical judgments, the results may have theoretical significance for selfdetermination theory. First, the results of th is study may have imp lications for Deci and Ryan’s (2000) conception of psychological needs. In this study, relatedness was measured in terms of preservice teachers’ a ffective goal orientation and their concern for students. In his study, Prawat (1985) found that many elem entary teachers are more concerned with students’ affect than students’ mastery of a to pic; an explanation for this finding is that some teachers may hold aff ective goals to support students’ needs for relatedness. I found evidence for this appro ach to supporting rela tedness in preservice teachers’ reactions to the teaching scenarios. They expressed affective goal orientations by distracting students from negative feelings, effusive praise, and a focus on making the class environment more “fun.” Teachers’ concer n for students’ needs offers an alternative representation of relatedness in the classroom. In my study evidence of this type of support for relatedness occurred when preservice teachers expressed concern by focusing on the students’ feelings or goa ls specific to the scenario: In the science scenario the students wanted to experiment; in the social studies scenario the student says she is bored; in the literature scenario the student asks for feedback; in the mathematics scenario the explanation will cause later conf usion. In sum, I obtained clear evidence for two approaches to the meas urement of relatedness. The second implication in this study for the conception of psychological needs relates to Deci and Ryan’s (2000) claim th at competence, autonomy, and relatedness are prominent psychological needs that are interrel ated. In this study, competence, autonomy, and concern are highly interrelated, sugge sting that preservice teachers who hold

PAGE 51

42 competence goals for their students are also more likely to suppor t autonomy and show concern for their studentsÂ’ needs. Howeve r, the general measure of affective goal orientation is not related to the general m easures of competence, autonomy, or concern. The significant correlations between c oncern and competence and autonomy support Deci and RyanÂ’s (2000) contention that the constructs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness are interrelated. These correla tions suggest that teachersÂ’ concern for studentsÂ’ thought is more related to their fo cus on competence and autonomy than is an affective orientation such as focusing inst ruction on praising student s to increase positive affect. However, although affec tive orientation is not significantly related to the general measures of the other peda gogical variables, for the specific domains, affective orientation is significantly re lated to the other pedagogical va riables in 8 out of the 12 correlations. This finding occurs in spite of the limited variability of the affective orientation variable. It should be noted, though, that for litera ture the relationships among affective orientation and the other pedagogi cal variables are nega tive. To extend the theory of self-determination, future resear chers should create multiple scenarios that allow for greater variability and then compare psychological outcomes of teachersÂ’ judgments that evidence an affective goal or ientation versus a con cern for student needs to verify the lack of relationships of general affective orientation and the other pedagogical variables and to de termine whether affective orie ntation in specific domains is consistently less related to the other pedagogical variables. Further, researchers should explore the possibility that, in literature, affective orient ation may hinder the promotion of the psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness, as measured by concern for students.

PAGE 52

43 Because the pedagogical judgments were s ubjectively analyzed and both coders were aware of the hypothesis, the correlations among peda gogical judgment variables may be inflated. In addition, the internal consistency of the pedagogical judgment variables between scenarios was low, suggesting that either th e coders were inconsistent in their ratings of participants’ responses or that the quality of preservice teachers’ pedagogical judgments are dependent on the topic, domain, or scenario. A potential strategy to address this limitati on would be for all scenarios to be situated in the same domain or for all scenarios to describe a si milar type of problem, for example all of the problems could deal with student s’ behavior or with evalua ting and increasing students’ understanding of a concept. Future studies should include the development of more sensitive and valid measures of teachers’ and prospective t eachers’ goals in responding to classroom situations. Methodologically, this has proven difficult because stimulated recall about a past teaching incident often is distorted by current knowledge (Yinger, 1983). In the present study, preservice teachers were pr ovided pedagogical scenarios that required them to make a decision in the moment, much as they would in the classroom. However, because the participants were not constrai ned by time, the decisions could reflect participants’ best solution. A key factor in presenting the scenarios is that they provide enough information about the topic because inte rest in the topic is highly related to participants’ expression of goals for incr easing student competence, autonomy, and understanding student’s concerns. Although most of the scenarios in the present study are situated in terms of the topic, the lesson in the social studies scenario is abstractly described as a “geography” lesson. A qualitative analysis of the responses revealed that

PAGE 53

44 participantsÂ’ responses were generally more ambiguous to this scenario than the other scenarios that had more descri ption of the lesson. Participan ts were unable to discern an actual problem in the lesson because they were only provided information on a studentÂ’s response to the lesson. In the future, resear chers who use pedagogical scenarios to assess teachersÂ’ judgments should be aware of the n eed to situate the scenario in a specific topic: the more ambiguous the scenario, the less participants ar e able to make an informed judgment and reveal their goals. Developing scenario s that are situated, rather than abstract, will lead to great er variability of responses and accuracy in identification of participantsÂ’ goals. The present study provided a new measure for interest that used choice and interaction time to measure inte rest. Participants revealed th eir interests by choosing and viewing webpages. Web sites provide a wide ra nge of information on specific topics that can be collapsed to form broader, domain cat egories. However, researchers who use this methodology in the future should be wary of how the domain categories on the template are laid out. The web site used in this study presented a list format that often led to participantsÂ’ browsing domains in order. Ra ndomizing the topic order for each participant or using a different template (e.g., using icons without numbers in a circular layout), as well as increasing browsing time, would increas e variability and accura cy in participantsÂ’ viewing time within domains. Although partic ipants often began br owsing with the first domain, the amount of time they spent in dom ains and the subsequent order of domain browsing varied suggesting that most of the participantsÂ’ web browsing was directed by interest. Therefore, the measure reflects the de fining facets of interest, specifically choice and time spent with topic, but also allows fo r researchers to group participants by similar

PAGE 54

45 interests based on domain categories. Howeve r, creating a general academic variable by adding time spent viewing the different domai n pages poses a statistical problem because the amounts of time spent on each domain were negatively correlated, indicating that the general academic variable may not be internally reliable. The lack of positive correlations between time spent on the four different domai ns is due to the vari ables not being based on scales but on viewing time within a limited amount of time. Participants who viewed any academic page for more than a minute were more likely to view multiple pages than those who did not view any academic page fo r more than a minute. Choosing to view multiple academic webpages supports the constr uct of the variable of general academic interest. Therefore, the findings suggest but are not conclusive that time spent viewing academic webpages reflects preservice teachers Â’ interest in academ ics and that this interest is related to the quali ty of their pedagogical judgments. Teachers must make judgments in situations that are context specific and allow for a variety of responses without a simple so lution known to meet th eir goals. However, because people automatically attend informati on relevant to their interests, teachersÂ’ interests act as filters for determining what the problem is and developing courses of action. The preservice teachers who spent mo re time viewing academic webpages also responded to pedagogical scenarios in ways that were more competence oriented, autonomy promoting, and concerned with st udent needs relative to the preservice teachers who spent less time viewing academic webpages. Unfortunately, the average amount of time preservice teachers spent viewing academic webpages was approximately one third the total amount of time available to browse the webpages. In addition, none of the participants mentioned an affinity for acad emics in general or in a particular domain

PAGE 55

46 as a reason for pursuing a teaching career. Theref ore, although an interest in academics is intuitively relevant to a career in teaching and would facilitate problem solving that promotes studentsÂ’ needs for competence, au tonomy, and relatedness, an interest in academics is not at the forefront of many pr eservice teachersÂ’ desire for a career in education.

PAGE 56

47 APPENDIX A PEDAGOGICAL SCENARIOS Domain: Science; Topic: Density Currently, you are teaching a lesson on density. You are reading about it with your class and asking them questions regarding which objec ts they think may be more dense. Out of the corner of your eye, you s ee Darryl toss a small rock that he'd had in his pocket into the fish tank. Suddenly other students are thro wing small things from their pockets and desks into the fish tank. Suzanne is getti ng ready to dump her text book in! How do you respond to this situation? Domain: Social Studies; Topic: Geography You are walking around the classroom ma king sure students understand and are completing their geography assignment when you notice that Jane is staring out the window, her geography assignment barely touched. "Hi, Jane. What's the matter?" "Nothing, I don't want to do my work." "Why not?" "It's boring. I don't like it." Though some students giggle, most of the students continue working. You wonder what other students th ink about the assignment, so you turn to Brian nearby. "Brian, do you like the assignment?" "Oh, sure, it's easy. I didn’t like yesterday’ s assignment because it was hard and I only got a C." You nod and turn back to Jane, what do you do to motivate her? Domain: Language Arts; Topic: Poetry A teacher of an 8th grade ‘gifted’ enrichment class is interested in students learning to be poetically expressive. S/he a ssigns them the task of com posing a free verse poem. A 13year-old male submits the following: When the wild west winds are blowing The tall trees will tremble. When heavy rains fall from the skies And a torrential downpour hits the earth, When the tall trees are struck with lightning And whole forests catch on fire, That is when we feel nature at its greatest. After reading it, the student asks, ‘Do you lik e it? Is it good?’ Ho w ought the teacher to respond?

PAGE 57

48 Domain: Mathematics; Topic: Fractions Ms. Carpo is teaching her class about fract ions and determining which fractions are greater or less than others. She explains that if the top numbe r or "numerator" is the same then which ever has the larger bottom number or "denominator" is smaller. She gives her students many examples, 1/10 is less than 1/6; 2/4 is less than 2/3; 4/100000 is less than 4/10. She also gives examples of the reverse1/4 is greater than 1/7 etc. She then gives her students time to practice. Ms. Carpo then gives her students a quiz to determine the extent to which they understood the lesson; she gives them a list of paired fractions, the students must circle the number which is gr eater. All the students earn above 90%. She plans to teach them next how to compar e fractions whose numerators are different. Evaluate Ms. Carpo's instruction of fractions . What are the strengths and weaknesses of this instruction? How could it be improved? Likert Rating Scale for Vignettes 1. Very uncharacteristic of 2. Somewhat uncharacteristic of 3. Neither characteristic nor uncharacteristic 4. Somewhat characteristic of 5. Very characteristic of To what extent does the respons e show characteristics ofÂ… an affective goal orientation? 1 2 3 4 5 a competence goal orientation? 1 2 3 4 5 promotion of autonomy in students? 1 2 3 4 5 interest in the subject matter? 1 2 3 4 5 concern for the students? 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 58

49 APPENDIX B QUALITATIVE DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSE PATTERNS The science scenario tended to yield two types of responses: E ither the participant recognized the opportunity to engage the cla ss in active experimentation with density (using buckets), or the participant focused on the behavior problems and used punishment, directives, or discussion to focu s students’ attention to rules and expected classroom behavior. Responses that focused on creating a density activity were generally rated high in competence goal orientation, autonomy promotion, topic interest, and concern for students’ needs. Responses th at focused on understanding density showed some variation in autonomy promotion. Some participants reporte d that the teacher should demonstrate density principles; other pa rticipants’ responses allowed the students to experiment with objects of different dens ities. Participants w ho asked students about their feelings or made jokes to assuage th e situation were rate d high on affective goal orientation. Regarding the social studies scenario, many participants recognized that the geography task was probably boring, and eith er considered creating a new activity or asked the student for suggestions. However, other participants suggested controlling methods to encourage task completion such as the use of rewards or threat of punishment. Some participants responded th at the student probably had pr oblems either related to the task or related to more personal issues and then dealt with the problem of helping the student rather than motivating the student. Responses varied on the type of help or activity provided, which yielded di fferences in the competence rating. When responding to the literature scenario, pa rticipants tended to view poetry as something very personal, and therefore should be lauded and tended to avoid any form of critique. MIR wrote, “I will always tell my students that they have done well when it comes to writing. They are expressing themselv es as creative writers and I would never knock them down…” However, participants who explicitly mentioned stylistic components of the poem, for example the imag ery or alliteration, were given relatively high ratings for competence (some conceptual su ggestions had to be made for the highest rating). Responses that did not indicate if the participant read the poem were given low interest ratings. Participants who seemed to consider the st udent’s solicitation of evaluation were given high ratings for concern, whereas responses that praised exuberantly with no apparent reference were given low ratings for concern, but had high ratings for affective goal orient ation. A few participants expr essed concern that the poem was too negative; these responses were give n low autonomy ratings versus those that allowed expression of thought and feelings. In their responses to the mathematics scen ario, most participants did not recognize that the fraction lesson and the assessment give n to the students were very superficial and would lead to confusion about fractions. Howe ver, most participants did respond that the lesson could be improved by allowing students to manipulate pieces of a whole that could represent fractions. For example, almost all pa rticipants suggested an activity using pizza.

PAGE 59

50 This finding suggests that most preservi ce teachers have a limited understanding of fractions and are able to conceptualize concre te examples of fractions in very limited ways.

PAGE 60

51 APPENDIX C ZERO-ORDER CORRELATION MATRIX Table C-1. Zero-order correlation matr ix pedagogical judgment variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. SAT, ACT 1.00 2. Academic Time .06 1.00 3. Science Time -.01 .54** 1.00 4. Social Studies Time .12 .59** -.08 1.00 5. Literature Time .02 .30** -.17 -.05 1.00 6. Math Time -.04 .31** -.08 -.01 .08 1.00 7. Topic Interest .19 .20 .10 .10 .06 .09 1.00 8. Science Interest .35** .27** .24 .20 -.17 .13 .68** 1.00 9. Social Studies Interest .05 .09 -.02 .01 .20 .01 .75** .31* 1.00 10. Literature Interest -.01 -.10 -.06 -.02 -.06 -.06 .56** .18 .27* 1.00 11. Math Interest .10 .24 .09 .06 .21 .14 .76** .32* .53** .18 12. Competence .19 .32** .28* .13 -.01 .11 .77** .65** .53** .38** 13. Science Competence .33** .29** .24 .25 -.18 .09 .61** .91** .23 .17 14. Social Studies Competence .01 .16 .08 .05 .14 .02 .56** .22 .74** .27* 15. Literature Competence .12 .04 .07 .02 -.11 .05 .44** .27* .20 .44** 16. Math Competence -.05 .25 .26* -.06 .18 .09 .33** .07 .27* .14 17. Autonomy .16 .28* .12 .26* -.04 .13 .55** .61** .33** .21 18. Science Autonomy .11 .15 .02 .08 .07 .14 .39** .61** .07 .20 19. Social Studies Autonomy .17 .20 .09 .22 -.03 .00 .37** .32* .36** .11

PAGE 61

52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20. Literature Autonomy .04 .15 .04 .22 -.15 .14 .25 .21 .15 .17 21. Math Autonomy .00 .23 .20 .18 -.07 .03 .31* .23 .28* -.01 22. Concern .09 .36** .13 .32* .04 .12 .60** .54** .45** .27* 23. Science Concern .17 .30* .13 .22 .04 .12 .43** .70** .10 .09 24. Social Studies Concern -.01 .29* .07 .23 .10 .10 .47** .26* .53** .24 25. Literature Concern .04 .00 -.14 .20 -.18 .10 .29* .18 .16 .33** 26. Math Concern .01 .25 .18 .16 .06 -.01 .33** .11 .36** .10 27. Affective -.07 .16 .25 .06 -.04 -.11 .27* .16 .23 .18 28. Science Affective -.16 .08 .21 -.05 -.09 .01 .21 .22 .13 .08 29. Social Studies Affective -.06 .15 .04 .26* -.10 -.04 .30* .21 .21 .31* 30. Literature Affective .10 .08 .08 .00 .16 -.10 -.13 -.14 -.06 -.10 31. Math Affective -.03 -.01 .27* -.15 -.11 -.15 .27* .04 .32 .13 Note . * p < .05. ** p < .01.

PAGE 62

53 Table C-1 (continued) . Zero-order correlation matrix of pedagogical judgment variables 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11. Math Interest 1.00 12. Competence .54** 1.00 13. Science Competence .30* .70** 1.00 14. Social Studies Competence .35** .61** .22 1.00 15. Literature Competence .30* .58** .25 .19 1.00 16. Math Competence .43** .60** .10 .27* .15 1.00 17. Autonomy .33** .62** .52** .33** .34** .33** 1.00 18. Science Autonomy .15 .45** .58** .07 .26* .13 .70** 1.00 19. Social Studies Autonomy .22 .35** .20 .35** .06 .29* .64** .10 1.00 20. Literature Autonomy .15 .30* .20 .07 .37** .14 .55** .14 .22 1.00 21. Math Autonomy .33** .43** .22 .36** .23 .31* .53** .29* .09 .25 22. Concern .39** .72** .51** .35** .37** .52** .76** .59** 42** .36** 23. Science Concern .22 .54** .71** .08 .23 .17 .65** .82** .17 .11 24. Social Studies Concern .28* .43** .20 .45** .16 .31* .44** .15 .48** .22 25. Literature Concern .13 .34** .15 .05 .67** .05 .43** .24 .20 .52** 26. Math Concern .34** .50** .12 .30* .06 .76** .38** .17 .22 .20 27. Affective .17 .40** .15 .37** .02 .49** .37** .13 .43** .05 28. Science Affective .14 .38** .22 .19 .19 .35** .023 .24 .12 -.13 29. Social Studies Affective .10 .32* .20 .27* .14 .20 .49** .21 .38** .32** 30. Literature Affective -.06 -.11 -.17 .04 -.28* .12 -.01 -.10 .25 -.07 31. Math Affective .28* .35** .07 .40** -.01 .45** .03 -.17 .13 -.01 Note . * p < .05. ** p < .01.

PAGE 63

54 Table C-1 (continued) . Zero-order correlation matrix of pedagogical judgment variables 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 21. Math Autonomy 1.00 22. Concern .48** 1.00 23. Science Concern .35** .66** 1.00 24. Social Studies Concern .20 .70** .18 1.00 25. Literature Concern .18 .55** .20 .32* 1.00 26. Math Concern .46** .63** .13 .32* .16 1.00 27. Affective .27* .35** .18 .24 .04 .39** 1.00 28. Science Affective .34** .31* .29* .10 .09 .26* .55** 1.00 29. Social Studies Affective .33** .43** .27* .27* .32** .26* .61** .10 1.00 30. Literature Affective -.25 -.11 -.14 .05 -.26 .01 .53** -.16 .12 1.00 31. Math Affective .23 .09 -.13 .07 -.12 .38** .37** .11 -.02 .06 Note . * p < .05. ** p < .01.

PAGE 64

55 REFERENCES Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Ber ndorff, D. (2002). Interest, l earning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94 (3), 545-561. American College Testing. (2001). 2001 nationa l and state scores. Retrieved (June 21, 2005) from American College Testing database: http://www.act.org/newsdata/01/t1.html Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (3), 261-271. Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but rele vance is excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing t eacher behaviours predicting students’ engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Ed ucational Psychology, 72 , 261278. Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. (1995). The n eed to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117 (3), 497-529. College Board (2001). 2001 national and stat e scores. Retrieved (June 21, 2005) from College Board database: http://www.collegeboard.com/sat/cbsenior/yr2001/pdf/NATL.pdf Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2000). The "what" a nd "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11 (4), 227-268. Deci, E., Schwartz, A., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. (1981). An instrument to assess adults’ orientations toward control versus autono my with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 642-650. Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Boston: Riverside Press. Dweck, C. (1999, Spring). Caution—Praise can be dangerous. American Educator, 23 (1), 1-5. Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of re latedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 , 148-162.

PAGE 65

56 Grant, H., & Dweck, C. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (3), 541-553. Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a me ntal resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60 , 549-571. Kosir, K. (2005). The influence of teachersÂ’ classroom management style on pupilsÂ’ selfregulative behavior. Studia Psychologica, 47 (2), 119-144. Krapp, A. (2002). Structural and dynamic asp ects of interest development: Theoretical considerations from an ontogenetic perspective. Learning and Instruction, 12 , 383409. Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. (1992). Interest, learning, and development. In K. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 3-25) . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Maier, N., & Casselman, G. (1970). The SAT as a measure of problem-solving in males and females. Psychological Reports, 26 (3), 927-939 . McDaniel, M., Waddill, P., & Finstad, K. (2000) . The effects of text-based interest on attention and recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (3), 492-502. Prawat, R. (1985). Affective versus cognitive goal orientations in elementary teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 22 , 587-604. Reeve, J., Bolt, E., & Cai, Y. (1999). Autonomy-supportive teachers: How they teach and motivate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (3), 537-548. Renninger, K. (1992). Individual interest and development: Im plications for theory and practice. In K. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 361-395). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Schiefele, U. (1991). Intere st, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26 (3 & 4), 299-323. Shavelson, R. (1983). Review of research on te achersÂ’ pedagogical j udgments, plans, and decisions. Elementary School Journal, 83 (4), 392-413. Stemler, S. (2004). A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation , 9(4). Retrieved June 5, 2006 from http://PAREonline.ne t/getvn.asp?v=9&n=4. Warfield, J., Wood, T., & Lehman, J. (2005) . Autonomy, beliefs and the learning of elementary mathematics teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 439-456.

PAGE 66

57 Wood, P. (1983). Inquiring systems and problem structure: Implications for cognitive development. Human Development, 26 , 249-265. Yinger, R. (1986). Examining thought in action: A theoretical and methodological critique of research on interactive teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2 (3), 263-282.

PAGE 67

58 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kathryn Parr was born and raised in Miam i, Florida. She attended New College of Florida for her undergraduate degree, majo ring in psychology. She currently lives in Gainesville, Florida, with her two dogs, A rrow and Rivet. She hopes to continue her education at the University of Florida to earn a doctorate in ed ucational psychology. If the reader wishes to contact her, please email her at kate.parr@gmail.com .