ERIC ED355637: School Leader as Motivator. Occasional Papers: School Leadership and Education Reform, OP#9.

32 Pages·1992·0.5 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 355 637
EA 024 737
AUTHOR
Maehr, Martin L.; And Others
TITLE
School Leader as Motivator. Occasional Papers: School
Leadership and Education Reform, OW.
INSTITUTION
National Center for School Leadership, Urbana, IL.
SPONS AGENCY
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),
Washington, DC.
PUB DATE
92
CONTRACT
R117C80003; RT15A0030
NOTE
32p.
AVAILABLE FROM
National Center for School Leadership, University of
Illinois/Urbana-Champaign, 1208 W. Springfield,
Urbana, IL 61801 ($4).
PUB TYPE
Information Analyses (070)
Viewpoints
(Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.)
(120)
EDRS PRICE
MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS
Academic Achievement; *Administrator Effectiveness;
Administrator Role; Educational Change; *Educational
Environment; Elementary Education; Elementary
Schools; Intermediate Grades; Junior High Schools;
Leadership Qualities; Leadership Styles; Middle
Schools; *Motivation Techniques; School Attitudes;
*Student Motivation
ABSTRACT
This paper focuses on the role of the school leader
as motivator. In particular, attention is given to what those in
school leadership roles can do to enhance the personal investment of
students in learning. A conceptual model is outlined which suggests
that school leaders affect not only the degree, but also the quality
of student motivation by influencing the "psychological environment"
of the school. A program of research is described that explicates
that relationship and demonstrates the validity and utility of the
model. Special attention is given to the definition of "psychological
environment" and to specifying its antecedents and consequences.
Field studies at both the elementary and middle school levels are
described to illustrate how leaders can work on the school
environment in a way that will influence student motivation. Building
especially on the preliminary results of these field studies,
specific implications for practice are discussed. (Contains 69
references.) (Author)
***********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
***********************************************************************
a
c Occasional Papers:
Reform
School Leadership and Education
OP #9
School Leader As Motivator
by Martin L. Maehr, Carol Midgley, and
Timothy Urdan
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
ED CATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
This document has been reproduced as
received from the person Or organization
originating it.
0 Minor changes have been made to improve
reproduction quality
Points of view or opinions stated in this docu-
official
ment do not necessarily represent
OERI position or policy
Leadership
National Center for School
z'
;EST COPY AVAILABLE
SCHOOL LEADER AS MOTIVATOR
Martin L. Maehr
Carol Midgley
Timothy Urdan
University of Michigan
in part
The writing of this paper and the authors' research reports therein were
supported by grants from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement
The authors are indebted to many colleagues,
(RT15A0030, R117C80003).
including particularly, Carol Ames.
Abstract
This paper focuses on the role of the school leader as motivator. In particular, attention
is given to what those in school leadership roles can do to enhance the personal
investment of students in learning. A conceptual model is outlined which suggests that
school leaders affect not only the degree, but also the quality of student motivation by
influencing the "psychological environment" of the school. A program of research is
described that explicates that relationship and demonstrates the validity and utility of the
model. Special attention is given to the definition of "psychological environment" and to
Field studies at both the elementary and
specifying its antecedents and consequences.
middle school levels are described to illustrate how leaders can work on the school
environment in a way that will influence student motivation. Building especially on the
preliminary results of these field studies, specific implications for practice are discussed.
4-;
School Leader as Motivator)
by
Martin L. Maehr, Carol Midgley, and Timothy Urdan
There are daily calls for reform, renewal, or
These are turbulent times fur schools.
restructuring (e.g., Cuban, 1990). There are regular reports on how the calls are being
There are fears that today's answers may be
answered or ignored (e.g., Chira, 1991).
is a tendency to
tomorrow failures (Sarason, 1990). And, as is so often the case, there
place these problems at the feet of Cie leaders with a succinct demand:
DO
SOMETHING!
But what can a leader do? Our answer is simple and direct: The leader can motivate. For
best efforts of all those concerned; the "bottom
a school to be effective, it must elicit the
roles (cf.
line" is the investment of children in learning. While school leaders play multiple
Sergiovanni, 1990), none is more critical than the one that is the subject of this article:
As self-evidently important as the
School Leader as Motivator (cf. Gardner, 1990).
leadership-motivation connection may be, there has been surprisingly little systematic
Generally speaking, the literature reflects a
study of how leaders can elicit motivation.
of leaders than on how
greater interest in motives, beliefs, and personal predilections
1982).
leaders can enhance the motivation of followers (e.g., McClelland & Boyatzis,
motivation and
Indeed, it is interesting and curious that to this point the literatures on
A notable
leadership have for, all practical purposes, gone their own and separate ways.
Sergiovanni focuses
exception is to be found in the work of Sergiovanni (1990), but
this translates into
primarily on the motivation of school staff and only indirectly on how
student motivation and learning.
motivation are more than
This article is based on the assumption that leadership and
Indeed, we will argue that school leaders play an important role in
incidentally related.
will describe a
determining the personal investment of students. More than argue, we
play this role.
program of research that demonstrates how they can
1This report appears in a special issue, Educational Administration Quarterly, Volume 18, No. 3, August
1992.
School Leader as Motivator
2
A PERSPECTIVE ON LEADERSHIP
Our program of research leads to the proposal that school leaders can and do impact
student motivation by influencing the learning environment of the school. While others
(e.g., Deal & Peterson, 1990; Hal linger, Bickman & Davis, 1990; Heck, Larsen &
Marcoulides, 1990) have noted the effects that school leaders can have on the climate or
culture of the school, and to some extent, on student outcomes, our proposal takes a
specific form and is complemented by operational detail. Building on organizational (e.g.,
Kilmann, Saxton, Serpa and Associates, 1985; Schein, 1985) and motivational (e.g., Ames
& Ames, 1989; Maehr & Pintrich, 1991; Pervin, 1989) theory we suggest that leaders
motivate students by influencing a critical facet of school climate or culture: the definition
of the purposes and goals of learning. To call attention to this distinction we use the term
"psychological environment of the school." In this article we will not only describe a set
of relationships which have basis in research (cf. figure 1), but present preliminary findings
regarding how leaders can and do affect the psychological environment by inaugurating,
supporting, and maintaining certa;n school-wide policies, practices, and procedures. Their
action or inaction inevitably determines how students will define the purpose of what
happens in the course of a school day, year, or lifetime. The effects likely reach beyond
school experience to determine enduring meanings of learning.
Figure 1: Leadership--->Psychological Environment--->Motivation
Goals and Purposes
Recently, research on motivation and school achievement has concentrated especially on
student investment
the role of purposes and goals in determining the. nature and degree of
Cobb,
in learning (Ames & Ames, 1989; Dweck, 1985; Maehr & Pintrich, 1991; Nicholls,
1989; Pervin,
Wood, Yackel, & Patashnick, 1990; Nicholls, Cheung, Lauer, & Patashnick,
"task-
goals:
1989). This work has revolved especially around two contrasting types of
Given an ability focus, children will be concerned with
focused" and "ability-focused."
evidenced by
being judged able (or avoiding being judged not able), with ability being
In contrast,
outperforming others, or by achieving success even when the task is easy.
insight, or skill; to
with a task focus, the goal of learning is to gain understanding,
Learning in and of itself is valued, and the
accomplish something that is challenging.
attainment of mastery is seen as dependent upon one's effort.
School Leader as Motivator
3
Whether children are oriented primarily to one goal or the other has dramatic
willingness to try hard
consequences for whether they develop a sense of efficacy and a
and take on challenges, or whether they avoid challenging tasks, giving up when faced
with failure (Ames, 1984; Elliott & Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Maehr, 1989; Nicholls,
1984). Children's goal orientation has been shown to predict their use of effective learning
Children with a task orientation tend to use deep-processing strategies,
strategies.
including discriminating important from unimportant information, trying to figure out how
knows, and monitoring comprehension.
new information fits with what one already
Children with an ability-focus tend to use surface-level strategies, including rereading text,
memorizing, and rehearsing (Golan & Graham, 1990; Meece, Blumenfeld & Hoyle, 1988;
than
Meece & Holt, 1990; Nolen, 1988, Powell, 1990). Deep processing is more likely
surface level processing to lead to understanding and retention of meaningful material
(Anderson, 1980; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983). Finally, there is also preliminary evidence
In
that the adoption of a task goals is associated with greater creativity (Archer, 1990).
of
brief, goal orientation is known to play a profoundly important role in the determination
the nature and quality of student motivation and learning.
Goals and The Learning Environment
Equally important is the
That goals play such an important role is indeed important.
influence the
increasing recognition that characteristics of the learning environment
Implicit within any given learning environment is a
learning goals that students adopt.
approach
differential stress on these two goals, a stress which affects how students
is defined,
learning. Thus recent research indicates that classrooms vary in how learning
influencing their
and that these definitions affect the goals that students adopt, thereby
Hoyle, 1988;
motivation and learning (Ames & Archer, 1988; Meece, Blumenfeld, &
Pintrich &
Nicholls, et al, 1990; Nolen & Haladyna, in press; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990;
Garcia, 1991; Powell, 1990).
and culture indicate
Parallel to research at the classroom level, research on school climate
(Maehr, 1991; Maehr & Fyans,
that schools as a whole reflect different goal stresses.
in press - this
1989; Maehr & Midgley, 1991; Maehr & Buck, in preparation; Krug, 1989;
learning, it now
Just as the smaller unit of the classroom has found to define
issue).
likewise define learning and therewith have a
appears that the larger unit of the school may
Indeed, that goal stresses in the school as a
pervasive influence on student motivation.
Although
finding.
whole may exist and may have influence is a singularly important
School Leader as Motivator
4
curricular and co-curricular
students are exposed to different classrooms and a variety of
those in positions
experiences, they are exposed to pervasive school wide influences. And
effects relate to motivation
of leadership need to concerned about how these school-wide
and subsequently to achievement.
CHANGING SCHOOL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
affect motivation and
Given the evidence that differential stresses in task and ability goals
in a school context
learning, a number of questions come to the forefront. What happens
ability goals? Are these
that eventuates in a greater stress on task and lesser stress on
effect such change? Answering
antecedent factors amenable to change? How do leaders
That next step is
of research.
these questions is a crucial next step in our program
underway. A progress report follows.
and antecedents of the psychological
In order to develop an understanding of the origins
these can be changed, we
environment of schools, and to determine whether or how
district. An elementary and a
initiated two field studies in collaboration with a local school
and two schools in the same
middle school were selected as "demonstration" schools
district serves a largely blue-collar
district were selected as "comparison" schools. The
by the automotive industry
population, with many of the parents in the district employed
of this industry. Currently, 16% of
and is affected significantly by the economic fortunes
for the free or reduced fee lunch
the students are Black, and 37% of the students qualify
communities, this district has had difficulty passing
program. As is true in many area
and prolonged contract disputes.
millage issues and has been engaged in serious
instruction, but most would
Individual teachers often exhibit creative approaches to
schools as "traditional".
describe the curriculum, organization, and design of these
collaborative effort in which a
The project was described to school leaders and staff as a
and
procedures,
coalition would examine school-wide policies,
School-University
against a focus on task goals.
practices and attempt to change those which militated
in deciding what changes would be
School staff, of course, were to play a major role
University staff primarily provided
attempted and how such attempts would be managed.
of likely
policy and practice options, interpreting them in terms
a framework for evaluating
motivation and learning.
implications for the psychological environment and student
School Leader as Motivator
5
Two features of this process merit special comment. First, the intervention was designed
to engage the staff as a whole in the process - but the focus of change was to be in the
hands of a school leadership team. Thus, the collaboration required the participation of
not only the principal or an administrator, but teachers as well. Our entering bias was that
for school-wide changes to occur, both teachers and administrators must accept and
believe in the endeavor (cf. Rowan, Raudenbush, & Kang, 1991).
Operationally, the collaboration has proceeded as follows. Each week a group from the
university, consisting of two faculty members and six graduate students, meets for a least
one hour with leadership team of each school. At the elementary school, the leadership
team consists of the principal and members of a previously organized school improvement
team. The leadership team at the middle school consists of the assistant principal and a
teachers at the
core group of five teachers, although we often have as many as ten
meetings.
It is noteworthy that during the course of this first year, the school leadership team
increasingly sought out their own ways to evaluate the current state of affairs and make
With information provided by the university group, leadership team
plans for change.
members from both the elementary and middle schools visited other schools and programs.
Both also invited outside -experts on specific topics to present a case for one or another
programmatic option. In all cases, these were staff members from other schools or school
The
districts and the focus was on the question of how one actually does something.
middle school staff held a special retreat on a selected Saturday, which they attended
without reimbursement. The elementary school devoted several in-service days to options
In both the elementary and secondary schools certain staff members,
under discussion.
including teachers who were not on the leadership team, began meeting on their own time
In short, it is currently no longer a
to develop plans for specific programmatic action.
evaluating, the planning, and
process in which a School-University committee is doing the
the acting. The School-University coalition has become the forum for coordinating what's
happening; it is a kind of hub around which the action revolves, but the action is clearly
late afternoon meetings in
in various small groups and in
happening elsewhere,
classrooms, over the phone, and over coffee on the weekend---as one would hope.
The focus of the effort from the research team's standpoint is of course to learn whether or
how the school psychological environment can be changed, thereby also learning more
From the school district's
about the origins and antecedents of such environments.
School Leader as Motivator
6
perspective, the goal is primarily one of effecting change that will eventuate in the
enhancement of student motivation and learning, especially that of at risk students. The
theoretical reason to
convergence of interests lies especially in the fact that there is strong
believe that a school psychological environment that stresses task rather than ability goals
will eventuate in the outcomes sought by the school. Therefore, the joint purpose is to
examine school policies, practices, and procedures as variables that affect the school
psychological environment and student investment in learning. Specifically, the focus is on
changes that might enhance the stress on learning, understanding, and problem solving,
and minimize the stress on relative ability and comparative performance in the school.
Fortunately, there is a body of research that
But how does one affect goal stresses?
Research broadly directed
suggests a possible direction, if not a clear course of action.
toward enhancing student motivation at the classroom level (e.g., deCharms, 1976;
Brophy, 1987) was helpful. But the primary base for our efforts was a growing literature
which demonstrates more specifically how classroom practices and strategies increase
students' perceptions of a task (or ability) focus, and thereby affect their motivation and
learning (see e.g., Ames, 1990; Mac Iver, 1991; Meece, 1991; Nicholls et al., 1990). With
policies might have analogous effects
some reason to believe the school wide practices and
proceeded to
(cf. Braden & Maehr, 1986; Maehr, 1991; Good & Weinstein, 1986), we
hypothesize that one could increase the stress on task and decrease the stress on ability by
increased
1) providing meaningful, challenging, contextualized tasks; 2) giving students an
decision-making opportunities; 3)
sense of control over their schooling through choice and
recognizing students on the basis of their progress, effort, and improvement rather than on
the
their performance compared to others; 4) grouping students heterogeneously and on
basis of interest rather than on the basis of relative ability; 5) using evaluation as a way to
provide helpful feedback to students rather than to tell them how they compare to others;
disposition,
6) allowing all students, regardless of their academic ability or attitudinal
equipment) and
equal access to school resources, both tangible (e.g. computers, lab
flexibility
intangible (e.g., participation in extracurricular activities); and 7) allowing some
innovative,
in how teachers and students use time during the school day to allow for
interdisciplinary instruction and the pursuit of interests.
examine in attempting to
In summary, we identified seven areas that school leaders could
describe
affect the psychological environment of the school. In the following sections we
for student
these areas of school activities in greater detail, illustrate their importance
motivation, and suggest how leaders can promote a school wide task focus.