Case Study in Motivation I have chosen Simon as my case study, a student in my grade 10 mathematics class.

Simon is 15 years old and in his second year at our school. Simon transferred from another school and has had a period of adjustment both academically and socially. Simon struggled with academics and connecting with other boys socially in his first year. Academically, he has had trouble with a couple of courses, specifically Mathematics and French. He scored well below the class average in these two courses respectively on his June report card after his first year at the College. His overall average was also near the bottom of his grade. Simon has been diagnosed with a non-verbal learning disability. His one page report suggests that areas to improve on are as follows: Focusing, planning, organizing, self-awareness and regulating his emotions. He is prone to having strong emotional reactions to day to day set backs. Since arriving at UCC, Simons teachers have sent over two dozen Red Rockets to his academic advisor. A Red Rocket is an electronic mini report suggesting a problem in class. This is an unusually high number of Red Rockets in such a short span of time. Math had been a challenge for Simon, but in my class I noticed that he grasps concepts quite quickly and is able to follow along with the lesson easily. He often correctly answers questions verbally during class. Prior to the first test, I had the impression that he would have good success in this course. I was then surprised that his first test was well below the class average, and riddled with careless errors. Despite being moved to a smaller mathematics class for greater

personal attention, Simon was still performing near the bottom of his cohort. What was puzzling was the discrepancy between his excellent ability to grasp concepts and his poor performance on summative evaluations.

Observations: During a summative evaluation earlier in the term, Simon is the first one to hand in the test with nearly 30 minutes left in the period. After a cursory glance at the test, I let him know that I have spotted several errors and give him the opportunity to take the test back and continue working. Simon reluctantly does so, and then after a few more minutes hands the test in for good. During the remainder of the class, he reads on his computer while the rest of the students complete the test. Despite being given some broad hints to help him improve his performance, Simon appears motivated to finish the test, but demonstrates little concern for results. Engagement in the task is low, despite the significant extrinsic reward for good performance. I was at a loss as to how to deal with this behavior. During a lesson, which is being delivered on a Smart Board, Simon does not appear to be taking any notes. I question him at several times during the course of the lesson, and each time he has a thoughtful and correct (mostly) answer. It is clear that he is grasping the concepts, and is following along with the lesson. He is just unwilling to get out notepaper and write anything down. I connect with him after the lesson and question him regarding this issue. His point is that he finds it difficult to take notes and follow along with the lesson at the same time. His handwriting is particularly poor. The conversation is non confrontational, and I conclude

suggesting that I email him (and everyone else in the class) the lesson. I always give my students the outline (graphic organizer) of the lesson in advance, but usually expect them to fill it in as I teach. Now I give it to them in advance, and then email my notes after the fact. While note taking is viewed by some to be an important skill, if it is a serious impediment to learning, I see no issue in giving them the information directly. This interaction with Simon was beneficial as he was surprised that I was willing to accommodate his desired way of acquiring knowledge from the lesson. We agreed that as long as he was paying attention, I would email him all the notes. I believe that this helped cement our relationship with goodwill on both our parts. The third interaction with Simon took place during a work period in which I handed out a written assignment. The students were given a choice to work alone, in pairs, or in groups of three. With the exception of Simon, all of them chose to work in groups of 2 or 3; however, Simon chose to work by himself. Interestingly, I would never have given my students the option of flexible grouping had it not for me learning about the concept in EDU 610. I have always assumed (wrongly of course) that students prefer working in teams rather than by themselves. Sharing the workload and seems like an appealing option, however for Simon it was not the case. Simon was the most focused student during the work period. Many times he sought out clarification and asked questions regarding the assignment. Normally Simon would avoid work, or do a sloppy job just to get it out of the way. Simon used the entire class, and despite working by himself, had completed more of the assignment than any other group.

In my final observation, I have chosen another test taking situation-though quite a different format from the first scenario, and hence I suggest it qualifies as a unique classroom situation. Normally, I am a very traditional mathematics teacher. At the end of a unit, I give out a review package, including a practice test followed by a paper and pencil test. At the conclusion of the most recent unit, again motivated by my learning about differentiated assessment, I gave a most unique (for me) test. A week prior to the assigned test day, I gave all of my students a copy of the upcoming test. I told them that on the allotted day, they would get the exact test with no changes. However, the twist was that they would randomly select one question from the test and go up the Smart Board, and teach that question to the rest of the class. Students did not know which question they would be assigned, nor in what order they would have to present their model solution. I wanted to devise a way of encouraging mastery learning, in a relatively low risk environment. Prior to the test day, I was available to answer any questions regarding the test. I gave the students a marking rubric in advance and informed them that they would also be evaluating each other along with me. Their final mark would be a composite of 50% my evaluation and 50% the rest of the classes evaluation. The response to this format of test was very interesting. Simon in particular sought out extra help in class and outside of class many times. He even emailed me on the weekend to arrange a time for us to connect early on a Monday. This type of behavior was extremely unusual for Simon, as he had never been proactive in seeking help prior to a test before. On the day of the test, Simon went last, and did an outstanding presentation. Despite being somewhat alienated from his peers, they awarded him the highest grade in the

class, as did I. I was truly impressed the effort he put forth. This experience makes me a convert to differentiated assessment, as I have tried three different assessment methods on the past three tests and have found the overall level of engagement has increased significantly.

Effective Strategies: It became quite clear to me that autonomy played an important role in motivating Simon. I would not have expected such a dramatic improvement from Simon in such a short time. He is so much more intrinsically motivated now than eight weeks ago, which is born out in the research (Deci, Schwartz, Sheiman & Ryan, 1981). Having more control and choice over how he worked in class and to some degree on what he worked on, was clearly very motivating to Simon. In addition to allowing simple choice like flexible grouping, I also gave Simon choice in what he worked on. I gave him the option to work on more difficult assignments or easier assignments. Even though he was not a top student, Simon always chose the more challenging assignments, and as a consequence his performance has improved dramatically in a short period of time. I believe that Self-Determination Theory applies to Simon, as he clearly has demonstrated a need for autonomy, a need for competence and a need to be accepted in the social network. My error in judging Simon (and many other students like him who struggle) was that since he had performed so poorly in mathematics, I imposed highly structured practice with very limited choice.

A typical strategy that I have tried to use with students, and with Simon, is a version of Attribution Theory. Students typically attribute their own reasons as to why they encounter difficulty with a subject. They often will suggest that math is too hard, and hence why they have not had success. My approach has been to suggest that their work habits are most likely the reason they have not achieved success in the subject. While this is most often the case, I now realize that it is not a good strategy to use to motivate weaker students, and especially Simon. This puts teacher and student in an adversarial position, as the student is saying: the work is too difficult, and the teacher is saying: you dont try hard enough. This is not a strategy I would recommend to other teachers of Simon. Since Simons one page report suggests that he is prone to having strong emotional reactions to day to day set backs and a low tolerance for frustration, it seems logical to spoon feed him easy teacher directed questions to ensure success. I believe however, that Simon is more frustrated with not being challenged and given some autonomy, as is the case for many teens. I recommend that Simon be given choice in how and what he works on in class, and also be given the opportunity to do more than is required. It is interesting to note that differentiating by content, process and product have all had a positive impact on Simons success this term. I attribute his increased level of motivation to in large part a differentiated approach to instruction and in assessment. Simon was given some choice in the level of difficulty in content that he studied this past unit, and with out fail, he has selected to work on the more difficult course material. Secondly, Simon has been given the flexibility to work in a manner that suits him. Along with preferring to work alone, I have also allowed Simon to

mostly do his work on an erasable white board. Finally, in changing the format of the past three summative assessments (product), I have noticed an improvement in Simons performance. While I have not yet progressed to allowing Simon a choice in terms of type of assessment, I have varied the format significantly, which appears to be a welcome change. Tomlinsons (2001) research clearly supports the notion that differentiating with respect to content, process, product and grading has a positive impact on student success and ultimately motivation. I have seen dramatic improvement in Simons performance since he began school last year. His overall grade now stands at 81%, which is the highest in my small class, but nevertheless is significantly higher than the 54% he achieved last June. I do not attribute all of this difference to changes I have made, but I do think there is a strong correlation between my change in instructional and assessment methods and Simons overall performance improvement. I have put more energy into my teaching this year, changed my approach significantly and been more intentional in my motivational techniques with students and specifically Simon. Interestingly enough, I have looked at all students, and though each of them is doing better than they were last year, Simon has improved the most. This suggests that the energy and attention I have put on him has been effective, but then begs the question, what about the rest of the students in the class? Differentiating instruction is a way of ensuring that all students improve. Perhaps the same approach to motivation should be adopted by teachers. In essence, we should differentiate the motivational strategies that we use with students, and thus better meet the needs of each student.

Conclusion: I have come to the conclusion that the most important role a teacher plays with there students is to discover what motivates them and to unleash their true ability. It was clear to me in early September that Simon was a bright yet underachieving student. I was unable to effect any significant change in him until just before the December break. His improvement coincided with my experiments with differentiated instruction techniques and differentiated assessment. During the past eight weeks, I have noticed positive behavioral changes in Simon. I believe in part this is due to the increased attention I have been paying to him as a result of this case study. I have invested more time and energy with him, and in tern he has done the same thing. I regret that it has taken this long for me to discover this truth. According to Pink, (2011) the key to motivation or drive is: Autonomy the desire to direct our own lives, Mastery, the urge to get better and better at something that matters, and Purpose the yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves. This hypothesis has certainly proved to hold true in my dealings with Simon.

References:

Anderman E., & Anderman L., (2010) Classroom Motivation, Pearson. Chapman C., & King R., (2012) Differentiated Assessment Strategies: One Tool Doesnt Fit All, Corwin. Pink, D., (2009) Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Penquin. Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms. Alexandria ASCD Publications.