Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269

www.elsevier.com/locate/cedpsych

Enhancing student motivation and engagement:

The eVects of a multidimensional intervention 夽
Andrew J. Martin ¤
Faculty of Education and Social Work, A35—Education Building, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia

Available online 5 January 2007

Abstract

The present study sought to investigate the eVects of a multidimensional educational intervention
on high school students’ motivation and engagement. The intervention incorporated: (a) multidimen-
sional targets of motivation and engagement, (b) empirically derived intervention methodology, (c)
research-based risk and protective factors, (d) established practices that nurture optimal youth devel-
opment, (e) use of interpersonally skilled staV, and (f) evidence-based programming. Using a pre-/
post-treatment/control group design, it was found that the self-complete intervention brought about
signiWcant shifts in motivation and engagement. SpeciWcally, Wndings showed that the treatment
group made positive motivation shifts on key dimensions including task management, persistence,
anxiety, failure avoidance, and uncertain control. Moreover, against a large weighted external com-
parison group, the treatment group made positive shifts on valuing, mastery orientation, planning,
task management, persistence, failure avoidance, uncertain control, and self-handicapping. Taken
together, these Wndings attest to the potential for multidimensional educational interventions for
enhancing students’ motivation and engagement.
© 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Motivation; Engagement; Intervention

夽
Components of this paper were presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Confer-
ence, Sydney, Australia, 2005.
*
Fax: + 61 2 9351 2606.
E-mail address: a.martin@edfac.usyd.edu.au.

0361-476X/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.11.003
240 A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269

1. Introduction

Motivation and engagement have been described as students’ energy and drive to
engage, learn, work eVectively, and achieve to their potential at school and the behaviors
that follow from this energy and drive. Motivation and engagement play a large part in
students’ interest in and enjoyment of school and study. Motivation and engagement also
underpin their achievement (Martin, 2001, 2002a, 2003d; Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 2001a,
Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 2001b, 2003; Meece, WigWeld, & Eccles, 1990; Pintrich &
DeGroot, 1990; Schunk, 1990).
Because they play such an important role in students’ academic achievement, it is
important to identify factors that contribute to motivation and engagement. Research con-
ducted to date has shown that a variety of factors impact on students’ motivation and
engagement, including the nature of pedagogy they receive (Teven & McCroskey, 1997),
relationships they have with their teachers (Kelly & Hansen, 1987), parents’ attitudes
towards and expectations for their children (Dandy & Nettelbeck, 2000), peers (WigWeld &
Tonks, 2002), class climate (Qin, Johnson, & Johnson, 1995), school culture and structure
(Anderman & Maehr, 1994), socio-demographic status (Becker & Luthar, 2002), gender
(Martin, 2003a, 2003b, 2004), and age (Martin, 2001, 2003d).
In addition to these Wndings, other research has sought to examine the eVect of interven-
tion programs on students’ academic motivation and engagement. Although many of these
interventions have been successful in enhancing students’ self-concept (Marsh, 1990), attri-
butional patterns (Craven, Marsh, & Debus, 1991), goal orientations (Covington, 1998),
and sense of control (Craven et al., 1991), as well as reducing students’ anxiety (McInerney,
McInerney, & Marsh, 1997), the bulk of intervention studies focus on relatively few dimen-
sions of students’ motivation and engagement. When one considers the cumulative eVects
of these narrowly focused interventions, the Weld quickly becomes fragmented and diVuse.
Indeed, recent commentaries (see Bong, 1996; Murphy & Alexander, 2000; Pintrich, 2003)
have identiWed the fragmented nature of motivation research as a potential impediment to
its progression and application.
In response to recent calls for a more integrative approach to the study of motivation
and engagement (see Bong, 1996; Murphy & Alexander, 2000; Pintrich, 2003), the present
study employs an intervention program that is shaped by a multidimensional motivation
and engagement framework and then assesses the eYcacy of this targeted intervention
using a multidimensional instrument that directly reXects this integrative framework. The
present study is also a means of exploring a systematic ‘Prepare-Generate-ReXect-Closure’
procedure that is aimed at: (a) providing an advance organizer for the module and its key
activities, (b) enabling the participant to generate and construct key learnings relevant to
their motivation, (c) providing an opportunity for the participant to reXect on key mes-
sages developed through these learnings, and (d) then attaining closure on the target mod-
ule through having mentors sign oV the module for that week.

2. A multidimensional perspective to intervention studies

It is the multidimensional nature of motivation and engagement that is a central foundation

for the framework, instrumentation, and intervention collected together in the present study.
Marsh and colleagues (Marsh & Craven, 1997; Marsh, Craven, & Martin, 2006) argued for a
construct validity approach to interventions in which the speciWc dimensions of self-concept
 A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269 241

and motivation most relevant to the intervention should be most aVected, whilst less relevant
dimensions should be less aVected and should serve as a control for response biases. In a meta-
analysis of self-concept and motivation intervention studies, O’Mara, Marsh, Craven, and
Debus (2006) found that, consistent with a multidimensional perspective on intervention, eVect
sizes were substantially larger for speciWc and targeted components of key dimensions logically
related to the intended outcomes of the intervention than for more global measures and other
less relevant components. Studies designed to enhance global dimensions (such as global self-
esteem/motivation) were not very successful compared to studies that focused on more speciWc
components of the self that were most relevant to goals of the intervention. In summary, previ-
ous research supports the usefulness of a multidimensional perspective of intervention and so
it is this perspective that is a foundation of the present study.

3. The multidimensional motivation and engagement framework underpinning the

intervention

Motivational research is diverse and to varying degrees, is or can appear, fragmented (Mur-
phy & Alexander, 2000; Pintrich, 2003). Moreover, it has been suggested that educational
research can oftentimes yield limited practical and useful implications and applications and that
there is a need to combine research that advances scientiWc understanding but which also has
applied utility. Hence, it has recently been recommended that greater attention be given to “use-
inspired basic research” (Stokes, 1997; see also Greeno, 1998; Pintrich, 2000, 2003).
With these matters in mind, Martin (2001, 2002a, 2003c, 2003d, in press) developed the
Motivation and Engagement Wheel to reXect an integrative framework for representing sem-
inal motivation and engagement theory. The development of the Motivation and Engage-
ment Wheel emerged through an attempt to bridge a gap between diverse dimensions of
educational theorizing on the one hand and on the other hand, practitioners’ (e.g., teachers,
counselors, psychologists) need to draw on the strengths of these dimensions within a parsi-
monious and intuitively appealing framework that they could clearly communicate to stu-
dents. There are two levels at which the Wheel has been conceptualized: (a) the integrative
higher order level comprising adaptive cognitive and behavioral dimensions, impeding/mal-
adaptive cognitive dimensions, and maladaptive behavioral dimensions and (b) the opera-
tionalized lower order level comprising eleven Wrst-order factors subsumed under the four
higher order factors. Although the Wheel is applied in the present empirical setting, its devel-
opment has been very much driven by the need to provide practitioners with a broader
framework than would be characterized by any single theory. This more applied purpose is
further detailed below.

3.1. The higher order level of the Wheel

Over the past four decades a number of educational and psychological theories and
models have been developed that aim to explain the nature of human cognition and
behavior. Particularly in relation to the academic domain, it is apparent that at a primary
level there are signiWcant commonalities across these theories and models, which provide
direction as to fundamental dimensions of motivation and engagement. Martin’s (2001,
2003d, in press) multidimensional concept of motivation that comprises adaptive,
impeding, and maladaptive cognitive and behavioral dimensions is reXected in these
diverse lines of psychological inquiry, including work by:
242 A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269

(a) Pintrich and colleagues (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991) who
presented a cognitive view of motivation encompassing motivational orientations
and a behavioral component encompassing learning strategies;
(b) Buss and Cantor (1989) who proposed a model of strategy and behavior in which
individuals’ characteristic orientations and cognitions inXuence the behaviors they
use to negotiate demands in their environment;
(c) Beck (1995; see also Dobson & Dozois, 2001; Reinecke & Clark, 2004) and his cog-
nitive behavioral approach to engagement, emphasizing that cognitive activity
aVects behavior and that behavioral change can be inXuenced through cognitive
change;
(d) Miller and colleagues (1996) and Miserandino (1996) studying academic engagement
and separating engagement into cognitive-aVective and behavioral dimensions; and,
(e) Researchers assessing the diVerential eVect levels of distinct aspects of motivation
and engagement—for example, self-eYcacy reXects highly adaptive motivation (Ban-
dura, 1997; Pajares, 1996), anxiety impedes students’ engagement (Sarason &
Sarason, 1990; Spielberger, 1985), and behaviors such as self-handicapping reXect
quite maladaptive engagement (Martin et al., 2001a, 2001b, Martin, Marsh, & Debus,
2003).

Taken together, in consideration of the joint issues of motivational orientations, learn-

ing strategies, cognitive and behavioral dimensions, and diVering levels of adaptive and
maladaptive dimensions from empirical and applied settings, Martin (2001, 2003d, in
press) proposed that motivation can be characterized in terms of four higher order groups:
(a) adaptive cognitive dimensions, (b) adaptive behavioral dimensions, (c) impeding/mal-
adaptive cognitive dimensions, and (d) maladaptive behavioral dimensions.

3.2. The operationalized lower order level of the Wheel

Although this higher order conceptualization addresses the important aims of enhanc-
ing parsimony, providing a unifying approach to seminal educational and psychological
theory, and giving scope for understanding the basic structure of students’ motivation and
engagement from an applied perspective, it is important that there exist a lower level at
which speciWc constructs operationalize these higher order dimensions and provide a basis
for measuring motivation and engagement. Although the selection of lower order con-
structs for the operationalization of motivation and engagement is ultimately a (profes-
sional) judgment call, theory and research can guide the development of constructs that
reXect the diversity of students’ academic engagement and motivation.
Recently, Pintrich (2003) identiWed seven substantive questions for the development of a
motivational science. Taken together, these questions underscore the importance of con-
sidering, conceptualizing, and articulating a model of motivation from salient and seminal
theorizing related to: self-eYcacy, attributions, valuing, control, self-determination, goal ori-
entation, need achievement, self-regulation, and self-worth. These, it is suggested, provide a
useful rationale for the identiWcation of lower order constructs for operationalizing the
Motivation and Engagement Wheel.
As discussed fully in Martin (2001, 2002a, 2003d, in press), (a) self-eYcacy theory (e.g.,
Bandura, 1997) is reXected in the self-eYcacy dimension of the Wheel, (b) attributions and
control are reXected in the uncertain control dimension (tapping the controllability element
 A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269 243

ADAPTIVE ADAPTIVE
COGNITIONS BEHAVIORS
Persistence
Valuing

Mastery
orientation Planning

Self- Task
efficacy management Decline in
adaptive
motivation and
engagement

Anxiety

Disengagement

Failure
avoidance

Self-
Uncertain
handicapping
control
MALADAPTIVE IMPEDING/MALADAPTIVE
BEHAVIORS COGNITIONS

Further decline in
motivation and
engagement

Fig. 1. The Motivation and Engagement Wheel—adapted from Martin (in press).

of attributions—see Connell, 1985; Weiner, 1994), (c) valuing (e.g., Eccles, 1983; WigWeld,
1994; WigWeld & Eccles, 1992, 2000; WigWeld & Tonks, 2002) is reXected in a valuing (of
school) dimension, (d) self-determination (in terms of intrinsic motivation—see Ryan &
Deci, 2000) and motivation orientation (see Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1989) are reXected in a
mastery orientation dimension, (e) need achievement and self-worth (e.g., Atkinson, 1957;
Covington, 1992; Covington & Omelich, 1991; McClelland, 1965) are reXected in failure
avoidance, anxiety, self-handicapping, and disengagement dimensions, and (f) self-regula-
tion (e.g., Martin, 2001, 2003d; Martin et al., 2001a, 2001b, 2003; Miller, Greene, Montalvo,
Ravindran, & Nicholls, 1996; Miserandino, 1996; Zimmerman, 2002) is reXected in plan-
ning, task management, and persistence dimensions. Hence, the Wheel comprises eleven
lower or Wrst-order dimensions.
The Wheel is presented in Fig. 1. As this Wgure shows, the adaptive cognitive dimension
is subsumed by self-eYcacy, valuing, and mastery orientation. The adaptive behavioral
dimension is subsumed by planning, task management, and persistence. The impeding/mal-
adaptive cognitive dimension is subsumed by failure avoidance, uncertain control, and
anxiety. The maladaptive behavioral dimension is subsumed by self-handicapping and
244 A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269

disengagement. The Wheel provides the multidimensional framework guiding the develop-
ment of the multidimensional intervention, which comprises weekly modules targeting
each of the eleven Wrst-order facets of the Wheel.

3.3. The applied purpose of the Wheel

It is important to recognize that this motivation and engagement framework is very

much intended for practitioners aiming to capture the diversity of motivation and engage-
ment dimensions that characterize the ordinary course of business in a school student’s
academic life. It is fully recognized that this departs from traditional approaches to the
study of motivation and engagement that typically reXect a single theoretical perspective
(however, it is noted that there are some notable examples of models reXecting diverse
motivation-related dimensions—e.g., see Midgley et al., 1997 for PALS and Pintrich,
Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991 for MSLQ). Hence, notwithstanding the theoretical
positions that have guided the development of the Wheel (see above), the reader is urged to
be mindful that a driving consideration has been the aim to provide practitioners with a
single framework that can quickly capture a good range of student motivation and engage-
ment.

4. Previous interventions targeting the Wheel

Indeed, the Wheel has provided a good basis for previous intervention work. Martin
(2005) has implemented a series of workshops targeting students’ motivation and engage-
ment, embedded within a youth enrichment program. The workshops were focused on
each facet of the Wheel and measurement involved the multidimensional Motivation and
Engagement Scale-High School (MES-HS; Martin, 2006, in press) at the outset of the pro-
gram, towards the end of the program, and again 6–8 weeks later. Data showed that there
were gains on key facets of students’ motivation by the end of the program—gains that
were sustained 6–8 weeks later. These gains were demonstrated by boys and girls. More-
over, when compared to a larger weighted external sample (2769 high school students), by
Time 2 and also by Time 3, signiWcant declines in motivation had been reversed and any
pre-existing advantages or parallel strengths of the intervention sample over the weighted
sample were maintained. Hence, in a workshop format, motivation and engagement can be
enhanced.
Another format, and one which is perhaps more Xexible and less reliant on having an
‘expert’ facilitator, involves a self-complete program in which students engage individually
(e.g., if conducted as part of individual/one-on-one work with a teacher, coach, tutor, or
school psychologist) or in small groups (e.g., if conducted in a classroom or tutorial/pasto-
ral care group context—the delivery mode of the present study). This has scope for greater
portability and more Xexible administration as it is more readily replicable in any individ-
ual, class, and school context. The present study provides a test of such an intervention for-
mat on students’ motivation and engagement.

5. Evidence-based principles guiding the design of the present investigation

An important criterion for the design of this intervention is that it complies with evi-
dence-based guidelines developed through previous successful intervention work. Over the
 A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269 245

past three decades there has been much theorizing about, and empirical attention given to,
the design characteristics of successful interventions (see for example, Cook & Campbell,
1979; Craven, Marsh, Debus, & Jayasinghe, 2001; Good & Brophy, 1974; Hattie, 1992;
Plewis & Hurry, 1998). Taken together, this research provides guidelines that shaped the
present intervention in the following ways:

(a) Using multidimensional instruments to assess diverse dimensions of educational con-

structs;
(b) Intervening at the appropriate level (e.g., at the individual student level, whole-class
level, and/or whole-school level);
(c) Demonstrating reliability for the target samples (not simply relying on reliability
from test manuals and the like);
(d) Demonstrating construct validity using conWrmatory factor analysis (where sample
size permits);
(e) Providing meaningful feedback to participants throughout the intervention;
(f) Focusing the intervention on speciWc and targeted facets of the educational phenom-
ena under study;
(g) Measuring these speciWc facets;
(h) Including non-target measures to test for the discriminant validity of the interven-
tion;
(i) Including, where feasible, an external comparison sample to control for diVusion
eVects;
(j) Demonstrating that the treatment group is not signiWcantly diVerent from the control
group or the external comparison at the outset;
(k) Using a longitudinal design; and,
(l) Embedding the intervention in an ecologically natural environment (e.g., school, tutorial
groups) and supported by ecologically natural agents (e.g., teachers) so that the interven-
tion involves the environment and agents with the most practical relevance to partici-
pants and an approach that is sustainable beyond the researchers’ involvement.

Table 1 summarizes these key elements and also presents the ways in which the present
study met these criteria for successful intervention. As is evident, the design, administration
and the assessment of the intervention revolved around these central criteria. This, it is
contended, constitutes a powerful test of the extent to which motivation and engagement
are amenable to self-directed programmatic intervention work.
In terms of the present intervention’s comparability to other programs, it is worth not-
ing the following characteristics that align with features of eVective programs outlined else-
where (see Dryfoos, 1990; Lerner & Galambos, 1998; Nation et al., 2003; Weissberg,
Kumpfer, & Seligman, 2003): intensive individualized attention, strong link with school,
engagement of peers, use of staV with strong training skills and background (teachers/
tutors have extensive experience working with youth), centrality of group work and pro-
ductive activity within that group, celebration and valuing of the individual, age speciWcity
(targeting a particular developmental level—middle to senior high), research-based risk
(impeding and maladaptive dimensions of the Wheel) and protective (adaptive dimen-
sions) factors, established practices that nurture optimal youth development, and evidence-
based design (see points (a) to (l) above—Cook & Campbell, 1979; Craven et al., 2001;
Good & Brophy, 1974; Hattie, 1992; Plewis & Hurry, 1998).
246 A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269

Table 1
Principles guiding the design of the intervention study
Guidelines for intervention studiesa
Using multidimensional instruments to assess diverse
dimensions of educational constructs
Intervening at the appropriate level (eg. individual
student level, whole-class level, whole-school level)
Demonstrating reliability for the target samples (not
simply relying on reliability from test manuals and
the like)
Demonstrating construct validity using conWrmatory
factor analysis (where sample size permits)
Providing meaningful feedback to participants
throughout the intervention
Focusing the intervention on speciWc and targeted
facets of the educational phenomena under study
Measuring these speciWc facets
Including non-target measures to test for the
discriminant validity of the intervention
Including an external comparison sample to control
for diVusion or leakage eVects
Demonstrating that the treatment group is not
signiWcantly diVerent from the control group or the
external comparison at the outset
Using a longitudinal design
Embedding the intervention in an ecologically
natural environment and supported by ecologically
natural agents so that the intervention involves the
environment and agents with the most practical
relevance to participants
a
See Cook and Campbell (1979); Craven et al. (2001); Good and Brophy (1974); Hattie (1992); Plewis and
Hurry (1998).
Present study’s compliance with Guidelines
The Motivation and Engagement Scale-High School
(MES-HS) measured 11 dimensions of motivation
and engagement
Prior multilevel (or hierarchical linear) modeling
conducted to determine that individual student-level
accounts for a bulk of variance in motivation and
engagement
Cronbach’s alphas and test–retest reliabilities
employed for pre-test, post-test, and large weighted
external comparison sample
Large weighted external comparison sample of
suYcient size to conduct CFA—demonstrated good Wt
to the data
Upon completion of each module, participants have
work signed oV and commented on by Teachers
Intervention focused solely on facets of the Wheel
The MES-HS assessed each facet of the Wheel
Additional educational measures (educational
aspirations, enjoyment of school, class participation,
academic resilience) included, not targeted in
intervention
Large weighted external comparison sample included
Predominantly, treatment group not signiWcantly
diVerent from control group or large weighted
comparison group at outset
Pre- and post-testing conducted
Intervention conducted as part of curriculum and
administered by teachers/tutors

Particularly given the educational context in which the intervention is located, the pres-
ent study also incorporates principles of sound pedagogical practice derived from seminal
learning theory in a bid to aid retention of information and meaningful learning. Although
the investigation does not purport to be a direct test of these pedagogical principles, they
are nonetheless a useful guiding framework for the design of the study. Along these lines,
the study adapts concepts revolving around Ausubel’s (1960) cognitive instructional strate-
gies that are based on the premise that meaningful learning is idiosyncratic and involves
personal recognition of the links between concepts. SpeciWcally, the intervention is struc-
tured around a systematic ‘Prepare-Generate-ReXect-Closure’ procedure that is aimed at:
 A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269 247

(a) providing an advance organizer for the module and its key activities, (b) enabling
the participant to generate and construct key learnings relevant to their motivation,
(c) providing an opportunity for the participant to reXect on key messages developed
through these learnings, and (d) then attaining closure on the target module through hav-
ing mentors sign oV the module for that week. Hence, in addition to testing students’ spe-
ciWc receptiveness to intervention targeting key motivation dimensions, it is also a means of
exploring a program in the demonstrated tradition of cognitive instruction.

6. Aims and design of the study

The central question in this investigation is the impact of the proposed intervention on
participants’ academic motivation and engagement. The intervention comprised a number of
self-complete modules conducted over a school term (details are below and in Appendix A).
Students’ motivation and engagement were assessed at the outset of the intervention program
and again upon completion of the program. The study comprised control (no intervention)
and treatment (intervention) groups. The study also incorporated a large weighted compari-
son sample of students who had previously completed the instrumentation.
It was hypothesized that relative to the control group, students participating in the inter-
vention (treatment group) would evince signiWcant gains on multidimensional motivation
and engagement. It was also hypothesized that relative to the weighted comparison sample,
the treatment group would demonstrate signiWcant motivation and engagement gains. It was
further hypothesized that these gains would be evidenced on target dimensions of motivation
and engagement (the eleven parts of the Wheel that are targeted in the intervention program)
and not on non-target dimensions that were not part of the intervention program.

7. Method

7.1. Samples and procedure

7.1.1. Target sample

The treatment and control group participants were 53 high school students from a large
independent boys’ school located in a capital city of Australia. The school is a relatively
high performing one drawing on middle to upper socioeconomic status families. Notwith-
standing this, it is not academically selective and so does comprise quite a range of perfor-
mance. Indeed, it is in this context that the present intervention focused on students who
were identiWed by the school as not performing to their potential.
Twenty-six were in the treatment group and 27 were in the control group. Participants were
in Years 10 (nD36) and 11 (nD17). The mean age of participants was 15 years (SDD.66 years),
represented by 14- (n D12), 15- (nD33), 16- (n D7), and 17-year olds (nD1). Teachers adminis-
tered the Motivation and Engagement Scale – High School (MES-HS—formerly Student
Motivation and Engagement Scale; Martin, 2001, 2003d, 2006, in press) to all participants prior
to the treatment group commencing the intervention program. The MES-HS was again admin-
istered to all students when the intervention had concluded.
When contextualizing the present focus on boys in this intervention, it is important to rec-
ognize that the study is part of a broader program assessing the educational needs of boys
and girls (see Martin, 2003a, 2003b, 2004; Martin & Marsh, 2005). Indeed, the education of
boys has been an issue of ongoing debate, research, and policy implementation over the past
248 A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269

decade (Spelke, 2005; Weaver-Hightower, 2003). There is a large body of data attesting to the
diVerences between adolescent boys and girls in academic motivation and achievement with
many of the Wndings suggesting boys are less motivated and engaged than girls (e.g., Collins,
Kenway, & McLeod, 2000; MacDonald, Saunders, & BenWeld, 1999; Martin, 2002a, 2003a,
2003b, 2004; Organization for Economic Co-operation & Development – OECD, 2001;
Rowe & Rowe, 1999; Walker, 1988). This intervention study, then, was conducted in the con-
text of initiatives to address the educational needs of boys in Australia. This is not to diminish
the educational needs of girls nor the student body as a whole. Rather, as with many studies,
there is context, history, and broader issues that provide the backdrop against which method-
ological decisions are made. Notwithstanding this, an obvious extension of the present study
will be to apply similar methodologies and analyses to girls as well.

7.1.2. The weighted external comparison sample

In addition to the control group involved in this study, mean-level group comparisons
were drawn with a larger Australian external sample (the comparison group) who had pre-
viously been administered the MES-HS. Martin (2005) proposed a weighted external com-
parison group can operate as another means by which to assess the Wndings of an
intervention—particularly when the intervention is conducted at a single site and greater
validity can be derived from ‘external’ data. He demonstrated the empirical eYcacy of such
an approach and that it also seemed to provide a test for potential biases in experimental
research such as diVusion eVects, Hawthorne eVects, and ‘test savvy’ respondents (see Dis-
cussion below for a full treatment of these issues in relation to the present study).
This larger sample comprised 12,237 male and female high school students. From this
sample, all 14-, 15-, 16-, and 17-year old boys were selected. In total, this represented 3381
students. The data for this comparison sample of students were then weighted to reXect the
number of 14- (22.6%), 15- (62.3%), 16- (13.2%), and 17-year olds (1.9%) in the target sam-
ple. The weighted data for this group then served as the weighted external comparison
group for the study.
This comparison sample is not a control group. It is simply another means by which the
present data can be contextualized, understood, and interpreted. The parallels between the
test sample and comparison are that both comprise only boys, both are Australian, and
both are matched in age. Notwithstanding this, the participants are not matched or paired
in the design and so conclusions regarding the comparison sample must consider this limi-
tation. It is also important to recognize that the timing of testing diVered for the two sam-
ples. The control and treatment samples were administered the MES-HS midway through
the school year, whereas the comparison sample comprised many schools that were admin-
istered the instrument at diVerent times of the year.
In terms of data analysis, the weighted external comparison group was retained as an
external dataset. Because it comprised such a large sample (N D 3381), any analyses of
diVerences would be biased towards statistical signiWcance if they were included in the
intervention dataset. Hence, when comparing the intervention group with the weighted
comparison group, the latter group’s parameters (e.g., mean scores) were retained as an
external parameter and the intervention group tested against it. Thus, whereas treatment
and control groups were assessed within the dataset using independent samples t-tests (see
below), treatment and external comparison groups were assessed using one-sample t-tests
where the external comparison parameter (e.g., mean score) was ‘introduced’ to the speciWc
analysis under focus (see below).
 A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269 249

7.2. Participant selection and tests for equality of groups

Treatment and control students participating in the study were identiWed by teachers as
reXecting a group of students who were not performing to their potential. It was of interest
to the school and of relevance to the broader program addressing the educational needs of
boys to assess the proposed intervention in the context of boys who in the school’s view
could be more engaged and performing better. For completeness, however, the school sub-
sequently administered the intervention to all other students in the cohort through their
pastoral care program (but no further measurement was undertaken with these students).
Notwithstanding this, given the nature of participant selection it must be recognized that
other students with motivation problems may have been overlooked in the formal inter-
vention study (but not in the subsequent cohort-wide program).
Preliminary analyses assessed the equality of groups participating in the study. In the
Wrst instance, this comprised a series of independent samples t-tests using the eleven pre-
test factors as dependent measures and the grouping variable (treatment/control) as the
independent measure. No signiWcant eVects for group were found after Bonferroni correc-
tion to adjust for the number of tests conducted. Follow-up MANOVA tests for equality
of covariance matrices between treatment and control groups also found no signiWcant
diVerence (F D 1.20, p D ns). Second, it was of further interest to determine equality between
the treatment group pre-test scores and the weighted comparison sample. A series of one-
sample t-tests found no signiWcant diVerences between the two samples after Bonferroni
correction to adjust for the number of tests conducted. Taken together, these Wndings sug-
gest that at the outset of the study the treatment group was not signiWcantly diVerent from
the control group or the weighted external comparison sample. Notwithstanding this, Wnd-
ings must be interpreted in view of the fact that no randomization occurred in selection or
in group assignment – and this obviously carries with it the associated issues relevant to the
validity of the study (see Cook & Campbell, 1979).

7.3. Materials

The Motivation and Engagement Scale-High School1 (MES-HS; Martin, 2006, in press;
formerly the Student Motivation and Engagement Scale—Martin, 2001, 2003d) is the
instrument under focus in this study. It measures high school students’ motivation and
engagement through six adaptive cognitive and behavioral dimensions, three impeding/
maladaptive cognitive dimensions, and two maladaptive behavioral dimensions. For infor-
mation about the development of this scale, see Martin (2001, 2003d, in press). Adaptive
cognitions include self-eYcacy (e.g., “If I try hard, I believe I can do my schoolwork well”),
mastery orientation (e.g., “I feel very pleased with myself when I really understand what
I’m taught at school”), and valuing (e.g., “Learning at school is important to me”). Adap-
tive behaviors include persistence (e.g., “If I can’t understand my schoolwork at Wrst, I keep

1
The MES-HS was formerly known as the Student Motivation Scale and then the Student Motivation and
Engagement Scale. It was renamed to reXect the recent extensions of the Wheel and its instrumentation to the
suite of parallel instruments encompassing junior (elementary/primary) school (Motivation and Engagement
Scale-Junior School; MES-JS), university/college (Motivation and Engagement Scale-University/College; MES-
UC), the workplace (Motivation and Engagement Scale-Work; MES-W), sport (Motivation and Engagement
Scale-Sport; MES-S), and music (Motivation and Engagement Scale-Music; MES-M).
250 A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269

going over it until I understand it”), planning (e.g., “Before I start an assignment I plan out
how I am going to do it”), and task management (e.g., “When I study, I usually study in
places where I can concentrate”). Impeding/maladaptive cognitive dimensions are anxiety
(e.g., “When exams and assignments are coming up, I worry a lot”), failure avoidance (e.g.,
“Often the main reason I work at school is because I don’t want to disappoint my par-
ents”), and uncertain control (e.g., “I’m often unsure how I can avoid doing poorly at
school”). Maladaptive behavioral dimensions are self-handicapping (e.g., “I sometimes
don’t study very hard before exams so I have an excuse if I don’t do as well as I hoped”)
and disengagement (e.g., “I often feel like giving up at school”). Each of the eleven factors
comprises four items – hence the MES-HS is a 44-item instrument. To each item, students
rate themselves on a scale of 1 (‘Strongly Disagree’) to 7 (‘Strongly Agree’). Martin (2001,
2003d, in press) has conWrmed a strong factor structure and has also shown that the MES-
HS is a reliable instrument with approximately normally distributed dimensions and is sig-
niWcantly associated with literacy, numeracy, and achievement in mathematics and
English, as well as being sensitive to age and gender-related diVerences in motivation.

7.3.1. Psychometric properties of the MES-HS

Given the size of the treatment and control groups in the study, it is not appropriate to
conduct factor analysis to assess the factor structure of the target instrument. Notwith-
standing this, at pre-testing the entire year groups (Years 10 and 11) at the school were
administered the instrument (along with the treatment and control groups). This sample
comprised 424 boys in Years 10 (53%; mean age D 14.8 years; SD age D .55) and Year 11
(47%; mean age D 15.7 years; SD age D .57). It is informative to note that conWrmatory fac-
tor analysis using LISREL 8.54 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2003) demonstrated a sound factor
structure across this larger sample in the same school and year groups (2 D 1,581.29,
df D 847, NNFI D .97, CFI D .97, RMSEA D .045). The weighted comparison sample was
also large enough to conduct similar analyses. This sample’s data Wt the 11-factor model
well (2 D 5,013.97, df D 847, NNFI D .98, CFI D .98, RMSEA D .038). Taken together, these
data show that the MES-HS reXects internal validity in terms of factor structure. Indeed,
reliability analysis presented in Table 2 below demonstrates that for the treatment and
control groups, a similar picture emerges.

7.3.2. Non-target measures

To test for the discriminant validity of the intervention it is important to also include
non-target educational measures that should not yield shifts as a result of the targeted
intervention. This provides a test of whether mere participation in a program rather than
the intervention itself impacts positively on students’ motivation and engagement. To this
end, the control and treatment samples were also administered items that explored their
enjoyment of school, class participation, educational aspirations, and academic resilience.
Enjoyment of school (e.g., “I enjoy being a student”; pre-test Cronbach’s  D .95; post-test
Cronbach’s  D .93; Test–retest reliability r D .69) comprised 4 items which were rated on a
scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree). Class participation (e.g., “I get involved
in things we do in class”; pre-test Cronbach’s  D .96; post-test Cronbach’s  D .93; Test–
retest reliability r D .79) comprised 4 items which were rated on the same 1 to 7 scale. Edu-
cational aspirations (e.g., “I’d like to continue studying or training after I complete
school”; pre-test Cronbach’s  D .74; post-test Cronbach’s  D .89; Test–retest reliability
r D .67) also comprised 4 items which were rated on the same scale. Academic resilience
 A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269
Table 2
Distributional and reliability statistics for (a) intervention and control students and (b) comparison sample
Distributional data Internal consistency reliability Test–retest reliability
Time 1 Time 2 Comparison Time 1 Time 2 Comparison T1–T2
Cronbach’s  Cronbach’s  Cronbach’s  correlation
Skew Kurtosis Skew Kurtosis Skew Kurtosis
Adaptive
Self-eYcacy ¡.73 .71 ¡.98 1.56 ¡.90 1.20 .81 .81 .77 .69
Valuing ¡.35 ¡.31 ¡.38 ¡.17 ¡1.01 1.50 .68 .62 .75 .65
Mastery orientation ¡1.56 3.53 ¡1.60 3.89 ¡.95 1.31 .87 .86 .80 .78
Planning ¡.27 ¡.77 ¡.16 ¡.50 ¡.22 ¡.32 .81 .83 .79 .62
Task management ¡.65 ¡.01 ¡.08 ¡.45 ¡.43 ¡.28 .77 .75 .82 .75
Persistence ¡.93 1.90 ¡1.04 1.59 ¡.53 .22 .87 .87 .81 .61
Impeding/maladaptive
Anxiety ¡.13 ¡.21 ¡.09 ¡.69 ¡.15 ¡.47 .76 .84 .74 .78
Failure avoidance .16 ¡.30 .61 .27 .34 ¡.48 .76 .87 .76 .81
Uncertain control .39 ¡.64 .18 ¡.99 .09 ¡.66 .86 .84 .80 .76
Maladaptive
Self-handicapping .64 ¡.62 .82 .49 .44 ¡.57 .87 .82 .81 .73
Disengagement 1.33 1.44 1.89 5.47 .84 .28 .87 .86 .81 .80
Note. ‘Time 1’ and ‘Time 2’ relate to the intervention and control students and ‘Comparison’ relates to the larger weighted comparison sample.

251
252 A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269

(e.g., “I’m good at bouncing back from a poor mark in my schoolwork”; pre-test
Cronbach’s  D .89; post-test Cronbach’s  D .88; Test–retest reliability r D .47) comprised
six items, used the 7-point scale, and refers to students’ ability to deal eVectively with set-
back, challenge, stress, and pressure in an academic setting.

7.4. Level at which to intervene

Interventions can be at the individual student level, the whole-class level, and/or the
whole-school level. One question to be resolved when an intervention is developed, con-
cerns the level/s at which to carry out that intervention. Although these considerations are
now recognized in much data analysis (for detailed discussion, see Goldstein, 2003; Ras-
bash, Steele, Browne, & Prosser, 2004; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002), they are not typically
the focus of intervention considerations. Hence, in developing the current intervention it
was considered critical to examine the relative variance in the measures explained at stu-
dent, class, and school levels. The level at which the bulk of variance occurs will provide
important direction as to the focus of the current intervention. This assessment of variance
in the measures central to this study was the focus of a recent study by Martin and Marsh
(2005). These analyses involved multilevel (or hierarchical linear) modeling. Multilevel
modeling has emerged over the past decade as a highly Xexible and useful approach to ana-
lyzing hierarchically structured data (Goldstein, 2003; Kreft & De Leeuw, 1998; Snijders &
Bosker, 1999). In the Martin and Marsh investigation, the data were conceptualized as a
three-level model, consisting of student at the Wrst level, class at the second level, and
school at the third level. The multilevel analyses were conducted using MLwiN version
2.00 (Rasbash et al., 2004).
In these preliminary analyses, a baseline variance components model (Rasbash et al.,
2004) or intercept-only model (Hox, 1995) was used to evaluate how much variation in
each of the eleven motivation measures could be attributed to the school (Level 3), the
class (Level 2), and the student (Level 1). Findings showed that on all measures, the bulk of
variance is accounted for at the student level. That is, there is greater variation from stu-
dent to student than there is from class to class or school to school. In 33 tests (11
measures £ student, class, and school levels) of statistical signiWcance, all yielded signiWcant
student-level variance, only three yielded signiWcant class-level variance (mastery orienta-
tion; self-handicapping; and disengagement) and none yielded signiWcant school-level
variance. Given that the bulk of variance was accounted for at the student level, a student-
centered intervention was considered the most defensible to implement in the present
study.

7.5. The motivation and engagement intervention

The motivation and engagement intervention implemented in the present study com-
prised a self-complete program of activities. There were 13 modules to the intervention, the
details of which are presented below and in the Appendix A.

7.5.1. Modules 1 to 11
The Wrst eleven modules address each of the eleven facets of the Wheel and comprise
four components in each module. As discussed earlier, the intervention was broadly struc-
tured around a systematic ‘Prepare-Generate-ReXect-Closure’ procedure that is aimed at:
 A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269 253

(a) providing an advance organizer for the module and its key activities, (b) enabling the
participants to generate and construct key learnings relevant to their motivation, (c) pro-
viding an opportunity for the participants to reXect on key messages developed through
these learnings, and (d) then attaining closure on the target module through having men-
tors sign oV the module for that week.

7.5.1.1. Component 1: Prepare. The ‘Prepare’ component of a given module:

(a) DeWned the construct under focus (e.g., for ‘self-eYcacy’: “Self-eYcacy is your belief
and conWdence in your ability to understand or to do well in your schoolwork, to
meet challenges you face, and to perform to the best of your ability”).
(b) Provided General Rules for addressing the module’s target construct (e.g., for ‘self-
eYcacy’: “General Rule 1. Become more aware of negative thoughts you may have
about yourself or events in your life, take time to look for evidence that challenges
these negative thoughts, and develop more positive ways to think about things using
this challenging evidence; General Rule 2. Recognize all your successes as you do
your schoolwork. For example, break an assignment into smaller parts and be
pleased with yourself for completing each part; General Rule 3. Recognize improve-
ments you make, trying not to focus on your shortcomings. If you do not do so well,
focus on how you can learn from that to improve; General Rule 4. Learn how to rec-
ognize your talents and learn how to use them to your advantage”).
(c) IdentiWed the key strategies of each of the three subsequent ‘Generate’ exercises (e.g.,
for ‘self-eYcacy’: “Strategy 1. Learn how to challenge your negative thinking and learn
how to think more positively; Strategy 2. Identify the many ways you succeed as you do
your schoolwork; Strategy 3. Identify your school-related talents and strengths”).

7.5.1.2. Component 2: Generate. The three ‘Generate’ exercises were self-complete activi-
ties speciWcally targeting the relevant construct under focus. For ‘self-eYcacy’, for example,
the three exercises were:

(a) Identifying and challenging negative thinking (in which the student: (1) Lists negative
thoughts they might have about themselves as a student, (2) writes a thought or idea
that can challenge these negative thoughts, and (3) writes a new positive thought that
can replace the negative thought).
(b) Identifying ways to build more success into one’s schoolwork (in which the student
reXects on previous completed work such as an assignment and lists some ways they
succeeded in that assignment irrespective of what mark they received—sample
prompts provided to students include: “DeWned and understood the question/prob-
lem” and “Broke the question into parts”).
(c) Identifying one’s academic strengths and talents (in which the student is encouraged
to be their own ‘talent scout’ by listing some of their academic-related talents—sam-
ple prompts provided to students include: “I take good notes” and “I present my
work neatly”).

7.5.1.3. Component 3: ReXect. The ‘ReXect’ (or ‘Stocktake’) component encourages the
student to process and further personalize the key messages from the ‘Generate’ exercises
and involved:
254 A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269

(a) Identifying the ‘Generate’ exercise that they found most helpful.
(b) Listing two (and to try for a third) things the exercise taught them that they believe
will be most helpful to them.
(c) Identifying speciWc ways they can implement the central messages from the mod-
ule. Here, three messages (reXecting the three ‘Generate’ exercises) are presented
(e.g., for ‘self-eYcacy’ the three messages are: “Message 1. Tackle negative thinking
with evidence so as to develop more positive thoughts, Message 2. Identify the
many ways you succeed as you do your schoolwork, and Message 3. Get to know
your school-related talents and strengths”). Sample prompts were provided to stu-
dents to help them think of ways to implement the key message (e.g., for ‘self-
eYcacy’: “Every time I think I can’t do something I’ll remember times I’ve been
successful before”).
(d) Rating their conWdence to apply what has been learnt in that module (“I believe I can
apply what I’ve learnt in these exercises”) on a scale of 1 (‘Strongly disagree’) to 7
(‘Strongly agree’). This rating is then built into Modules 12 and 13 at the end of the
program.

7.5.1.4. Component 4: Closure. The ‘Closure’ component provides the student with the
opportunity to touch base with a designated teacher/tutor and have his or her work on
each of the module’s components signed oV by this person. It also allows the student and
teacher/tutor an opportunity to interact on the motivation module under focus. This com-
ponent of the module involved:

(a) Revisiting the General Rules outlined in the ‘Prepare’ component.

(b) The student signing and dating his or her completion of the module.
(c) The teacher/tutor signing and dating the student’s completion of the module.

7.5.2. Modules 12 to 13
The Wnal two modules involved a top-up and a strength-consolidation module. Module
12 (top-up) required the student to identify a previous module in which his or her conW-
dence in applying its important messages was rated low, and then revisit this module with
some focused forward-thinking activity. SpeciWcally, this module involved:

(a) Looking back at the conWdence ratings (see (d) of ‘ReXect’ component above)
made in each module and writing the name of the lowest rating module (e.g., self-
eYcacy).
(b) Turning to the Wrst page of that module’s exercises and looking at its general rules
(see (b) of ‘Prepare’ component above).
(c) Identifying two of the General Rules that could be most useful or helpful and listing
three ways this can be so in their academic life.
(d) Writing the main message taken from these General Rules (Prompt provided: “What
do you think they are telling you?”).
(e) The student signing and dating his or her completion of the module.
(f) The teacher/tutor signing and dating the student’s completion of the module.

Module 13 (strength-consolidation) required the student to identify a previous module

in which his or her conWdence in applying its important messages was rated highly, and
 A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269 255

then revisit this module with some focused forward-thinking activity. SpeciWcally, this
module involved:

(a) Looking back at the conWdence ratings (see (d) of ‘ReXect’ component above) made
in each module and writing the name of the highest rating module (e.g., self-eYcacy).
(b) Turning to the Wrst page of that module’s exercises and looking at its General Rules
(see (b) of ‘Prepare’ component above).
(c) Identifying two of the General Rules that could be most useful or helpful in sustain-
ing this strength and listing three ways this can be so in their academic life.
(d) Writing the main message taken from these General Rules (Prompt provided: “What
do you think they are telling you?”).
(e) The student signing and dating his or her completion of the module.
(f) The teacher/tutor signing and dating the student’s completion of the module.

7.6. The process

Students completed the modules in small tutorial groups, which were led by teachers.
They were free to ask questions as they worked through the modules. Teachers were asked
to conduct discussion revolving around the modules that focused on practical ways the les-
sons learnt could be applied in students’ academic lives. At the completion of each module,
both the student and the teacher signed oV on its completion. Each module took approxi-
mately 20 to 30 minutes to complete and with the necessary introductions and follow-up
discussions along with the teacher signing oV on modules, one module was comfortably
embedded in a standard 50-minute period. When all modules were completed, students
were again administered the MES-HS.
The program was conducted through the school’s house system (a structural organiza-
tion of students and teachers) and was overseen by house teachers (the teachers located
within an assigned house) who were well known to the students and who knew the students
well. At the same time as treatment students worked on their program, the other students
(including controls) engaged in their standard pastoral care/tutorial group (a smaller
grouping of students that enables an assigned teacher or tutor to oversee the day-to-day
dimensions of students’ school life) program. Hence participating in the modules did not
detract from the time spent in class or the amount of material they covered. Students in the
control group were administered pre and post MES-HS forms at the same time as the
treatment group completed their forms.

8. Results

8.1. Distributional and reliability statistics

Table 2 shows distributional and reliability statistics for each facet of the Wheel for: (a)
intervention and control students and (b) students from the large weighted comparison
sample. The data show that for pre, post, and comparison data, each facet of motivation
and engagement is approximately normally distributed. Internal consistency for each facet
is generally high across the pre and post waves of data collection and the comparison sam-
ple. In terms of test–retest reliability, correlations across the two time points are high and
demonstrate reliability across time.
256 A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269

8.2. Pre- and post-test diVerences

A central element of the analysis was to compare mean motivation levels across the
two time points. This entailed comparing pre-test scores (prior to the intervention) and
post-test scores (following the intervention). Means and SDs for each facet of motiva-
tion across each time point are presented in Table 3. Pre- and post-test data were ana-
lyzed using a series of 2(treatment/control) £ 2(Pre/Post) ANOVAs with repeated
measures on the second factor. Table 4 presents Wndings. There were signiWcant main
within-subjects eVects on pre- and post-test scores on planning, task management, anxi-
ety, failure avoidance, and uncertain control—however, all but planning were qualiWed
by a signiWcant interaction eVect. In terms of planning, for all participants, post-test
scores were higher than pre-test scores with a large eVect size.
As Table 4 shows, there were statistically signiWcant repeated measures interaction eVects
on valuing, task management, persistence, anxiety, failure avoidance, and uncertain control.
Each of these is plotted in Fig. 2a–f, along with associated eVect sizes. Valuing scores for the
treatment group increased (medium eVect size) between pre- and post-testing while scores
for the control group decreased (medium eVect size). Task management scores for the treat-
ment group increased markedly (medium eVect size) between pre- and post-testing while
scores for the control group increased slightly (negligible eVect size). Persistence scores for
the treatment group increased (medium eVect size) between pre- and post-testing while
scores for the control group decreased (small eVect size). Anxiety scores for the treatment
group decreased (medium eVect size) between pre- and post-testing while scores for the con-
trol group remained the same (zero eVect size). Failure avoidance scores for the treatment
group decreased modestly (medium eVect size) between pre- and post-testing while scores

Table 3
Pre- and post-treatment and control group means and SDs and weighted external comparison data
Treatment Control Comparisona
Pre Post Pre Post
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Adaptive
Self-eYcacy 82 (11) 84 (11) 87 (11) 88 (09) 81 (14)
Valuing 81 (10) 84 (09) 88 (08) 85 (09) 79 (14)
Mastery orientation 84 (14) 87 (13) 86 (13) 87 (09) 82 (13)
Planning 59 (16) 69 (13) 67 (16) 72 (14) 59 (18)
Task management 70 (16) 76 (11) 77 (13) 78 (11) 67 (18)
Persistence 69 (12) 74 (11) 77 (13) 74 (11) 69 (15)
Impeding/maladaptive
Anxiety 62 (17) 54 (19) 62 (18) 62 (15) 59 (18)
Failure avoidance 46 (19) 40 (20) 43 (14) 42 (13) 47 (19)
Uncertain control 54 (20) 45 (14) 44 (17) 43 (17) 50 (18)
Maladaptive
Self-handicapping 36 (14) 33 (10) 31 (16) 32 (14) 42 (19)
Disengagement 36 (18) 33 (17) 28 (15) 27 (11) 37 (18)
a
Weighted external comparison is weighted sample of n D 3381 Australian high school boys.
Table 4
Tests for repeated measures eVects and diVerences between treatment group and a weighted external comparison sample

A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269

Pre-test–post-test main Pre-test–post-test repeated Treatment group pre-test— Treatment group post-test—
repeated measures eVect measures £ group eVect weighted comparison diVerencea weighted comparison diVerencea
F (df) EVect (eVect size) F (df) EVect (eVect size) t (df) EVect (EVect Size) t (df) EVect (eVect size)
Adaptive
Self-eYcacy 1.91 (1, 51) ns .20 (1, 51) ns .22 (25) ns 1.22 (25) ns
Valuing .06 (1, 51) ns 7.34 (1, 51)¤¤ See Fig. 2a .97 (25) ns 2.80 (25)¤¤ Treat > Compar (.43)
Mastery orientation 3.82 (1, 51) ns 1.59 (1, 51) ns .55 (25) ns 2.03 (25)¤ Treat > Compar (.39)
Planning 16.68 (1, 51)¤¤¤ Pre < Post (.69) 2.36 (1, 51) ns .07 (25) ns 4.11 (25)¤¤¤ Treat > Compar (.64)
Task management 7.16 (1, 51)¤ QualiWed by interaction 3.10 (1, 51)9 See Fig. 2b .92 (25) ns 3.83 (25)¤¤¤ Treat > Compar (.60)
Persistence .63 (1, 51) ns 5.59 (1, 51)¤¤ See Fig. 2c .10 (25) ns 2.30 (25)¤ Treat > Compar (.38)
Impeding/maladaptive
Anxiety 7.97 (1, 51)¤¤ QualiWed by interaction 9.29 (1, 51)¤¤ See Fig. 2d 1.00 (25) ns ¡1.43 (25) ns
Failure avoidance 4.95 (1, 51)¤ QualiWed by interaction 2.77 (1, 51)9 See Fig. 2e ¡.30 (25) ns ¡1.70 (25)9 Treat < Compar (.36)
Uncertain control 9.39 (1, 51)¤¤ QualiWed by interaction 5.14 (1, 51)¤ See Fig. 2f .93 (25) ns ¡1.86 (25)9 Treat < Compar (.31)
Maladaptive
Self-handicapping .48 (1, 51) ns 2.08 (1, 51) ns ¡1.98 (25) ns ¡4.35 (25)¤¤¤ Treat < Compar (.59)
Disengagement 1.75 (1, 51) ns .43 (1, 51) ns ¡.37 (25) ns ¡1.19 (25) ns
ns, not statistically signiWcant.
Note that for repeated measures analyses, Bonferroni correction would render p < 0.005 as the revised signiWcance level.
Note that for the one-sample t-tests, Bonferroni correction would render p < 0.002 as the revised signiWcance level.
a
Weighted external comparison is weighted sample of n D 3381 Australian high school boys.
¤
p < 0.05.
¤¤
p < 0.01.
¤¤¤
p < 0.001.
9 p < 0.1.

257
258 A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269

a 90 b 85

85 80
Mean/100

Mean/100
Treatment Treatment
80 75
Control Control
75 70

70 65
Pre Post Pre Post
Time Time
VALUING TASK MANAGEMENT

c 85
d 70

80 65
Mean/100

Mean/100
Treatment Treatment
75 60
Control Control
70 55

65 50
Pre Post Pre Post
Time Time
PERSISTENCE ANXIETY

e 55
f 60

50 55
Mean/100

Mean/100

Treatment Treatment
45 50
Control Control
40 45

35 40
Pre Post Pre Post
Time Time
FAILURE AVOIDANCE UNCERTAIN CONTROL
Fig. 2. (a) Pre/post £ Treat/Cont interaction on Valuing Treatment pre/post eVect size D .32 Control Pre/post
eVect size D .35. (b) Pre/post £ Treat/Cont interaction on Task Management Treatment pre/post eVect size D .44
Control pre/post eVect size D .08. (c) Pre/post £ Treat/Cont interaction on Persistence Treatment pre/post eVect
size D .43 Control pre/post eVect size D .25. (d) Pre/post £ Treat/Cont interaction on Anxiety Treatment pre/post
eVect size D .44 Control pre/post eVect size D NA. (e) Pre/post £ Treat/Cont interaction on Failure avoidance
Treatment pre/post eVect size D .31 Control pre/post eVect size D .07. (f) Pre/post £ Treat/Cont interaction on
Uncertain control Treatment pre/post eVect size D .52 Control pre/post eVect size D .06.

for the control group decreased slightly (negligible eVect size). Uncertain control scores for
the treatment group decreased markedly (large eVect size) between pre- and post-testing
while scores for the control group decrease slightly (negligible eVect size).

8.3. Tests using a larger weighted external comparison sample

One limitation of previous analyses is that it is unclear how the mean levels of moti-
vation compare to a larger and more representative sample beyond the school in which
 A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269 259

the study took place. To redress this, a weighted external comparison sample (described
above) was incorporated into analyses. Mean levels of motivation for this comparison
sample are presented in Table 3. To test for diVerences between this comparison sample
and pre- and post-testing for the treatment group, a series of one-sample t-tests were
carried out. This procedure compared the treatment group’s mean score for each dimen-
sion of motivation with the weighted comparison’s mean score on the same dimension.
The one-sample procedure was the analysis of choice because pooling the weighted
comparison data (N D 3381) with the treatment group’s data (thereby enabling indepen-
dent sample t-tests) would substantially distort any tests of statistical signiWcance.
Moreover, matching samples to enable paired samples t-tests would require a level of
subjectivity that would call into question the validity of the Wndings. Findings of the
one-sample t-tests and associated eVect sizes are presented in Table 4. Table 4 shows
that at pre-testing the treatment group was not signiWcantly diVerent from the weighted
comparison sample. Taken together, these Wndings show that at the outset of the inter-
vention, the treatment group was not signiWcantly diVerent from the weighted compari-
son sample.
By post-testing, however, signiWcant diVerences in motivation and engagement had
emerged such that the treatment group was more motivated than the comparison sample.
SpeciWcally, by the end of the intervention, the treatment group scored signiWcantly higher
than the weighted comparison archive sample on valuing, mastery orientation, planning,
task management, and persistence. Moreover, by the end of the intervention, the treatment
group scored signiWcantly lower than the weighted comparison group on failure avoidance
and uncertain control. In terms of self-handicapping, the gap between the treatment group
and the comparative sample had widened, with the treatment markedly lower in self-hand-
icapping scores. EVect sizes ranged from medium to large, with a number of eVect sizes in
the large range (planning, task management, and self-handicapping). Taken together, these
Wndings also attest to the positive eVects of the intervention on students’ academic motiva-
tion and engagement.

8.4. Tests on non-target measures

A further test of the eVects of the intervention is to assess for shifts on non-target mea-
sures. If the intervention is targeted to speciWc facets of motivation and engagement then it
should not yield signiWcant interaction eVects on non-target measures. Indeed, this is a test
of whether mere participation in any program, rather than the program per se, accounts for
gains in educational outcomes. If there are not signiWcant interaction eVects on non-target
measures and there are signiWcant interaction eVects on target measures, this lends further
support to the validity of the intervention.
Accordingly a series of 2(treatment/control) £ 2(pre/post) ANOVAs with repeated
measures on the second factor was conducted on four other educational constructs: edu-
cational aspirations, class participation, enjoyment of school, and academic resilience.
Although not central to the speciWc research question posed here, there were two signiW-
cant main eVects found (not qualiWed by an interaction): for class participation,
F(1, 51) D 6.12, p < .05 (pre-test < post-test; eVect size D .20) and enjoyment,
F(1, 51) D 6.90, p < .05 (pre-test < post-test; eVect size D .29). However, of particular inter-
est was the interaction eVect that would indicate the treatment group’s shift on the non-
target measures relative to the control group. At the p < .05 level, no signiWcant interac-
260 A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269

tion eVect was found for class participation, F(1, 51) D 2.54, p D ns, enjoyment of school,
F(1, 51) D 3.81, p D ns, and educational aspirations, F(1, 51) D 1.69, p D ns. There was a
signiWcant interaction found for academic resilience, F(1, 51) D 6.56, p < .05 such that the
treatment group made signiWcant gains between pre- and post-testing (eVect size D .62)
while the control group remained relatively unchanged. Interestingly, previous research
by Martin and Marsh (2006) has shown that academic resilience comprises Wve key fac-
ets of the Wheel (self-eYcacy, persistence, planning, low anxiety, and low uncertain con-
trol) and it may be that the present intervention targeting these key facets, accounts for
the signiWcant eVects for academic resilience. However, taken together, and in consider-
ation of previous research into academic resilience, the hypothesis that the intervention
should yield generally non-signiWcant interaction eVects on non-target measures is
upheld.

9. Discussion

The present study sought to investigate the eVects of a multidimensional educational

intervention program on high school students’ motivation and engagement. Using a pre/
post, treatment/control group design, the present study found that the intervention
brought about signiWcant shifts in motivation and engagement. SpeciWcally, Wndings
showed that the treatment group made positive motivation shifts on target dimensions
including task management, persistence, anxiety, failure avoidance, and uncertain control.
Moreover, against a large weighted comparison group, the treatment group made positive
shifts on valuing, mastery orientation, planning, task management, persistence, failure
avoidance, uncertain control, and self-handicapping. Taken together, these Wndings attest
to the potential for multidimensional intervention for enhancing students’ motivation and
engagement.

9.1. SigniWcance of Wndings

The Wndings are signiWcant for a number of reasons. First, they show that targeted
and multidimensional intervention yields signiWcant eVects particular to the parallel
domains under assessment. Previous research shows that targeted intervention is more
eVective than intervention that does not focus on speciWc target behaviors (Martin, 2005;
Weisz, Weiss, Han, Granger, & Morton, 1995) and so it is proposed that educational
programs seeking to build speciWc academic skills and competencies need to provide tar-
geted support that can do this. Indeed, multidimensional interventions are one means of
achieving this. Moreover, it is encouraging that the key intervention components can be
embedded into an existing school term and yield eVects speciWc to its focus. This suggests
that it is not necessary to develop programs independent of the school and curriculum
but that opportunities can be sought to embed intervention into the ‘ordinary course of
business’.
Second, the Wndings reXect and conWrm research into the elements of programs that
work. For example, in terms of the motivation intervention, the intervention involved the
following elements that research has found to underpin eVective intervention and strategy:
empirically derived intervention methodology; multidimensional educational cognition,
aVect, and behavior; research-based risk (impeding and maladaptive dimensions) and
protective factors (adaptive dimensions); established practices that nurture optimal youth
 A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269 261

development; use of interpersonally skilled staV (teachers well known to the students); and,
incorporation of evidence-based programming (see Dryfoos, 1990; Lerner & Galambos,
1998; Nation et al., 2003; Weissberg et al., 2003).
A third reason the Wndings are signiWcant is because they provide support for a mul-
tidimensional conceptualization and application of motivation and engagement, show
how multidimensional intervention can address a diversity of motivation and engage-
ment factors, and demonstrate what particular dimensions of these are most inXuenced
by intervention work. This is in line with previous research (e.g., see Marsh & Craven,
1997; Marsh et al., 2006) that argues for a construct validity approach to interventions
in which the speciWc dimensions of self-concept and motivation most relevant to the
intervention should be most aVected, whilst less relevant dimensions should be
less aVected and should serve as a control for response biases. Taken together, then, the
present Wndings support the usefulness of a multidimensional perspective of
intervention.
Fourth, the gains made are signiWcant because the intervention period represents a sig-
niWcant proportion of the academic term for students. Over this time they are subjected to
a diversity of academic pressures and challenges. In the context of this, the Wndings can be
considered robust in the face of students’ demanding academic lives. Related to this, Wnd-
ings are also important because they provide some insight into the intervention in the con-
text of a large comparison sample matched in terms of age, year level and gender. Because
the eVect was demonstrated in the context of both a control group and a large representa-
tive weighted sample of comparable students, it is reasonable to conclude that they are
robust.

9.2. Limitations and future directions

The present study provides a number of important insights into a form of educational
intervention that is multidimensional and embedded within the school curriculum, and
also the impact such a program can have on motivation and engagement outcomes. Not-
withstanding this, there are some aspects of the study that require qualiWcation and which
provide direction for future research.
It may be that a Hawthorne EVect can account for part of the gains observed. That is,
simply being part of any new program and participating in the motivation intervention
prompted students to operate in more motivated ways and perhaps to inXate their self-
reports of motivation and engagement. The present study addressed this issue by assessing
non-target measures (class participation, educational aspirations, enjoyment of school, and
academic resilience) on which the intervention should have relatively less eVect. The ratio-
nale for inclusion of these measures was that if a signiWcant group by time interaction were
not obtained, this would indicate against the possibility that mere participation rather than
the intervention per se has yielded eVects. It was found that on three of the four measures,
no such interaction eVect was found. It was concluded that the intervention yielded eVects
speciWc to the key motivation facets it targeted and yielded little or no eVect on non-target
measures.
It must also be recognized that at the descriptive level, pre-test scores for the control
group reXected greater mean levels of motivation and engagement than the treatment
group. It is therefore possible that the control group had little room to move, whereas
the treatment group had scope for positive shifts and/or a return to the population
262 A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269

mean simply by dint of their lower pre-test scores. Two points are made in relation to
this. First, although mean levels diVered at the descriptive level, preliminary t-tests of
pre-test diVerences between treatment and control groups yielded no signiWcant eVects
and MANOVA on pre-test measures yielded no signiWcant diVerence between covari-
ance matrices. Second, it is important to recognize that the treatment group made gains
over and above mean level scores for the large and representative weighted comparison
group. Hence, if treatment gains were simply a result of a return to the population
mean, they would not reXect signiWcant gains relative to a comparison sample that
more closely reXects that population mean.
It might also be possible that these gains were a function of participants’ expectations,
practice eVects, or their propensity to be ‘test savvy’. They were aware of the purpose of
the intervention and may have been motivated to give the ‘right’ answers. Although this
is possible, it is contended that it is unlikely to be the case for two reasons. First, as a
general rule gains were not made where they should not have been made. That is, on the
non-target measures, few signiWcant gains were made by the treatment group relative to
the control group. If students were simply responding in a socially desirable fashion,
non-target items would have yielded gains as well. Second, students are unlikely to have
remembered precisely how they responded to the instrument at pre-testing many weeks
earlier. Taken together, the Wndings and design reduce the likelihood of social desirabil-
ity bias.
There is also the possibility of diVusion eVects (Cook & Campbell, 1979; Craven
et al., 2001; Good & Brophy, 1974; Plewis & Hurry, 1998). These occur when direct or
indirect interaction between treatment and control groups invalidates comparisons
between them. For example, this can occur through the control group learning
about information intended for the others. Or, it can occur when the control group is
aware that the treatment group is receiving an intervention, and can result in
what Cook and Campbell (1979) refer to as resentful demoralization, in which the
control group gives up, stops trying, or otherwise negatively reacts to the beneWts of
the intervention being denied them. Both possibilities are considered unlikely
because on many of the key measures the control group was predominantly
unchanged by post-testing. Moreover, the presence of an external weighted compari-
son group provided a control for any possible diVusion or leakage eVects of the inter-
vention.
It must be recognized that the participating students were selected on the basis of
their relatively lower motivation and engagement and so may have been in a poten-
tially ready state, or ready to make changes in their lives. Given this, the Wndings
may have been due primarily to students being in a potential state of readiness or need
to change. Research into the transtheoretical model of change (Prochaska,
DiClemente, & Norcross, 1992; Prochaska & Marcus, 1994) shows that the more
individuals are ready to change, the more likely that change will take place. It is
unclear, then, to what extent change would occur with students less ready to change.
Future research needs to explore this. However, it may also be that one beneWt of
motivation and engagement intervention is fast-tracking students’ readiness to
change.
It is important to note that the data presented in this study are all self-reported.
Although this is a logical and defensible methodology in its own right given the sub-
stantive psychological focus, it is important to conduct research that examines the
 A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269 263

same constructs using data derived from additional sources such as, for example, that
from teachers and parents. Furthermore, data were collected at pre- and post-test only
and so the duration of treatment eVects is unclear. Although previous intervention
work revolving around the Wheel demonstrated sustained gains after a three-month
follow-up (Martin, 2005), there is a need to conduct such work in the context of the
present intervention program.
It is recognized that the sample for this study was not large, and so the extent to which it
is representative of the larger student population is unclear. It must be noted, however, that
intervention research—particularly intensive and extended interventions such as the pres-
ent intervention—typically does not involve large numbers, and so this sample is not
unusually small in this context. Moreover, the students selected for the program were stu-
dents who could be more engaged or who could perform better. This type of student repre-
sents quite a large slice of the student population (Vinson, 2002) and so even the relatively
small size of the present sample can be seen to reXect motivation in a signiWcant proportion
of the student body. Furthermore, the inclusion of a large weighted external comparison
sample provided an important and valid context in which to explore the motivational gains
observed.
Finally, a more powerful test of the eVectiveness of the intervention would be to
assess the link between these results and later academic achievement. Unfortunately, no
achievement data were available in the present study and future research would do well
to extend the data collection to incorporate ‘objective’ measures of performance such as
achievement scores. It is contended that changes in motivation are likely to lead to
changes in achievement—for example, Martin (2001) found that facets of the Wheel are
signiWcantly correlated with mathematics and English achievement. However, this needs
to be tested in the context of an intervention that brings about changes in motivation
and engagement and the subsequent impact this might have on academic gains or
declines. Whilst it is tempting to infer that gains in motivation will necessarily lead to
gains in achievement, the onus is on the researcher to demonstrate this using achieve-
ment data.

10. Conclusion

The present study sought to explore the eVects on students’ academic motivation and
engagement of a multidimensional educational intervention. Relative to a control group
and a large weighted comparison sample, the data showed gains for a treatment group
on key facets of motivation over the course of the intervention. Key elements of the pro-
gram that are proposed to have contributed to the gains include key targets of motiva-
tion and engagement; empirically derived intervention methodology; multidimensional
educational cognition, aVect, and behavior (the eleven facets of the Wheel); research-
based risk (impeding and maladaptive dimensions) and protective factors (adaptive
dimensions); established practices that nurture optimal youth development; use of inter-
personally skilled staV; and, incorporation of evidence-based programming. Taken
together, these Wndings hold practical implications for program developers seeking to
enhance key facets of students’ academic motivation and engagement, as well as implica-
tions for researchers seeking to assess the impact of programmatic interventions on aca-
demic outcomes.
264 A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269
Appendix A. Intervention modules and component summary
Program module
Module 1. Self-eYcacy
Module 2. Valuing
Module 3. Mastery orientation
Module 4. Planning
Module 5. Task management
Module 6. Persistence
Components 1 to 4
1. Prepare—DeWne factor, general rules, advance organizer for Module
2. Generate—
a. Challenging negative thinking
b. Identifying ways to build more success into one’s schoolwork
c. Identify one’s academic strengths and talents
3. ReXect—Identifying important messages, how to apply them, and rating
one’s conWdence in applying messages
4. Closure—Revisiting important strategies and having work signed oV by
oneself and one’s parent/teacher
1. Prepare—DeWne factor, general rules, advance organizer for Module
2. Generate—
a. Linking school to the world
b. Linking school to one’s life
c. Skills learnt in school
3. ReXect—Identifying important messages, how to apply them, and rating
one’s conWdence in applying messages
4. Closure—Revisiting important strategies and having work signed oV by
oneself and one’s parent/teacher
1. Prepare—DeWne factor, general rules, advance organizer for Module
2. Generate—
a. Achieving Personal Bests (PBs)
b. Developing active learning
c. Changing the reasons for learning
3. ReXect—Identifying important messages, how to apply them, and rating
one’s conWdence in applying messages
4. Closure—Revisiting important strategies and having work signed oV by
oneself and one’s parent/teacher
1. Prepare—DeWne factor, general rules, advance organizer for Module
2. Generate—
a. Planning what to do and how to do it
b. Understanding what one is asked to do
c. Monitoring progress
3. ReXect—Identifying important messages, how to apply them, and rating
one’s conWdence in applying messages
4. Closure—Revisiting important strategies and having work signed oV by
oneself and one’s parent/teacher
1. Prepare—DeWne factor, general rules, advance organizer for Module
2. Generate—
a. Working under good study conditions
b. Using one’s time better
c. Developing a weekly study timetable
3. ReXect—Identifying important messages, how to apply them, and rating
one’s conWdence in applying messages
4. Closure—Revisiting important strategies and having work signed oV by
oneself and one’s parent/teacher
1. Prepare—DeWne factor, general rules, advance organizer for Module
2. Generate—
a. Breaking work into more achievable components
 A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269
Appendix A (continued)
Program module
Module 7. Anxiety
Module 8. Uncertain control
Module 9. Failure avoidance
Module 10. Self-handicapping
Module 11. Disengagement
265
Components 1 to 4
b. Identifying the keys to previous times of persistence
c. Understanding previous times when persistence was a problem
3. ReXect—Identifying important messages, how to apply them, and rating
one’s conWdence in applying messages
4. Closure—Revisiting important strategies and having work signed oV by
oneself and one’s parent/teacher
1. Prepare—DeWne factor, general rules, advance organizer for Module
2. Generate—
a. Relaxation techniques
b. Preparing for tests
c. Taking tests
3. ReXect—Identifying important messages, how to apply them, and rating
one’s conWdence in applying messages
4. Closure—Revisiting important strategies and having work signed oV by
oneself and one’s parent/teacher
1. Prepare—DeWne factor, general rules, advance organizer for Module
2. Generate—
a. Identifying reasons for past academic outcomes
b. Identifying which of these are within one’s control
c. Identifying ways to focus on these controllable reasons more
3. ReXect—Identifying important messages, how to apply them, and rating
one’s conWdence in applying messages
4. Closure—Revisiting important strategies and having work signed oV by
oneself and one’s parent/teacher
1. Prepare—DeWne factor, general rules, advance organizer for Module
2. Generate—
a. Identifying the actions and thoughts that can deal with fear
b. Seeing mistakes as keys to improvement
c. Tackling ‘unhelpful’ reasons for learning
3. ReXect—Identifying important messages, how to apply them, and rating
one’s conWdence in applying messages
4. Closure—Revisiting important strategies and having work signed oV by
oneself and one’s parent/teacher
1. Prepare—DeWne factor, general rules, advance organizer for Module
2. Generate—
a. Identifying examples of self-handicapping
b. Identifying reasons why one might self-handicap
c. Identifying strategies to tackle self-handicapping
3. ReXect—Identifying important messages, how to apply them, and rating
one’s conWdence in applying messages
4. Closure—Revisiting important strategies and having work signed oV by
oneself and one’s parent/teacher
1. Prepare—DeWne factor, general rules, advance organizer for Module
2. Generate—
a. Identifying one’s own contribution in academic outcomes
b. Identifying past times at school when things were not so bad
c. Using this information to ‘glimpse’ the future
3. ReXect—Identifying important messages, how to apply them, and rating
one’s conWdence in applying messages
(continued on next page)
266 A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269

Appendix A (continued)
Program module
Module 12. Topping up
Module 13. Finishing on a high
note
Components 1 to 4
4. Closure—Revisiting important strategies and having work signed oV by
oneself and one’s parent/teacher
Components 1 to 5
1. Identifying the lowest conWdence rating in the ‘ReXect’ component
across the eleven modules
2. Revisiting this module and refreshing major points
3. Identifying how these major points can be helpful
4. Identifying ways to apply these major points
5. Signing oV—Revisiting important strategies and having work signed oV
by oneself and one’s parent/teacher
1. Identifying the highest conWdence rating in the ‘ReXect’ component
across the eleven modules
2. Revisiting this module and refreshing major points
3. Identifying how these major points can be helpful
4. Identifying ways to apply these major points
5. Signing oV—Revisiting important strategies and having work signed oV
by oneself and one’s parent/teacher

References

Anderman, E. A., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational
Research, 64, 287–310.
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking. Psychological Review, 64, 359–372.
Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 267–272.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-eYcacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman & Co.
Beck, A. T. (1995). Cognitive therapy: Basics and beyond. New York: Guilford.
Becker, B. E., & Luthar, S. S. (2002). Social-emotional factors aVecting achievement outcomes among disadvan-
taged students: closing the achievement gap. Educational Psychologist, 37, 197–214.
Bong, M. (1996). Problems in academic motivation research and advantages and disadvantages of their solutions.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 149–165.
Buss, D. W., & Cantor, N. (1989). Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Collins, C., Kenway, J., & McLeod, J. (2000). Factors inXuencing the educational performance of males and
females in school and their initial destinations after leaving school. Canberra: DETYA.
Connell, J. P. (1985). A new multidimensional measure of children’s perceptions of control. Child Development,
56, 1018–1041.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation. Design and analysis issues for Weld settings. Chi-
cago: Rand McNally.
Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Covington, M. V. (1998). The will to learn: A guide for motivating young people. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1991). Need achievement revisited: veriWcation of Atkinson’s original 2 £ 2
model. In C. D. Spielberger, I. G. Sarason, Z. Kulcsar, & G. L. Van Heck (Eds.), Stress and emotion (Vol. 14).
New York, NY: Hemisphere.
Craven, R. G., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (1991). EVects of internally focused feedback and attribu-
tional feedback on the enhancement of academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology,
83, 17–26.
Craven, R. G., Marsh, H. W., Debus, R. L., & Jayasinghe, U. (2001). DiVusion eVects: control group contam-
ination threats to validity of teacher-administered interventions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93,
639–645.
 A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269 267

Dandy, J., & Nettelbeck, T. (2000). The model student? An investigation of Chinese Australian students’ academic
achievement, studying, and causal attributions for academic success and failure. Australian Psychologist, 35,
208–215.
Dobson, K., & Dozois, D. (2001). Historical and philosophical bases of cognitive-behavioral therapies. In K. Dob-
son (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive-behavioral therapies (pp. 3–39). New York: Guilford.
Dryfoos, J. G. (1990). Adolescents at risk: Prevalence and prevention. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes aVecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.
Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement
motivation. San Francisco: Freeman.
Goldstein, H. (2003). Multilevel Statistical Models (3rd ed.). London: Hodder Arnold.
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1974). Changing teacher and student behavior: an empirical investigation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 66, 390–405.
Greeno, J. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5–26.
Hattie, J. (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hox, J. (1995). Applied multilevel analysis. Amsterdam: TT Publikaties.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2003). LISREL 8.54. ScientiWc Software International.
Kelly, J. A., & Hansen, D. J. (1987). Social interactions and adjustment. In V. B. Can Hasselt & M. Hersen (Eds.),
Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 131–146). Pergamon Press: Springer.
Kreft, I., & De Leeuw, J. D. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lerner, R. M., & Galambos, N. L. (1998). Adolescent development: challenges and opportunities for research,
programs, and policies. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 413–446.
MacDonald, A., Saunders, L., & BenWeld, P. (1999). Boys’ achievement progress, motivation and participation:
Issues raised by the recent literature. Slough UK: National Foundation for Educational Research.
Marsh, H. W. (1990). A multidimensional, hierarchical model of self-concept: theoretical and empirical justiWca-
tion. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 77–172.
Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. (1997). Academic self-concept: beyond the dustbowl. In G. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of
classroom assessment: Learning, achievement, and adjustment (pp. 131–198). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Marsh, H.W., Craven, R.G., & Martin, A.J. (2006). What is the nature of self-esteem? Unidimensional and multidi-
mensional perspectives. In M. Kernis (Ed.), Self-esteem: Issues and Answers. Psychology Press: New York, NY.
Martin, A. J. (2001). The Student Motivation Scale: a tool for measuring and enhancing motivation. Australian
Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 11, 1–20.
Martin, A. J. (2002a). Motivation and academic resilience: developing a model of student enhancement. Austra-
lian Journal of Education, 46, 34–49.
Martin, A. J. (2003a). Boys and motivation: Contrasts and comparisons with girls’ approaches to schoolwork.
Australian Educational Researcher, 30, 43–65.
Martin, A. J. (2003b). Enhancing the educational outcomes of boys: Wndings from the A.C.T investigation into
boys’ education. Youth Studies Australia, 22, 27–36.
Martin, A. J. (2003c). How to motivate your child for school and beyond. Sydney: Bantam.
Martin, A. J. (2003d). The student motivation scale: further testing of an instrument that measures school stu-
dents’ motivation. Australian Journal of Education, 47, 88–106.
Martin, A. J. (2004). School motivation of boys and girls: diVerences of degree, diVerences of kind, or both? Aus-
tralian Journal of Psychology, 56, 133–146.
Martin, A. J. (2005). Exploring the eVects of a youth enrichment program on academic motivation and engage-
ment. Social Psychology of Education, 8, 179–206.
Martin, A. J. (2006). The motivation and engagement scale. Sydney, Australia: Lifelong Achievement Group.
Martin, A.J. (in press). Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and engagement using a con-
struct validation approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology.
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2005). Motivating boys and motivating girls: does teacher gender really make a
diVerence? Australian Journal of Education, 49, 320–334.
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2006). Academic resilience and its psychological and educational correlates: a con-
struct validity approach. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 267–282.
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2001a). A quadripolar need achievement representation of self-hand-
icapping and defensive pessimism. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 583–610.
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2001b). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism: exploring a
model of predictors and outcomes from a self-protection perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93,
87–102.
268 A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269

Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2003). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism: a model of self-
protection from a longitudinal perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 1–36.
McClelland, D. C. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. American Psychologist, 20, 321–333.
McInerney, V., McInerney, D. M., & Marsh, H. W. (1997). EVects of metacognitive strategy training within a
cooperative group learning context on computer achievement and anxiety: an aptitude-treatment interaction
study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 686–695.
Meece, J. L., WigWeld, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of mathematics anxiety and its inXuence on young ado-
lescents’ course enrolment intentions and performance in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82,
60–70.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M., Hicks, L., Roesser, R., Urdan, T., Anderman, E., et al. (1997). Patterns of Adaptive Learn-
ing (PALS). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindran, B., & Nicholls, J. D. (1996). Engagement in academic
work: the role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and perceived ability. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 21, 388–422.
Miserandino, M. (1996). Children who do well in school: Individual diVerences in perceived competence and
autonomy in above-average children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 203–214.
Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25, 3–53.
Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K. L., Seybolt, D., Morrisey-Kane, E., et al. (2003). What
works in prevention: Principles of eVective prevention programs. American Psychologist, 58, 449–456.
Nicholls, J. G. (1989). (The competitive ethos and democratic education.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
O’Mara, A. J., Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., & Debus, R. (2006). Do self-concept interventions make a diVerence?
A synergistic blend of construct validation and meta-analysis. Educational Psychologist, 41, 181–206.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD; 2001). Programme for International Stu-
dent Assessment (PISA) in brief: Highlights from the full Australian report. Melbourne: ACER.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-eYcacy beliefs in achievement settings. Review of Educational Research., 66, 543–578.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Educational psychology at the millennium: A look back and a look forward. Educational
Psychologist, 35, 221–226.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teach-
ing contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom aca-
demic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.
Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college classroom. In M.
Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: goals and self-regulatory processes
(Vol. 7, pp. 371–402). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A.F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W.J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strat-
egies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (1991). Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve
Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
Plewis, I., & Hurry, J. (1998). A multilevel perspective on the design and analysis of intervention studies. Educa-
tional Research and Evaluation, 4, 13–26.
Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. C. (1992). In search of how people change: applications to
addictive behaviors. American Psychologist, 47, 1102–1114.
Prochaska, J. O., & Marcus, B. H. (1994). The transtheoretical model: application to Exercise. In R. K. Dishman
(Ed.), Advances in exercise adherence (pp. 161–180). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive eVorts and problem solving.
Review of Educational Research, 65, 129–144.
Rasbash, J., Steele, F., Browne, W., & Prosser, B. (2004). A user’s guide to MLwiN version 2.0. London Institute of
Education.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reinecke, MA., & Clark, D. A. (2004). Cognitive therapy across the lifespan: conceptual horizons. In M. A. Reinecke
& D. A. Clark (Eds.), Cognitive therapy across the lifespan (pp. 1–11). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rowe, K. J., & Rowe, K. S. (1999). Investigating the relationship between students’ attentive-inattentive behav-
iours in the classroom and their literacy progress. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 1–138.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social
development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
 A.J. Martin / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 239–269 269

Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (1990). Test anxiety. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of social and evaluation
anxiety (pp. 475–495). New York: Plenum Press.
Schunk, D. H. (1990). Introduction to the special section on motivation and eYcacy. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 82, 3–6.
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel mod-
eling. London: Sage Publications.
Spelke, E. S. (2005). Sex diVerences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science? A critical review. American
Psychologist, 60, 950–958.
Spielberger, C. D. (1985). Assessment of state and trait anxiety: conceptual and methodological issues. Southern
Psychologist, 2, 6–16.
Stokes, D. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution Press.
Teven, J. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student learning and
teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 46, 1–9.
Vinson, T. (2002). Inquiry into the provision of public education in New South Wales. Sydney: Pluto Press.
Walker, J. C. (1988). The way men act: dominant and subordinate male cultures in an inner-city school. British
Journal of Sociology of Education, 9, 3–18.
Weaver-Hightower, M. (2003). The ‘boy turn’ in research on gender and education. Review of Educational
Research, 73, 471–498.
Weiner, B. (1994). Integrating social and personal theories of achievement striving. Review of Educational
Research, 64, 557–573.
Weissberg, R. P., Kumpfer, K. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2003). Prevention that works for children and youth: an
introduction. American Psychologist, 58, 425–432.
Weisz, J. R., Weiss, B., Han, S. S., Granger, D. A., & Morton, T. (1995). EVects of psychotherapy with children and
adolescents revisited: a meta-analysis of treatment outcome studies. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 450–468.
WigWeld, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: a developmental perspective. Educa-
tional Psychology Review, 6, 49–78.
WigWeld, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: a theoretical analysis. Develop-
mental Review, 12, 265–310.
WigWeld, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychol-
ogy, 25, 68–81.
WigWeld, A., & Tonks, S. (2002). Adolescents’ expectancies for success and achievement task values during middle
and high school years. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Academic motivation of adolescents. Connecticut:
Information Age Publishing.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Achieving self-regulation: the trial and triumph of adolescence. In F. Pajares & T.
Urdan (Eds.), Academic motivation of adolescents. Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.