FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 2 Acknowledgements This project was influenced by my advocates. Dr. Peggy Saunders, my most impactful influence throughout both the master’s program and this research project, deserves recognition for her endless support and respected advice. She was a stronghold of knowledge and experience who gave me the tools to succeed. I want to acknowledge my gratitude to Dr. DeeDee Mower and Dr. Caitlin Byrne who provided me with effective feedback and were committed throughout the project. Also, I must recognize the dear friends and colleagues who cheered me on along the way. Their encouragement means more to me than they know. I would not be the life-long learner I am today had I not been raised by two incredibly supportive parents. For my mother, I would like to express gratitude for instilling in me a sense of wonder and love of learning. For my father, I thank him for setting the ever-present example of perseverance. My desire to seek understanding and willingness to overcome challenges are rooted in my upbringing, and I thank my parents for their guidance. Last, but never least, I must acknowledge my deepest thanks to my husband whose loyalty is unmatched. I cannot express the amount of love and sacrifice he has given me during my quest for a graduate degree. This project would have been impossible but for my husband’s endless support and unwavering confidence in me. FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 3 Table of Contents NATURE OF THE PROBLEM…………………………………………………………..7 Literature Review…………………………………………………………………8 Facets of Motivation………………………………………………………9 Significance of Self-Determination Theory……………………………...12 Engagement in the Classroom…………………………………………...17 Teacher-Centered Instruction Versus Learner-Centered Instruction…….19 Designs for Empowering and Engaging Learners………………...……..26 Summary…………………………………………………………………………33 PURPOSE………………………………………………………………………………..35 METHOD………………………………………………………………………………..37 Participants………………………………………………………………….……37 Instruments………………………………………………………………….……39 Procedures………………………………………………………………………..41 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION…………………………………………………...……43 Teacher Experience with Engagement Techniques……………………………...43 The Quest to Foster Motivation………………………………………………….47 Barriers to Learner-Centered Instructional Strategies…………………………...50 Interest in Learning Through Effective Professional Development……………..57 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….62 Limitations and Recommendations………………………………………63 Final Reflection…………………………………………………………..64 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………..66 FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 4 APPENDIX A……………………………………………………………………………75 APPENDIX B……………………………………………………………...……..……...77 FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 5 List of Tables Table 1. Survey Participants’ Demographics....................................................................38 Table 2. Familiarity with Each Strategy………………………………………...……….44 Table 3. Frequency of Strategy Use…………………………………………….………..45 Table 4. Teacher Efficacy of Each Strategy……………………..…………….…………46 FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 6 Abstract Motivation and engagement influence student learning and academic performance, yet instruction continues to remain teacher-centered in many secondary classrooms resulting in traditional learning environments that fail to foster empowerment and self-determination in students. This study investigated how knowledgeable, experienced, and efficacious secondary teachers used the student-centered techniques of project-based learning (PjBL), problem-based learning (PBL), cooperative learning, and differentiated instruction. The study sought to identify barriers that challenged implementation of learner-centered strategies, and which strategies teachers wanted to explore to help them promote engagement and motivation in secondary students. This descriptive methods research project took place at a Title I charter school in Utah. Twenty-two educators of grades 7-9 responded to a survey, and a six-teacher subset participated in a focus group. The researcher discovered most teachers were familiar with PjBL, PBL, cooperative learning, and differentiated instruction yet rarely or sometimes implemented the strategies. Educators aspired to engage and motivate students with techniques like cooperative learning, real-world application, choice, and self-paced instruction. However, pressures of time and content, concerns about classroom management and autonomy, and lack of understanding due to unproductive training challenged strategy implementation. Despite these roadblocks, teachers expressed interest in learning about and mastering instructional methods that foster engagement and motivation through effective professional development. FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 7 NATURE OF THE PROBLEM Self-determination, motivation, and engagement play major roles in student learning. According to Ryan and Deci (2000), Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is a means of analyzing intrinsic and extrinsic human motivation. “Motivation concerns energy, direction, persistence and equifinality – all aspects of activation and intention” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 69). Curiosity, enthusiasm, and confidence are all evident results of intrinsic motivation, so it is important that students develop authentic motivation for subject area concepts. Motivation and engagement influence student learning and academic performance (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Even though people are motivated for differing reasons, competence, relatedness, and autonomy are three psychological needs crucial for humans to develop proactive behaviors (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In the secondary classroom, there are sometimes barriers that impede motivation and self-determination. Secondary classrooms tend to be teacher-centered rather than learner-centered, which discourages active student engagement. Brown (2003) explained that because direct instruction is a commonly used strategy in teacher-centered classrooms, and opportunity for open-ended inquiry is minimal. Despite contemporary research supporting a learner-centered approach to teaching, high-stakes tests have encouraged the teacher-centered classroom (Grant & Hill, 2006). Teachers, especially in secondary classrooms, are pressured to cover curriculum with an emphasis on quantity — teaching a significant amount of material — rather than in-depth, cognitive quality (Brown, 2003). Academic achievement improves, however, when students are actively and cognitively engaged in learning tasks (Froiland & Oros, 2013). Student-centered approaches, such as FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 8 problem-based learning (PBL) and project-based learning (PjBL), are seldom found in public high schools, yet these methods are known to increase student engagement (Dole, Bloom, & Kowalske, 2016). When students lack self-determination, they are not motivated to cognitively engage, resulting in a lack of learning and a sense of disempowerment. Activities that hinder competence, relatedness, and autonomy are not conducive to individual growth (Ryan & Deci, 2000). While intrinsic motivation is natural in children, maintaining that motivation is dependent upon supportive environments. To illustrate, intrinsic motivation increases when students are given positive feedback and appropriate challenges, yet it decreases in environments with strict deadlines and tangible rewards (Ryan & Deci, 2000). When students are intrinsically motivated and have a sense of self-determination, they experience curiosity, commitment, and purpose for achievement. As Turner (2015) explained, “A child who doesn’t have the opportunity to participate in the process of coping with obstacles and overcoming them in vivo will potentially struggle with relationship development as an adult” (p. 109). Thus, students must be given opportunities to practice effective problem-solving strategies and independence in their learning in order to gain a sense of empowerment. Unfortunately, many practices of secondary teachers neither engage students nor encourage their sense of self-determination. Literature Review The human experience is complex, and learning is one complicated aspect of that experience. Both novice and seasoned teachers struggle to engage students, but it is possible to foster the eagerness to learn among a myriad of learners. Motivation, as Ryan FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 9 and Deci (2000) explained, is typically inherent. The researchers stated, “That most people show considerable effort, agency, and commitment in their lives appears, in fact, to be more normative than exceptional, suggesting some very positive and persistent features of human nature” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 68). Students tend to have an innate desire to improve themselves, yet social environments may or may not provide optimal support for personal growth (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Essentially, while students have a propensity for activity, responsibility, and engaging their potential, they are also susceptible to passivity and apathy (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Even though motivating diverse students to cognitively engage in curriculum has its challenges, shaped by a sense of self-determination, motivation and engagement play a major role in student learning. This literature review will present the various angles of motivation students may possess, the significance of Self-Determination Theory (SDT) in the classroom, the importance of student engagement, aspects of teacher-centered instruction (TCI) in contrast to learner-centered instruction (LCI), and a description of several specific models for engaging and empowering students. Facets of Motivation Just as there are many types of learners, there are multiple facets to motivation. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation are commonly used terms in the academic world. Sansone and Harackiewicz (2000) explained that individuals are extrinsically motivated when prompted to act by reward or tangible benefits. One type of extrinsic motivation is external regulation in which appeal of a particular task is quite minimal, but, regardless, students put forth effort because they feel pressured to follow instructions and meet expectations (Vansteenkiste et al., 2018). This kind of pressure may induce opposition in FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 10 learners. As Eccles and Wigfield (2002) noted, incentives triggering extrinsic motivation subvert motivation in students even when an activity is found to be intriguing. Introjection, or pressure that comes from within, constitutes a second type of extrinsic motivation (Vansteenkiste et al., 2018). For example, Vansteenkiste et al. (2018) explained, “Learners who study long hours to prove their smartness or who behave well to avoid guilty feelings are said to display introjected regulation” (p. 32). That is, an activity may be generally understood as important, but there is a lack of meaning on a more personal, self-relevant level. It is also possible for students to pressure themselves in order to avoid negative feedback (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). According to Deci and Ryan (1985), that kind of external control diminishes intrinsic motivation in learners. Not all forms of extrinsic motivation are purely external, however. An example of an external goal is a university student choosing a particular major in order to qualify for a high-paying job, yet that type of extrinsic motivation can evolve and be internalized (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Internalization has been defined as the method in which behavior regulation develops from external motivation to internalized motivation, or incentive becomes manifested within an individual (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Vansteenkiste et al. (2018) stated, “...although all types of extrinsically motivated activities may be important to people in a very general sense, the notion of self-relevance applies only to the more internalized forms of extrinsic motivation” (p. 33). For example, identified regulation and integrated regulation are both internalized forms of extrinsic motivation because they each include an increase in volition from learners (Vansteenkiste et al., 2018). Vansteenkiste et al. (2018) recognized identified regulation as the type of motivation when students are aware of the purpose of an activity and the personal significance it has FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 11 to them. The activity may lack appeal that promotes intrinsic motivation, but students comply with expectations and put forth effort because of personal benefit. Integrated regulation is similar to identified regulation, but there is a greater internalization because the task connects to students’ personal values, dreams, and/or sense of self (Vansteenkiste et al., 2018). Whereas identified or integrated regulation is present when lessons are known to be important, relevant, and valued, intrinsic motivation is activated when students find activities alluring and enjoyable (Vansteenkiste et al., 2018; Sansone & Harackiewicz, 2000). In some educational situations, students may experience only one form of volition — identified regulation or intrinsic motivation. However, self-relevance may increase if they occur simultaneously during a learning activity, and self-relevance helps to bolster ownership of learning (Vansteenkiste et al., 2018). Learners are intrinsically motivated by activities that are magnetizing, and this motivation encourages a natural engagement in the activity (Vansteenkiste et al., 2018). Students are more likely to be intrinsically motivated if interested in a task. Interest, particularly in text, is significantly related to in-depth learning (Schiefele, 1999). To illustrate, by examining 22 relevant studies on the effects of interest in textual learning, Schiefele (1999) found that if an individual is drawn to a text, that individual is more likely to comprehend the text. Schiefele’s (1999) study also found that interested readers were more apt to respond accordingly to deeper level questions regardless of age, reading ability, text length, or genre (narrative or expository). Thus, intrinsic motivation supports comprehension and critical thinking. Because internalization also promotes benefits such as better well-being and more self-regulated learning, Vansteenkiste et al. (2018) made several suggestions. For instance, instructors FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 12 could provide students with more choice and opportunities to share their opinions, satisfy curiosities, connect to interests, use more inviting language, make the relevance of activities clear, and adjust to more appropriate pacing that meets students’ needs (Vansteenkiste et al., 2018). Significance of Self-Determination Theory Even though educators can help students internalize activities by discussing task relevance and connecting to interests, intrinsic motivation can be supported further by promoting students’ sense of self-determination. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is a means of analyzing intrinsic and extrinsic human motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Competence, relatedness, and autonomy – key components to SDT – are psychological needs crucial for humans to develop proactive behaviors. According to Ryan and Frederick (1997), competence, relatedness, and autonomy must be fulfilled throughout one’s life in order for an individual to experience well-being and integrity. Meeting these psychological needs in a classroom setting results in benefits such as enhanced student-teacher rapport, increased feelings of capability for students, and a sense of freedom and empowerment for students (Vansteenkiste et al., 2018). Vansteenkiste et al. (2018) suggested that introjected regulation develops from a frustration or incongruence with competence, relatedness, and autonomy, yet when these three psychological needs are met, internalization is activated. The research of Haerens, Aelterman, Vansteenkiste, Soenens, and Van Petegem (2015) demonstrated the interdependence of competence, relatedness, and autonomy. Haerens et al. (2015) conducted a cross-sectional study that encompassed 499 secondary students in physical education classes. Participants responded to a set of questionnaires at the end of the lesson, need satisfaction and need FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 13 frustration being one vital set. Even though the study aimed to primarily examine autonomy apart from competence and relevance, Haerens et al. (2015) learned that competence was necessary for students to experience need satisfaction in situations of controlled motivation. Because competence cannot strengthen intrinsic motivation without the presence of autonomy, and intrinsic motivation also thrives in scenarios of relatedness, all three — competence, relatedness, and autonomy — are necessary to satisfy personal growth (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Competence is the quality of feeling capable and effective (Deci & Ryan, 1985). The psychological need of competence is necessary in and out of classroom settings. In one study, 60 students in a university psychology class kept diaries in which they rated daily activities in regard to competence and autonomy (Sheldon, Ryan, & Reis, 1996). For two weeks, participants documented their moods, energy levels, and physical symptoms. They also recorded what three activities they spent the most time on during the day and rated the importance of each activity and the competence they felt. Sheldon et al. (1996) found individual ratings predicted variations in personal well-being, emphasizing the importance of competence in daily life. Students are more likely to experience the feeling of competency if given positive feedback from teachers and opportunities to overcome challenges and develop confidence (Ryan, 1995). In contrast, students may experience amotivation when they lack support and believe themselves to be incompetent. According to Vansteenkiste et al. (2018), students are more likely to develop a sense of ownership when they feel productive and capable of meeting expectations or accomplishing a required task. Teachers foster competence in their students by FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 14 implementing structure in their classrooms in the form of adjusting instructional strategies to meet student needs, providing support for learning, and communicating precisely about expectations (Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Haerens et al. (2015) noted the feeling of inferiority may overwhelm students whose need for competence is not met. Competence alone, without autonomy or relatedness, led secondary students in physical education classes to experience introjected regulation, so while students understood the activity to be important, they saw little personal value in accomplishing the task (Haerens et al., 2015). Clearly, competence must be supported by other psychological needs. Relatedness is the need for a sense of belonging and being connected to others and can permeate a classroom when trust and closeness have been established (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Ryan and Deci (2000) claimed, “...a social environment that affords competence but fails to nurture relatedness is expected to result in some impoverishment of well-being” (p. 75). Skinner and Belmont (1993) affiliated relatedness to involvement or relationship quality with teachers and peers. Relatedness was described as the following: “Teachers are involved with their students to the extent that they take time for, express affection toward, enjoy interactions with, are attuned to, and dedicate resources to their students” (Skinner and Belmont, 1993, p. 573). The need for relatedness is essentially met when teachers establish positive rapport with their students. Vansteenkiste et al. (2018) argued students develop learning ownership when they feel bonded with a teacher, helping students internalize curriculum. Students may feel frustration in the form of alienation when their need for relatedness is not met (Haerens, et al., 2015). To feel that teachers understand them helps prevent relatedness need frustration for students and helps them to build the sense that they are liked and accepted. In addition, intrinsic FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 15 motivation thrives when students possess a sense of security and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Skinner and Belmont (1993) examined relatedness and engagement by studying teacher behaviors of involvement, structure, and autonomy support and their effects on the engagement of third through fifth grade students. They found a positive correlation was found between teacher behavior and student engagement (Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Students who were behaviorally engaged received more support from their teachers, and students who were not as motivated to engage in classroom tasks received inconsistent support and were more likely to be ignored. Skinner and Belmont (1993) concluded that students fail to experience mutually positive relationships with teachers and feel that teachers are not as dependable when they are aloof and less involved with students in the classroom. Thus, relatedness plays a pivotal role in student motivation and engagement. Another crucial aspect of motivation is autonomy. Ryan and Deci (2002) described autonomy as the condition of being the author of one’s own actions through volition. When learners have opportunities to make choices and self-direct, intrinsic motivation is increased due to autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Recognizing students’ feelings also increases their sense of independence in terms of self-regulation. Teachers can similarly bolster student curiosity and desire for challenges if they relinquish control and support an autonomous learning environment (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Autonomy support is implemented to a further degree when educators provide freedom in a scope of learning activities and connecting those activities to student interest (Skinner & Belmont, 1993). For example, Frederick and Ryan (1995) found that intrinsic motivation was FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 16 enhanced for individuals participating in sporting activities or music lessons when parents and trainers allowed their children to take control of their own growth (Frederick & Ryan, 1995). Despite research showing the important role that autonomy plays in motivation and engagement, autonomy is not well supported in teacher-controlled classrooms filled with pressures, non-inviting language, and external rewards (Skinner & Belmont, 1993). As such, Vansteenkiste et al. (2018) argue that educators need to adjust to a more “autonomy-supportive teaching style,” because when students experience autonomy, internalization and empowerment are promoted (p. 37). Vansteenkiste et al. (2018) described an autonomy-supportive teaching style as one allowing for student choice and influence, adjusting instructional pace to accommodate student learning, and evoking student curiosity. Explaining rationales for learning tasks can affect students’ sense of autonomy. Jang (2008) researched whether providing undergraduate students a rationale for learning would increase motivation and engagement during an uninteresting learning activity. Using a control group and treatment group study, Jang found that the treatment group had a significantly higher levels of engagement (d = 0.44 for Time 1; d = 0.64 for Time 2). These results showed that motivation and engagement were enhanced, as were perceived autonomy (d = 0.55) and perceived importance (d = 0.71). Given these findings, Jang (2008) recommended clarifying the relevance of the content and drawing connections between rationales for learning and personal goals or value was recommended in addition to providing autonomy support. FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 17 Engagement in the Classroom Engagement is also linked to motivation. Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris (2004) explained that student engagement is multifaceted. Specifically, they noted that there are three forms of school-related engagement: behavioral, emotional, and cognitive. Behavioral engagement is a universal desired outcome in classrooms because it deals with participation in learning tasks and extracurricular activities, harmonizing with school norms, and putting forth contribution and effort to learning activities (Fredricks et al., 2004). Emotional engagement is connected to the psychological need of relatedness in that it concerns anxiety, interest, and other feelings about peers, teachers, and the school (Skinner & Belmont, 1993). The third type of engagement is rooted in cognition because it focuses on deep investment in learning — perseverance in problem solving, accepting challenges, and seeking to surpass expectations (Connell & Wellborn, 1991). Motivation and engagement influence student learning and academic performance (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Researchers have found parallels among different forms of engagement and achievement. Finn, Pannozzo, and Voelkl (1995) conducted a study examining correlations between behavioral engagement and student achievement among fourth-grade students. The students were organized into two groups. Those who were attentive, involved, and abided by class norms, or who were behaviorally engaged, were classified into one group, and students who were inattentive, detached, and disruptive, or behaviorally disengaged comprised the second group. Specifically, Finn et al. (1995) found a negative correlation between disruptive behavior and student achievement and a stronger negative correlation between inattentive behavior and student achievement. Thus, students who were behaviorally disengaged scored significantly lower on FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 18 achievement assessments. In contrast, the researcher found a positive correlation between engaged students’ behaviors and student achievement (Finn et al., 1995). Likewise, Nystrand and Gamoran (1991) discovered a correlation between cognitive engagement and student achievement. Nystrand and Gamoran (1991) researched 58 eighth grade English classes distributed among 16 schools in the Midwest. They found that when students cognitively engaged during instructional time, higher-level thinking and in-depth understanding were achieved, particularly when students participated in literary discussion. Nystrand and Gamoran (1991) also discovered that disengagement negatively affected achievement. When off-task behavior increased by 10%, a student’s test score would decrease by 2.27 points, and the score would decline by two more points if the student had not responded to questions during literary discussion (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1991). These findings suggest that cognitive engagement is an important factor in student achievement. In any given classroom, a teacher is likely to have students with diverse learning needs. As such, teachers grapple to provide students with learning activities that are engaging to all (Dixon, Yssel, McConnell, & Hardin, 2014). The amount of preparation and multitasking is often overwhelming for teachers who strive to support all of their students by meeting academic and motivational needs. Dixon et al. (2014) stated, “Indeed, taxed with so many issues to carry out simultaneously, it is challenging for educators to cope with this variety of teaching tasks and yet stay committed to their chosen profession” (p. 112). A great number of teachers have learners who struggle, and gifted learners interspersed in the same class with students who achieve at grade-level. Diversity in language, culture, background, learning habits, and more complicate student FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 19 engagement further. Despite these challenges, it is essential for teachers to engage their students because students miss educational opportunities if they are not attentive during instruction (Yair, 2000). Yair (2000) discussed that even though students may be in attendance, it is common for students to go through the motions without cognitively engaging with curriculum, so the researcher sought correlations between student engagement and student alienation during instruction. Yair’s study measured student engagement eight times a day for one week, and the collected data showed students in grades 6, 8, 10, and 12 were engaged with instruction only 54% of the time. Findings also indicated that student engagement decreased as grade level increased, meaning teachers struggled to capture students’ attention as they matured. Teacher-Centered Instruction Versus Learner-Centered Instruction A wide array of approaches to learning and teaching exist, but most unique teaching characteristics can be categorized into one of two methods: teacher-centered instruction (TCI) and learner-centered instruction (LCI). Berling (1998) described TCI as educational practices concentrating on the expert in the room and recognized that she had spent years focusing on covering the material instead of collaborative student discussion and analysis. Gibbs (2006) argued, “The words, the structure, the roles, and the pattern of interaction between teachers and students have changed very little over the past 150 years” (p. 3). Classrooms structured around TCI appear very similar in that teachers often stand in front of their students to whom they provide information in a “top-down” structure. Other characteristics of TCI include students as passive attendees, the product or content as more important than the learning process, learning taking place individually, and goals — not shared with students — being determined by the instructor (Gibbs, FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 20 2006). Minter (2011) shared similar traits on TCI, even implying that technological presentations like PowerPoint and online schooling have encouraged the implementation of TCI. Yair (2000) conducted a study on data obtained from the first year of a longitudinal project that gathered information on the daily experiences of 865 students from 33 schools across the United States. Results indicated that the instructional methods teachers used significantly impacted student engagement. On average, at least 73% of students in grades 6, 8, 10, and 12 were engaged while working in collaborative groups or participating in laboratories. During teacher lectures and video clips, only 54-56% of students were engaged, leading Yair to conclude that students were significantly less engaged during TCI approaches to learning. High-stakes testing accounts for continued use of TCI in classrooms across the nation. “In the USA, high stakes accountability was a key part of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), legislation passed in 2001 demanding that every child in every public and charter school in the country be tested in Grades 3–8 and Grade 10” (Berliner, 2011, p. 287). The purpose of the NCLB act was to offset the low achievement found in public school settings and reduce the achievement gap between students of high and low socioeconomic status. If by 2014 schools failed to report 100% of students as proficient in reading and mathematics, serious consequences could follow; educators could be fired, and schools could even close. Considerable pressure caused and continues to cause teachers to spend vast amounts of instructional time on test preparation (Berliner, 2011). The narrowing of curriculum follows the surge of test preparation (Berliner, 2011). For example, McMurrer (2008) examined elementary school instructional time and discovered that art and music were decreased by 57 minutes a week, and science was FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 21 decreased by 76 minutes a week. Subjects like social studies and physical education had similar fates; whereas, instructional time in English language arts and mathematics increased (McMurrer, 2008). Opportunities for students to attend field trips and service projects for their communities diminished in favor of test preparation in many schools (Nichols & Berliner, 2007). The increase of test preparation includes possible months of drilling students to respond to the type of questions likely to appear on standardized state assessments. Ravitch (2016) described consequences to this educational approach: The consequence of all this practice is that students may be able to pass the state test, yet unable to pass a test of precisely the same subject or which they did not practice. They master test-taking methods, but not the subject itself. In the new world of accountability, students’ acquisition of the skills and knowledge they need for further education and for the workplace is secondary. (p. 169) Thus, narrowing curriculum to increase instructional time for test-driven drills does not maintain a learning environment that supports students in their quest for self-determination. A test-taking focus of drill and practice undermines competence, relatedness, and autonomy, leading students to experience a lack of intrinsic motivation and engagement. Quality instruction is also affected by high-stakes testing. Passman (2001) shared the experience he had working with a fifth-grade teacher to support her in implementing LCI as a constructivist approach to teaching. Passman (2001) and his team-teaching participant changed the structure of the classroom by shifting rows of desks into collaborative groups of four to six desks. They spent more time on inquiry in the form of discussions and group research projects, and active learning replaced worksheets and FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 22 individual bookwork. Also, social studies curriculum integrated with other subjects such as math when students researched navigation tools and the amount of supplies necessary to accommodate explorers on a long sea voyage (Passman, 2001). However, LCI and enrichment disappeared when the administration declared teachers were forbidden from teaching any content or skill that would not appear on the state assessment due to warnings of probation and job security (Passman, 2001). The teacher was willing to adjust her classroom environment and take risks to provide a student-centered learning experience for her fifth graders, “Yet, when faced with the pressure of high-stakes assessment, she folded, turning away from discovery and inquiry that genuinely engaged her students toward a more teacher-directed classroom where students are isolated from one another” (Passman, 2001, p. 196). Pressure from high-stakes testing caused the teacher to neglect relatedness, autonomy, and the interests of students, resulting in a decrease in instructional quality. Another study revealed similar findings reflecting the consequences of TCI and high-stakes testing. Barksdale-Ladd and Thomas (2000) sought information from 59 teachers and 20 parents from two different states regarding topics such as high-stakes assessment preparation practices and the effects of high-stakes testing on students, teachers, and families. In their qualitative study based on interviews, Barksdale-Ladd and Thomas (2000) found that teachers spent daily instructional time preparing students for standardized tests by teaching test-taking skills, completing practice tests, and teaching only skills and content expected to be on the assessment. Educators also recognized that their teaching was devolving. Overall, teachers suffered more stress and anxiety over their professions and felt that their quality of teaching worsened, even leading to negative FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 23 effects on student self-esteem, learning, and achievement (Barksdale-Ladd & Thomas, 2000). Teachers disclosed that instructional activities like science experiments, book talks, collaborative writing, the use of manipulatives, and integrated units were discarded for more test-centered practices. Another barrier to LCI is that some educators believe there is more value in using a TCI approach. To illustrate, the fifth-grade teacher from Passman’s (2001) project was hesitant to implement learner-centered practices at the start of the year and preferred to stand at the front of the classroom for large quantities of time. Once administration ordered test-centered practices as the sole instruction for the second semester, the teacher stated, “‘You were there when Dr. Worran told us to teach to the test. That’s what I am doing, teaching to the test. This constructivist stuff is nice, but we have real work to do now!’” (Passman, 2001, p. 193). The participant’s use of the phrase “real work” as a contrast to a constructivist approach to instruction suggests that the teacher did not view inquiry-led LCI as a legitimate learning experience. Traditional practices were believed to be more effective teaching strategies (Passman, 2001). Educators’ beliefs impact teaching methods, so if teachers believe knowledge is acquired through transmission rather than through self-direction, teachers will practice TCI because of the notion that teachers are subject authorities (Kaymakamoğlu, 2018). If teachers believe learning is enhanced by acquiring facts, honing skills through drilled practice, and working individually, then instructional time will be dedicated to teacher-centered, high-structure tasks (Kaymakamoğlu, 2018). Yet other educators find themselves compelled by outside pressures to teach using traditional methods (Brown, 2003; Grant & Hill, 2006). To illustrate, the fifth-grade FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 24 teacher from Passman’s (2001) study felt pressure to return to TCI by her superior, Dr. Worran, who warned teachers about probation and lack of job security if test-centered practices did not take precedence over other learning tasks. Classrooms employing TCI often include the use of teacher-led lecture and discussion, leaving little room for open-ended questions and little time for inquiry (Brown, 2003). The pressure to cover a breadth of material outweighs the desire for teachers to allow their students opportunities for in-depth, cognitive application, particularly at the secondary level. On the contrary, rich, inquiry-based instruction has proven to be effective in supporting student achievement. For instance, Geier et al. (2008) researched the effects of implementing an inquiry-based curriculum reform to better address seventh and eighth grade science standards. Test results from the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) standardized assessment revealed an average of 13-14% increase in every science category of student scores for those who participated in the program (Geier et al., 2008). That being said, researchers acknowledged difficulty in adopting the program – indeed, waiting three years before collecting data – but the results support the fact traditional TCI may not always be conducive to achievement. Many educators view student-centered instruction favorably, but certain roadblocks may prevent teachers from implementing LCI on a consistent basis. Kaymakamoğlu (2018) examined these roadblocks in a study that explored teacher beliefs and perceptions held of TCI and LCI and whether those perceptions were evident in their instructional practice. Of the ten teachers, eight believed LCI to be valuable, and the remaining two teachers believed both LCI and TCI were conducive to learning (Kaymakamoğlu, 2018). Observations revealed that teachers utilized both student- FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 25 centered and teacher-centered strategies in the classroom setting, but most practices fell under TCI. Kaymakamoğlu (2018) found discrepancies existed among teachers’ beliefs about quality instruction, their perceptions about their own practices, and their teaching habits. Several reasons for these inconsistencies were theorized. First, teachers named classroom realities like large, mixed-ability classes, diverse learner traits, and classroom management issues as reasons for the discrepancies. Kaymakamoğlu (2018) voiced two other possible rationales: This mismatch between the teachers’ stated beliefs and their actual classroom practice might mean that the teachers actually hold Traditional beliefs but they might think that what they ought to express is Constructivist beliefs since the new curriculum is based on Constructivist and learner-centered language learning and teaching principles. Another interpretation might be that the teachers are in favour of Constructivist beliefs but since they have not developed the needed craft knowledge for Constructivist practices they exhibit Traditional teaching. (p. 33) The beliefs of educators influence their approach to teaching, but some educators also have a distorted understanding of LCI and their own pedagogy. Borda et al. (2017) studied the integration of LCI in a college chemistry curriculum and found roadblocks in diverging from a teacher-centered approach. Just as the teachers in Kaymakamoğlu’s (2018) project reported large class sizes to hinder student-centered instruction, Borda et al. (2017) found the same to be true in a university scenario. LCI supports collaborative learning, but many students only sought out the grades they received on their homework and did not take the time to review peer FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 26 feedback. Similarly, Borda et al. (2017) noticed class participation and attendance were challenges to student collaboration. Wohlfarth et al. (2008) shared additional barriers to LCI. In order to adopt a student-centered approach to learning, a paradigm shift, or a revolution in thought or action, must occur for a large number of educators (Wohlfarth et al., 2008). Adopting an LCI point of view means teachers have to relinquish control and trust students as they journey toward their own understanding (Wohlfarth et al., 2008). Instead of remaining at one end of the teaching/learning continuum, educators must take on the challenge of sliding smoothly along the spectrum, ready to manifest what students need at the time – yet another LCI trial. Challenges such as these may reflect why problem-based learning (PBL) and project-based learning (PjBL), both methods that fall under LCI, are rarely found in public high schools (Dole et al., 2016). Another challenge is change; organizational change requires a paradigm shift as well. In fact, Küçüksüleymanoğlu and Terzioğlu (2017) argued that educators must adapt to change more than most other professions. Some policies like NCLB left large-scale effects on schools across the nation, while other policies have simply changed the way teachers at a single school revised behavior protocols. However, change is not an easy undertaking, requiring time and teacher buy-in (Küçüksüleymanoğlu & Terzioğlu, 2017). Designs for Empowering and Engaging Learners Despite the prevalence of TCI in secondary classrooms, multiple LCI techniques exist that engage students and lead them to a sense of empowerment. Project-based learning (PjBL) is one method in which the teacher takes the role of a facilitator instead of an instructor, and the curriculum is student-centered because learners become the FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 27 directors of their own inquiry and develop their own projects (Bell, 2010). Students acquire content knowledge and skills by seeking to answer questions of their own curiosity (Bell, 2010). For example, Geier et al. (2008) found that junior high science students taught with inquiry/PjBL techniques outperformed students taught traditionally. Additional research on the use of PjBL has found the teaching practice effective for other reasons, such as promoting interest and a sense of competence. Basche et al. (2016) studied the implementation of science student-driven projects in seventh grade classrooms. Projects included role-playing debates and letters to a pipeline agency. At the end of the school year, students responded to a survey about their interest and confidence in science topics, engagement in tasks, and quality of learning activities. Results of the survey showed students who participated in PjBL enjoyed science more (m difference = 0.60), found themselves more engaged (m difference = 0.46), and developed more confidence than seventh grade students who were taught the same content without PjBL (Basche et al., 2016). As a student-centered teaching practice, PjBl can positively influence student attitudes about learning and increase their engagement with learning tasks while simultaneously empowering students. However, one aspect of the study worth noting is that the demographics of the two groups may have affected the results. Specifically, 54% of the students who participated in PjBL classified themselves as Caucasian, yet only 21% of the students who did not experience PjBL identified as such (Basche et al., 2016). Although the study had significant results, the study participants come into question because of the discrepancy between those who participated in PjBL and those who did not. More studies of the efficacy of PjBL should be conducted with students of color or other marginalized students. FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 28 Problem-based learning (PBL) is similar to PjBL in that pedagogy is student-driven and rooted in inquiry. Whereas PjBL focuses on an end-product that students construct to display their learning, PBL is structured around a problem for students to interact with and resolve (Dole et al., 2016). PjBL and PBL may overlap because a project could also be a solution to a real-world problem, but students participating in PBL are not necessarily required to develop projects. In either case, student choice is essential. One study in Nigeria explored the effect of PBL on student achievement. Anyafulude (2013) sought the differences in secondary chemistry achievement when students were taught the same content using three different techniques: problem-based, discovery-based, and traditional instruction. The chemistry teacher began with a pre-test, provided instruction about chemical equilibrium to three different groups of students over the course of six weeks, and ended the unit with a post-test. The mean scores from the post-tests of students taught with problem-based, discovery-based, and traditional instruction were 17.51, 14.14, and 14.29, respectively. Results indicated that students who were taught with PBL averaged higher scores than students taught with discovery-based and traditional instruction (Anyafulude, 2013). As an autonomy-supportive technique, PBL gave students the chance to hone their critical thinking skills and feel competent, resulting in an increase in achievement. Another learner-centered instructional technique is cooperative learning. Cooperative or collaborative learning is an instructional technique in which students are placed in small groups to interact with other students, work together, and share knowledge and experiences (Hulya, 2005). Referring to the current generation of students, Turner (2015) stated, “Social interest may affect Generation Z youth who are no FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 29 longer becoming trained in the nuances and art of conversation, and lack of face-to-face communication will potentially inhibit their development of skills to connect socially and in person” (p. 109). Students often use technology and social media to distract themselves from unpleasant situations, thoughts, and feelings, leading to fewer opportunities for students to learn proper coping skills (Turner, 2015). A conflict exists between the habits of students and the skills they need to possess as adults, for they need to be clear and creative communicators and have the skills to effectively collaborate with a diverse population in order to be successful in the workforce (ISTE, 2018). Cooperative learning helps students develop social skills, but it also enhances student competence and engagement. Wismath and Orr (2015) studied cooperative and problem-solving habits of 133 college students in an accounting course. Participants practiced communication skills while working to solve open-ended problems. The researchers discovered an increase in student engagement, and students felt more confident and successful in problem-solving tasks when given the flexibility to shift back and forth between independence and collaboration. (Wismath & Orr, 2015). Technology plays a significant role in the lives of students, making it necessary for teachers to integrate cooperative learning into their classrooms in order to help learners develop face-to- face communication and problem-solving skills they may be lacking. A number of studies also linked cooperative learning with achievement (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 2014; Wolfensberger & Canella, 2015). Chatila and Husseiny (2017) recognized the high use of TCI in secondary biology classrooms, so they studied whether cooperative learning improved student acquisition and application of scientific skills. The first part of the project included a two-week period during which half of the students in FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 30 seventh and tenth grade were taught how to work effectively in groups. During the second phase, teachers implemented cooperative learning strategies into the experimental classrooms for seven weeks, while students in the control groups worked on the same biology content for the same amount of time in a traditionally structured classroom. Post-tests revealed seventh grade students who experienced collaborative learning in biology scored about 7% higher on average than students in the control group. Tenth grade results from the post-tests reported a 14% average increase for students who participated in collaboration (Chatila & Husseiny, 2017). The study added to the literature supporting cooperative learning as an effective LCI technique. As diversity increases in the United States with each decade, so too does the need for evolved pedagogy. Educators need to step out of the uniform, one-size-fits-all methodology and embrace the modern-day classroom filled with students from a variety of cultures with differing learning styles, interests, values, and levels of knowledge (Tomlinson & Kalbfleisch, 1998). Differentiated instruction (DI) addresses the individual needs of students, adding to the growing list of student-centered teaching practices. For students to learn, they must feel emotionally safe, they must not be over-challenged or under-challenged, and they must be able to independently make sense of ideas despite the different ways meaning is constructed (Tomlinson & Kalbfleisch, 1998). The methods of classroom DI vary teacher to teacher, but educators implementing differentiation identify and provide students with learning experiences according to their interests, learning habits, and readiness levels in their practice of LCI. Because Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI theory) suggests individuals have a combination of about eight different areas of intelligence (verbal- FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 31 linguistic, logical-mathematical, visual-spatial, interpersonal, intrapersonal, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, and naturalistic), Norel and Necşoi (2011) claimed it to be a natural approach to DI. “The theory of multiple intelligences offers support for instructional approaches that incorporate a variety of connections for teaching and learning that validate the unique experiences, interests, and cultures of all students” (Crim, Kennedy, & Thornton, 2013, p. 72). Beam (2009) specified that it is important for teachers to understand that students can maximize learning with choice, exploration, and validation of their strengths, particularly concerning students with disabilities. Thus, MI theory has been applied to learning in a variety of educational scenarios for university students and children. A university in Iran noticed students learning English as a foreign language (EFL) lacked interest and motivation (Soleimani, Moinnzadeh, Kassaian, & Ketabi, 2012). Researchers studied what effect MI theory would have on student learning as a differentiation (LCI) strategy. The EFL professor taught the experimental group with MI-influenced DI and the control group traditionally, with a focus on grammar rules and memorization. Students in the experimental group outperformed those in the control group academically. The mean score of the experimental post-tests was 11.2, whereas the mean score of the control post-tests was 8.5. Additionally, students reported being more interested in EFL lessons (Soleimani et al., 2012). Norel and Necşoi (2011) recognized the importance of DI and the challenges teachers experienced when implementing it as LCI in their classrooms, so they sought to add to the literature and evaluate the impact of MI as a framework for differentiation. Similar to the university study, a fourth-grade teacher taught Romanian Language and Literature (RLL) to an experimental group with FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 32 MI-based DI and taught the other group of fourth graders with traditional TCI. Students were taught the same material, but those in the experimental group experienced differentiation in the form of choice activities presented in a grid organized by Bloom’s Taxonomy and eight intelligence categories. Post-tests at the end of the school year revealed an increase in learning for students in the experimental group, and not one participant earned Insufficient. Also, intrinsic motivation to engage in RLL learning activities increased among fourth graders (Norel & Necşoi, 2011). Integrating Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences as a strategy for DI resulted in an increase in student motivation, engagement, and proficiency (Norel & Necşoi, 2011; Soleimani et al., 2012). While Gardner’s theory has been criticized to some degree for its lack of empirical evidence by authors such as Waterhouse (2006), utilizing MI-based DI provided a framework for teachers to incorporate more choice and inquiry into the classroom, and thus fostering intrinsic motivation. Differentiation appears in ample and various forms apart from multiple intelligences. Another example of how DI represents student-centered teaching was clear in Anderson and Cook’s (2014) case study of two secondary social studies teachers. Because of the decrease in elementary social studies instructional time, secondary teachers in Michigan felt pressured to cover a vast amount of content in upper grades (Anderson & Cook, 2014). Therefore, social studies teachers felt more compelled to adopt TCI as a means to move at a quicker pace through curriculum. The participants, two tenth grade social studies teachers, desired to implement differentiation as a method to address new standards and low student engagement over the course of an eight-week unit. Anderson and Cook (2014) observed the teachers for more than forty hours and FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 33 conducted multiple interviews. Toward the beginning of the unit, participants taught with more learner-centered techniques such as a state debate simulation, open-ended discussions, authentic connections to events outside of school, and student-chosen projects. Students were found to be interested, involved, and on-task (Anderson & Cook, 2014). However, as the unit progressed, the teachers returned to previous habits, setting aside LCI for TCI in order to accommodate their sense of being rushed to cover curriculum within a particular time frame. Anderson and Cook (2014) identified an increase in off-task behavior once the participants began using more traditional, teacher-centered methods. This study illustrated how differentiation is an effective strategy for motivating, engaging, and promoting a sense of self-determination in students and how experienced, well-meaning teachers still struggle to adopt learner-centered strategies. Summary Motivation and engagement are key elements in supporting learners. Research has shown that intrinsic motivation increases interest, enthusiasm, and confidence in students (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Also, engagement affects student learning and academic achievement in positive ways (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Self-determination theory must also be addressed when educators seek to motivate and engage students because competence, relatedness, and autonomy are necessary psychological needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000). When students are intrinsically motivated and have a sense of self-determination, they are more likely to engage (Vansteenkiste et al., 2018). Student motivation and engagement increase when educators adopt a learner-centered approach to their teaching. LCI promotes motivation and engagement, leading to an increase in learning and achievement, yet many public secondary classrooms are led by teacher-centered FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 34 instructional practices (Brown, 2003: Froiland & Oros, 2013). Various studies support the use of student-centered strategies such as PjBL, PBL, cooperative learning, and differentiation, but much of the research took place in elementary schools, science classrooms, or outside of the United States (Anyafulude, 2013; Basche et al., 2016; Chatila & Husseiny, 2017; Norel & Necşoi, 2011; Soleimani et al., 2012). Some teachers have successfully adopted LCI, yet many upper-grade classrooms continue to display traditional teaching methods that disengage students from learning experiences (Berliner, 2011; Brown, 2003; Grant & Hill, 2006; Passman, 2001). Given the lack of literature and the findings above, this study seeks to examine how knowledgeable and experienced secondary educators are and how efficacious they feel about LCI strategies such as PjBL, PBL, cooperative learning, and differentiated instruction. FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 35 PURPOSE Motivation plays a powerful role in stimulating student engagement in the classroom. There are multiple facets of motivation, but researchers have emphasized the importance of teachers tapping into internal forces of volition (Sansone & Harackiewicz, 2000; Schiefele, 1999; Vansteenkiste et al., 2018). These researchers found that students develop a sense of ownership and empowerment if they are able to internalize instruction and are interested in the curriculum. Ryan and Deci (2000) made clear that competence, relatedness, and autonomy promote cognitive engagement, and active engagement affects student learning and academic achievement (Froiland & Oros, 2013; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Evidently, stimulating intrinsic motivation and self-determination in students is a challenge for educators because many secondary classrooms still display evidence of teacher-based instruction (Grant & Hill, 2006). Dixon et al. (2014) confirmed that teachers are more likely to utilize LCI practices like differentiation if they possess a sense of self-efficacy about their effectiveness as educators. Teachers are more likely to feel efficacious if exposed to in-depth professional development. Also, much of the LCI-endorsing literature available for educators in the United States (Basche et al., 2016; Crim et al., 2013; Finn et al., 1995; Geier et al., 2008; Jang, 2008) focused on elementary, higher education, and science, and a gap in the literature exists for secondary teachers of non-science-based subjects who seek to motivate and engage their students. Given these findings, educators need additional professional support in order to implement effective, manageable LCI strategies into their own classrooms. In order to identify the support needed, this study sought to explore the following questions: FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 36 1. How knowledgeable and experienced are secondary teachers with student-centered techniques such as project-based learning (PjBL), problem-based learning (PBL), cooperative learning, and differentiated instruction? 2. How efficacious do secondary teachers feel about implementing student-centered techniques such as project-based learning (PjBL), problem-based learning (PBL), cooperative learning, and differentiated instruction? 3. What barriers make it difficult for secondary teachers to implement learner-centered strategies that motivate and engage students? 4. Which learner-centered strategies do teachers want to explore to help them motivate and engage secondary students? FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 37 METHOD This study employed qualitative methods using a pragmatic approach to research teacher understanding of strategies that promote motivation and engagement in students. Savin-Baden and Major (2013) claimed pragmatic qualitative research is “best-suited for providing the descriptive information that can inform professional practices” (p. 170). The researcher selected a pragmatic qualitative approach to present a descriptive report and interpretation of the research findings. A survey (see Appendix A) was given to all secondary teachers at a Title I charter school on November 30, 2018 during the second half of a regularly-scheduled faculty meeting. According to Tymms (2017), questionnaires are effective at collecting formative feedback and establishing a general representation of the participants. The survey results in this study presented the researcher with a baseline of which LCI strategies educators are familiar with and which LCI strategies they apply in their own teaching practices. Teachers were then asked to participate in a focus group January 2019 to provide further detail about strategies and help the researcher determine a future professional development blueprint to support teachers as they seek to motivate and engage students in their classrooms. Researchers such as Savin-Baden and Major (2013) recommended focus group interviews as a data collection method for pragmatic qualitative studies. Participants Participants for this study included 22 secondary teachers (grades 7-9) at a Title I charter school in Utah. The researcher is currently employed at the school, so the location was selected for its convenience. The 22 participants represented the entire secondary FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 38 teacher staff at the school. One of the 22 teachers declined to answer several survey questions, but at least 21 educators answered all survey questions. Table 1 Survey Participants’ Demographics Characteristic Number of Teachers Education Level Bachelor’s Degree with Teaching License 13 Bachelor’s Degree without Teaching License 1 Master’s Degree of Education 5 Master’s Degree in Another Area 1 Bachelor’s Degree in Progress 1 Teacher Licensing Teacher Education Undergraduate Program 12 Teacher Education Graduate Program 3 Academic Pathway to Teaching (APT) 2 Alternative Routes to Licensure (ARL) 4 Primary Subjects Taught Core 14 Electives 8 Years of Teaching 0 – 2 6 3 – 5 4 6 – 8 3 9 – 11 4 12+ 5 n = 22 Participants in the survey represented a variety of educational backgrounds, paths to licensure, subject areas, and years of experience, as can be seen in Table 1. Twelve of the participants completed a teacher education undergraduate program, three completed a teacher education graduate program, and six approached teacher licensure through the Utah Board of Education’s Academic Pathway to Teaching (APT) or Alternative Routes to Licensure (ARL). Thirteen of the teachers earned a bachelor’s degree and had a teaching license, and five of the teachers earned a master’s of education degree. One FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 39 participant declined to answer questions about approach to teacher licensure and education level. Table 1 shows that years of teaching experience was the most divided demographic among participants. Six teachers were within their first two years of teaching experience, four taught between three and five years, three taught between six and eight years, and four taught between nine and 11 years. Five educators had 12 or more years of teaching experience. Out of the 22 teachers, 14 taught academic or core courses and eight taught mainly elective courses such as art, music, and physical education. The focus group consisted of a subset of the 22 secondary teachers. Originally, nine educators contacted the researcher, showing interest in participating in a continued discussion of motivation and engagement with secondary students. However, because the researcher wanted to focus on core academic classes, three elective teachers did not attend the focus group discussion. The focus group encompassed six teachers of grades 7- 9 who taught social studies, English language arts, mathematics, science, and health. Three teachers had four or more years of teaching experience, and the remaining half of the focus group had two years of experience or less. To ensure anonymity, pseudonyms were provided for each focus group participant, and no further demographic information was gathered that may identify individuals. Instruments A survey, presented through Google Forms, was created by the researcher to explore secondary teachers’ experiences with four LCI strategies that enhance student motivation and engagement including PjBL, PBL, cooperative learning, and differentiated instruction. The survey gathered the following demographic information FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 40 from participants: approach to teacher licensure, education level, years of teaching experience, grade level(s) taught, and primary subject area taught. “A Likert-type question involves presenting answers on a scale where the number of possible responses can vary from three up to seven or more” (Tymms, 2017, p. 225). Likert scaled questions were used to record data on participants’ knowledge about LCI strategies, which strategies participants implemented in their classrooms, and how efficacious participants felt regarding those implemented strategies. The survey also asked teachers an open-ended question about what barriers challenge the implementation of these LCI techniques. At the end of the survey, participants were asked if they would be willing to participate in a focus group at a later time, requesting an email be sent to the researcher. Gibbs (2017) stated focus groups are often used to develop further understanding of data collected from survey questions. The focus group functioned as a second method to gather more specific data about engagement and motivation strategies. However, the focus group’s discussion additionally sought to determine the kind of professional support teachers need to implement learner-centered practices of motivation and engagement and promote self-determination. The hour-long discussion was recorded with an audio device to ensure all collected commentary was accurate and transcribed with the assistance of a smart application. The researcher left questions open-ended in order to establish a flexible, honest, and informative focus group. Open-ended questions elicit free, unrestricted responses from participants (Tymms, 2017). During the focus group, participants were asked the following open-ended questions: 1. What strategies do you currently use to motivate and engage students? FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 41 2. What barriers make it difficult for teachers to implement learner-centered strategies? 3. What strategies do you want to learn more about to help you be more effective at motivating and engaging your students? Gibbs (2017) suggested asking a minimal number of questions, so only three were officially established. However, several clarifying questions were posed during the focus group to help the researcher delineate commentary for analysis. Procedures This study began by obtaining approval from the research committee, Weber State University’s IRB, and the Title I charter school principal. Participants were guided to the survey link through email during a professional development block on November 30, 2018. A consent form disclosed participation rights to the secondary teachers. It was made clear that participation in the study was voluntary and responses would remain anonymous and confidential. Survey data were gathered through an online platform, Google Forms. After the survey data were analyzed, a focus group took place in January 2019. The researcher narrowed the size of the group by only meeting with teachers of academic subjects like mathematics, English language arts, science, and health. Focus group participants responded freely in discussion format while the commentary was recorded with a Blue Snowball Microphone audio device. Transcription followed the focus group with the help of Otter, a smart note-taking application. The researcher reviewed the audio files multiple times – once to edit the transcription for accuracy, a second time to explore provisional coding, and a third time to listen for vocal inflection. Saldaña (2013) defined FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 42 a code as a word or phrase that symbolizes a pertinent selection of data. A theme is “an extended phrase or sentence that identifies what a unit of data is about and/or what it means” (Saldaña, 2013, p. 267). After the transcription was comprehensively reviewed, it was then coded to look for apparent patterns and themes. Throughout the study, survey data collected from the participants remained secure on the Google Forms application by password protection. The recording of the focus group discussion and its transcript were also kept confidential by password protection through Google applications, and physical copies were stored in a combination safe to which the researcher is the sole owner and user. FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 43 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to explore how knowledgeable and experienced secondary teachers at a Title I charter school are with learner-centered strategies that motivate and engage students, specifically PjBL, PBL, cooperative learning, and differentiated instruction. A second purpose of the study was to determine how efficacious teachers feel in their ability to implement such techniques and what barriers affect their implementation. After collecting data from the survey, the researcher also became curious about which motivation and engagement strategies teachers wanted to learn more about in future professional development experiences. Data from the survey were analyzed through a descriptive and interpretive accounting of which strategies teachers are currently practicing at a local secondary charter school to motivate and engage students. The researcher analyzed teacher efficacy of motivation and engagement techniques. These data contributed to the basis for the focus group discussion. Teacher Experience with Engagement Techniques A variety of methods exist to motivate and engage secondary students, but the researcher focused on four specific LCI strategies in the survey: project-based learning (PjBL), problem-based learning (PBL), cooperative learning, and differentiated instruction. For each strategy, participants responded to four-point Likert scaled questions asking teachers to rate how familiar they are with the strategies, how often they implement the strategies, and how efficacious they feel in their ability to implement the strategies effectively. FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 44 According to the data presented in Table 2, most teachers were familiar with and have some understanding of PjBL, PBL, cooperative learning, and differentiated instruction. In fact, PjBL was the only learner-centered strategy marked as “Not Familiar” by one participant. Cooperative learning was identified as the most familiar strategy among teachers, with differentiated instruction the second most familiar, and problem-based learning was classified as the least familiar strategy. Table 2 Familiarity with Each Strategy Not Familiar 2 3 Very Familiar Project-Based Learning 1 3 11 7 Problem-Based Learning 0 6 11 5 Cooperative Learning 0 3 7 12 Differentiated Instruction 0 3 8 11 n = 22 Table 3 displays frequency of strategy implementation. Despite claiming to be familiar with all four student-centered techniques, most teachers rarely or sometimes implement these instructional methods, as can be seen below. Cooperative learning is the most familiar strategy, and it was also marked as the most frequently used. Yet only five teachers indicated they use cooperative learning “Always”, and three acknowledged that they never implement it. Only one participant asserted to use PBL frequently, which supports PBL being the least familiar strategy. This finding corresponds to Dole et al. (2016) who found that PBL was rarely used in secondary classrooms. However, differentiated instruction was identified as the second most familiar technique, yet only four out of 22 teachers implement differentiation on a regular basis. Despite being knowledgeable about differentiated instruction, most participants rarely implemented the FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 45 strategy. Reasons for this finding vary, but one possibility is that some teachers are subject authorities more comfortable providing direct instruction and do not recognize student-centered practices to be productive learning strategies as Passman (2001) and Kaymakamoğlu (2018) discovered. Table 3 Frequency of Strategy Use Never 2 3 Always Project-Based Learning 3 8 8 3 Problem-Based Learning 2 10 9 1 Cooperative Learning 3 6 8 5 Differentiated Instruction 2 11 5 4 n = 22 Teacher efficacy of strategy use or how confident teachers are in their ability to implement these strategies effectively is presented in Table 4. Participants rated themselves as most confident when implementing cooperative learning and PjBL, respectively. Based on the data displayed in Tables 2 and 3, it is unsurprising that secondary teachers experience more efficacy with cooperative learning and are least efficacious with PBL and differentiated instruction. Only one educator identified as “Very Confident” implementing differentiation, even though 11 participants identified as “Very Familiar” with the strategy in Table 2. This incongruency may align with Kaymakamoğlu’s (2018) finding of discrepancies between teacher beliefs about LCI and TCI compared to actual instruction. FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 46 Table 4 Teacher Efficacy of Each Strategy Not Confident 2 3 Very Confident Project-Based Learning 1 5 10 6 Problem-Based Learning 1 7 11 3 Cooperative Learning 1 4 11 6 Differentiated Instruction 3 7 11 1 n = 22 These data representing teacher experience with engagement and motivation techniques informed the questions for the focus group and provided the emergent understandings that are explained below. Six secondary teachers responded to questions in an open-ended, hour-long discussion. Participants discussed what motivation and engagement strategies they currently use, what barriers make it difficult for teachers to implement learner-centered strategies, and what strategies they want to learn more about to help them be more effective at motivating and engaging secondary students. The focus group conversation was recorded and transcribed, and the transcription was coded according to apparent themes. Pattern coding was used to organize the data into themes and determine meaning for each set (Saldaña, 2013). Analyzing the data from the focus group discussion was completed in accordance with Marshall and Rossman (1999). They outlined six steps for analyzing qualitative data: (a) organizing the data; (b) generating categories, themes, and patterns; (c) coding the data; (d) testing the emergent understandings; (e) searching for alternative explanations; and (f) writing the report (p. 152). One pattern that emerged from the focus group was that teachers seek to foster motivation, engagement, and self-determination in secondary students. The researcher also identified barriers to teachers’ implementation of learner-centered instruction (LCI), FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 47 as well as motivation and engagement techniques educators desire to implement into their classrooms. These data will determine future learner-centered professional development needs of the faculty in order to foster motivation and engagement in secondary students. The Quest to Foster Motivation A theme that surfaced from the focus group discussion was teachers seek to foster motivation and engagement in their students. While a conflict between traditional, teacher-centered practices and LCI may exist, these secondary teachers recognized value in promoting self-determination and implementing student-centered instructional techniques. This idea is represented in Ian’s response to the first question: I do a lot of direct instruction with the textbook and with lecture, and so [I’m] trying to add variety to my class. I’ve got some news clips about different political issues, about the kind of things that are happening in the world, and then asking them questions about what they saw, giving them time to think about it, then having them discuss that with a neighbor and then discussing it more at a class level. Teacher-centered instruction (TCI) is evident in Ian’s teaching practice, as researchers like Brown (2003) and Grant and Hill (2006) would expect, but Ian acknowledged that real-world application and providing opportunities for students to collaborate are necessary to engage and motivate his students. Astrid, another participant in the focus group, recognized cooperative learning when she said, “I’ve found that students learn best from other students. They spend a lot of time being told that they need to listen to the teacher…but actually we don’t give them credit for how much they already know.” She went on to explain that she often uses Jigsaw or Think-Pair-Share as cooperative learning FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 48 strategies to engage students. Implementing cooperative learning has proven to increase student engagement (Chatila & Husseiny, 2017; Wismath & Orr, 2015; Yair, 2000). Just as Ian seeks to connect classroom learning to the world outside of school, Erik looks for opportunities for real-world application, as is evident in the following response: We’ll start with kind of the overview of how to do a certain concept, and then from there we just ask a question, “Okay, why would it be important to use this outside of school? Where would we use this?” Based on their answers we’ll come up with real-world problems like, “What would be a problem for a construction worker [who] would require using unit rate…?” When we show the actual real-world problems of math, they are a little bit more motivated. Erik recognized that his students experience more internalization when they connect classroom concepts and skills to authentic occupations. This illustration supports the work of Jang (2008) and Vansteenkiste et al. (2018) who reported that student motivation increased when rationales for content were explained. Providing students with choice and self-paced instruction are other ways teachers try to empower and motivate their students according to the focus group. For example, Thom provides a variety of options on what articles his students read. Thom explained that he starts with a comprehension diagnostic to determine his students’ reading levels of informational text. Data collected from the diagnostic helps him differentiate text by readiness level, and students choose articles by interest. “The difficulty is chosen, so if I take away the excuse that they can’t do it and they’re not interested in it, then there’s not really a reason for them not to do it,” Thom said. “When they have success, they’re more FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 49 willing to do things that’re more difficult.” In this way, students are provided with options, and they are able to work on building comprehension skills at their own pace, and the teacher scaffolds materials for student success. Other researchers, such as Deci and Ryan (1985) and Norel and Necşoi (2011), also found student choice to be effective at engaging learners. Cody likewise encourages motivation, engagement, and self-determination with self-paced instruction, particularly when teaching a new concept. Instead of requiring her students to take notes during a lecture she gives at the front of the classroom, Cody encourages autonomy with Cornell notes. She starts by uploading a presentation or a document that students read independently. Then students take notes on a separate document and write comprehension questions in the left-hand margin. When students finish, they write a summary that includes two things they learned and two things the information made them wonder about. Cody described her purpose in moving away from a more traditional approach. I’m able to do more, like, one-on-one interaction with them that way because when they bring their notes up to me…I can actually talk to them about their summary, right? And answer their questions, or I see where there are a lot of points of confusion…they’re so much more motivated to do [this] at their own pace. The strategy Cody uses for teaching new concepts represents LCI because students are required to take ownership of their own learning. Individual conversations with students allow Cody to provide extension activities for those who are ready to apply the information in a more hands-on way, such as a lab, and identify which students need FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 50 additional scaffolding. Frederick and Ryan (1995) similarly found autonomous learning opportunities to bolster student growth, and Yair’s (2000) study revealed most students were engaged during labs. Even though survey data indicated a discrepancy between how familiar secondary teachers are with learner-centered strategies compared to how frequently LCI is implemented, the focus group revealed that teachers do seek to motivate and engage learners. Teachers hope to motivate students by using strategies such as cooperative learning, real-world application, choice, and self-paced instruction. One reason educators may lack efficacy when implementing LCI techniques is because of roadblocks that challenge teachers. Barriers to Learner-Centered Instructional Strategies According to the survey and the focus group, one significant challenge secondary teachers face is pressure of time and content. The research of Dixon et al. (2014) disclosed teachers are often overwhelmed by preparation and multitasking. Several teachers in this study commented on the survey about the amount of planning time it takes to prepare and assess PjBL and differentiated instruction, and teachers in the focus group discussed this further in this exchange: Astrid: “It takes so much extra planning. A lecture is something that you can kind of—I’m not necessarily saying wing—but it’s what you already know.” Ian: “Even just gathering materials.” Astrid: “I have to plan what kind of questions could be asked of me…” Cody: “You have to have like a lesson plan that’s tiered with a backup lesson plan.” FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 51 Astrid: “And it kind of becomes this individual student that you’re thinking about.” Cody: “There’s so much differentiation when it’s learner-centered.” Ian: “If I’m going to differentiate between just two groups, that almost doubles my planning time, at least for that activity, let alone two, three, or four, or 25.” Teachers were also concerned about the amount of instructional time LCI strategies absorb, making it more challenging to meet curricular demands. One participant wrote, “Teachers have a large amount of content to cover during the year, and learner-centered learning often seems to take more time, making it more difficult to cover all curriculum.” Teachers explained there was a lack of time to try and refine new strategies due to other teaching responsibilities, and they had concerns over students’ speed of progress, worrying they would not be able to cover enough of the core curriculum in time. Prior researchers’ findings support these data, specifically the effect high-stakes testing has had on teacher pressure and their instructional practices (Barksdale-Ladd & Thomas, 2000; Berliner, 2011; McMurrer, 2008; Nichols & Berliner, 2007; Passman, 2001). Classroom management appeared to be another roadblock for teachers. Kaymakamoğlu (2018) found large, diverse classes and classroom management issues as challenges to LCI, and this study supports that conclusion. Participants reported classroom behavior and large class sizes discourage them from implementing techniques like PjBL, PBL, differentiated instruction, and cooperative learning. One teacher stated, “Students who are difficult to work with in the classroom can become even more difficult when employing learner-centered [strategies], especially if they are disinterested in FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 52 learning the material or apathetic about their academic performance.” Focus group participants also acknowledged classroom management as a challenge. Erik: “Well, I guess…it’s not a culture of ‘I want to be here…the only reason why I’m here is so I can see my friends every day.’” Ian: “Yeah, I was one of them.” Cody: “Classroom management. That’s probably the biggest barrier.” Thom: “Yeah, you know, people being disruptive, kind of like…tainting the water.” Cody: “You really can’t get to the academic portion of your class until you have the management under control.” Ian: “Everybody’s functioning…students at least either not causing problems, let alone actually trying to engage.” Cody: “Building that culture in your classroom…” Ian: “Yeah, creating the culture in your classroom, I think, is something you can at least affect, even if not 100% of the time engineer, but doing that properly is a skill or an art…there are ways to do it…and I might have something in my head, but getting it down into reality is a very different story.” Based on their comments, educators understand classroom management is an element of teaching they influence. However, creating a learning environment in which students act on their desire to learn daily without distracting others is difficult. This finding supports Kaymakamoğlu’s (2018) research. Beyond pressures of time, content, and classroom management conflicts, teachers additionally shared concerns about student autonomy and failure. One participant FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 53 explained, “I think one of the largest barriers for learner-center[ed] is the teacher being able to trust the students to complete work and handing over a large chunk of ‘power’ to them.” Other secondary educators worried about “lack of control”, “fear of whether students will take responsibility or not”, and “…that much freedom allows students to claim they don’t know how to do it.” The focus group revealed further anxiety about autonomy. Thom: “If I allow them to talk, to share with each other, are they going to share on what I asked them to? Are they just going to just immediately be off?” Ian: “If you’re giving them the freedom to do stuff, to make their own decisions, then sometimes they’re not going to make those decisions. And, and some of them will just kind of, ‘All right, I’m not going to learn and that’s kind of my thing,’ but some of them are actually going to derail the others…kind of what you’re saying…You’ve given them freedom to direct their own education, and because they’re not concerned with their own education, they are taking that freedom and running in the opposite direction.” In this segment of the discussion, both Thom and Ian expressed concerns about creating autonomy-supportive learning environments. Frederick and Ryan (1995) discovered students experienced an increase in motivation when given opportunities for autonomy, yet these responses show the hesitance many teachers feel about autonomous classrooms. These data support the work of Skinner and Belmont (1993) in that autonomy is rarely promoted in classrooms. Teachers’ fear of failure was also noted. In the focus group, Ian commented on the inconsistent success of implementing student-centered strategies. Ian may try FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 54 motivating and engaging his students with a technique that failed one day, yet three days later he may try a different learner-based strategy that worked. He added, “I’m starting to lose morale because I just, I don’t see the payoff that everybody keeps promising me when I do take that step of faith.” Ian admitted he infrequently implements LCI because he has had irregular success with student-centered techniques. These responses indicated that teacher control is based on the instructor’s success or failure when providing autonomy-supportive learning tasks. Cody and Erik likewise shared concerns about failure, mistakes, and misinformation in the following conversation: Cody: “One thing that gives me pause every time I do a learner-centered strategy is concern about misinformation…If they’re doing a project or solving a problem, and I’m not able to facilitate it with everybody, but they’re in smaller groups, like, are they learning it correctly? So I guess maybe the broader issue is just how to be better with assessments when it’s learner-based because when I’m directing it, I know they’re getting the correct information. But when it’s learner-based, sometimes I feel like it slipped past with a few kids…If I had lectured you [students] on this, that is something I definitely would have covered and made sure you understood…” Erik: “Math with learner-centered…it’s really hard to, like, trust that they’re going to figure out the basis on their own and be able to just collaborate together to figure out this one problem in an effective manner that will work for every problem. If you’re up there, writing on the board…and you’re walking them step by step…they’re learning correctly because you’re guiding them.” FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 55 Cody: “Sometimes I struggle with feeling like I’m not doing my job when I do learner-centered because if they don’t learn it correctly, because I let them be in charge, you know, then I’m like…that was my one job!” (Laughing) Kaymakamoğlu (2018) presented comparable results, finding that if teachers believe knowledge is transferred from teacher to student because the teacher is an authority on the subject area, educators will avoid LCI. Participants in the survey reflected these concerns. Several brought up failure and efficiency of process, while others found student-centered techniques too difficult to structure, as one teacher stated: “Learner-centered learning generally must be very structured, and it can be difficult to provide sufficient structure to make the strategies successful.” Like Passman’s (2001) project revealed, some teachers are more comfortable with traditional methods of instruction. Participants in this study showed hesitance for employing LCI due to fear of failure and lack of control. As other researchers established, many educators require a paradigm shift in order to fully and regularly implement student-centered practices (Küçüksüleymanoğlu & Terzioğlu, 2017; Wohlfarth et al., 2008). A fourth roadblock of LCI that participants discussed was the lack of knowledge and understanding teachers have about strategies that motivate and engage students. On the survey, five teachers mentioned lack of knowledge and understanding as a challenge to LCI. One specified unfamiliarity and uncertainty of how to manage a classroom while providing instruction and curriculum in a student-centered way. Participants in the focus group concurred. Astrid: “I also think one of the barriers is just, like, the lack of knowledge of how many learning strategies there are. The more often you practice those strategies, FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 56 the more often you think to use them...I think it’s just lack of knowing all the different options out there. I think we have that bank a little bit, like we have that list, but there hasn’t been as much teaching on, like, how to implement them...there’s not that much talk about it, so then there’s not as much knowledge.” Ian: “If you read the instructions, you’re not sure what it’s supposed to look like. It’s the difference between reading the instructions on a board game and actually let’s play a round or two, and then now [we] know what it’s supposed to look like.” Cody: “So lack of exposure. I feel like the most I’ve ever learned teaching is just from going and watching other teachers.” Astrid: “Yes, honestly.” Erik: “They’re giving us all these tools and things that are awesome, and I love them. But then the examples and videos they show you in a classroom is, like, at a math campus, Stanford for seventh graders, and you’re like, ‘My seventh graders aren’t going to go to a math camp.’ That’s an awesome activity. I totally want to do it, but what is that going to look like in a different setting?” Ian: “How do I get my class to that place?” Astrid: “We know these strategies, but we don’t know what to do when those things [challenges] come up, right? Because we haven’t, we haven’t seen it as often, or we haven’t been taught about it as often...And it’s just due to the fact that we don’t have any trainings or education on how to fully implement each of these strategies.” FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 57 Participants indicated they may possess some vague knowledge about learner-centered strategies that motivate and engage students, but simply hearing about strategies or reading the instructions did not effectively provide teachers with a rich enough experience needed to implement those methods into their instruction. Teachers expressed a lack of training on LCI techniques, and when professional development was provided, it was often inadequate. Dixon et al. (2014) similarly discovered that teachers were more likely to implement instructional strategies with fidelity if they felt more efficacious, primarily through in-depth professional development. Another aspect to lack of knowledge and understanding about LCI that was mentioned in the survey as a challenge was fear of change and the unknown. “Some teachers feel the need to stick with techniques that make it easy to grade in a way that is ‘traditional’ or familiar,” one participant wrote. Another teacher responded, “I think that the challenges teachers have is feeling uncomfortable about the unknown...comfortable is easier.” This finding endorses Passman’s (2001) results. Similarly in the focus group, Cody mentioned strategy bias as a roadblock that prevents teachers from employing various LCI techniques. She explained that educators often teach according to their own learning styles, and teachers typically avoid strategies they find unappealing. These comments suggested that educators tend to teach with methods they are confident implementing, as Dixon et al. (2014) and Passman (2001) revealed. Interest in Learning Through Effective Professional Development Another theme that emerged from the focus group discussion is teachers are interested in learning more about engagement and motivation strategies, particularly in professional development settings that are effective at helping them improve their FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 58 practice. A variety of techniques were mentioned when focus group participants discussed which strategies they wanted to learn more about to help them be more effective at motivating and engaging their students. Several teachers mentioned interest in learning about kinesthetic and musical strategies appropriate for secondary students, particularly seventh graders in academic courses. Michael discussed his curiosity in stress management techniques like meditation, particularly when students are restless, anxious, and dealing with conflict. Two other strategies focus group participants expressed interest in included PBL and PjBL. To illustrate, Astrid said, “We can tell them over and over and over again the stats but having them [students] actually do the research or [investigate] an actual real life problem that’s going on and have them really seriously think about how [they] can be effective solving this problem…that’s one I’m really interested in doing more of.” Real-world problem solving was also something Cody shared she would like to learn more about, particularly with assessments. So, Astrid was talking about real-world application, and I want to go more that direction with my assessments, like, it’d be problem-based, real-world assessments. So instead of memoriz[ing] all this information, here’s the information. It’s open note. But here’s the problem you need to solve with the information. But it’s a lot of work, and I haven’t really seen anybody do it. Erik, who stated earlier in the conversation that he used PBL, was interested in combining problem- and project-based learning as he explained with this response: One of the strategies I want to learn more about and implement is projects, being able to come up with real-world problems, but have them [students] come up with FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 59 the problem…have a project where they have to take an occupation that they are interested in and have to come up with a real-world problem that has an application of the unit that we’ve just studied. They can come up with this project of how they would solve it, what information they would need, things like that…I think that would be something that would help engage and motivate students... These comments show that teachers are unfamiliar with how to implement PBL, and those who implement PBL do so on a small scale, so further training is needed. Teachers’ lack of efficacy in their ability to use PjBL and PBL in their classrooms confirms the research of Dole et al. (2016). Teachers shared interest in mastering cooperative learning. Although cooperative learning is the strategy teachers are most comfortable with according to the survey, focus group participants discussed wanting to develop their skills further. Michael communicated his desire to learn more about Tribes (Gibbs, 2006), a cooperative approach to learning communities. Several years ago, he was introduced to Tribes in a week-long summer course, but Michael indicated the need to review the Tribes process and planning time to be “all in” and restructure his classes. Ian mentioned that teachers required education on how to build a culture of inquiry and collaboration. He explained he would be more comfortable dedicating time and effort into LCI if he knew how to create a motivated culture of autonomy in his classroom. Other teachers added to Ian’s response. Cody: “I feel like often the classroom culture prevents cooperative effectiveness because kids refuse to work together, or they’ve already decided who’s going to do all the work…right?” FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 60 Ian: “Yeah.” Michael: “I feel like I do a really good job at the beginning of the year setting up that culture, but I want, like, some quick ways to remind them that this is the culture in our classroom that doesn’t take a whole other full-day lesson plan…” Thom: “A lot of classes I’ve had talked about how you train your kids to be able to work together, but…how do you do that?” This conversation suggested that while teachers are familiar with cooperative learning in general, educators struggle to establish accountability for individuals. Focus group participants went on to discuss their interest in learning how to teach students team-building, how to effectively work together, and establish a student-propelled learning community without sacrificing time away from their subject areas. These data showed teachers’ desire to further their knowledge in developing a sense of relatedness (Ryan & Frederick, 1997; Skinner & Belmont, 1993) within their classrooms. Educators recognized there are a number of student-centered strategies outside their knowledge base and communicated their interest in discovering unfamiliar techniques. Astrid explained that once she implements a successful learning strategy in her lessons, she then finds more opportunities to use that particular strategy in the future. She recycles strategies that she is already familiar with, so she would like to be exposed to different learner-centered techniques to reach more of her students. Cody also mentioned being curious about unfamiliar techniques. I want to say that the strategies that I want to learn more about are the ones that are not even on my mind because we all have our bias towards a learning style, so FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 61 that becomes our teaching style… I need to have somebody be like, “You’re uncomfortable doing this? Then you should do it.” Participants noted their lack of exposure to new strategies during professional development and the desire to discover strategies that motivate and engage secondary students outside their typical “bank” of techniques. Effective professional development regarding instruction was an undertone throughout the focus group. During the conversation about teacher lack of knowledge being a barrier to the implementation of LCI, participants discussed that when student-centered strategies are introduced, the trainings are not conducive enough to encourage teachers to attempt a new strategy, as Dixon et al. (2014) found. Teachers expressed that seeing the strategy in real time helps them understand how the strategy is used. Michael: “On the videos they always show the perfect scenario.” Cody: “Well, I don’t even think trainings would be very helpful for me because we all remember things in their best, like storytelling.” Astrid: “Yeah.” Cody: “If you can actually be there to witness that moment, you’re going to remember that. You’re going to draw from it, right?” Astrid: “Like, actually seeing it take place in an actual environment.” Cody: “Right.” This concept was brought up again toward the end of the focus group session. Erik: “We just need to take turns being TAs…” Cody: “You learn so much!” Astrid: “You’re able to watch it actually be done.” FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 62 Ian and Astrid added that sitting in other classrooms allows observers to see how teachers with a similar population of students respond to conflicts in real time, manage classrooms, engage learners, and utilize instructional strategies. According to the focus group, videos are helpful at times but lack authenticity. Another way teachers are able to witness a technique is when facilitators use the strategy to teach the strategy. Participants, notably Astrid, found teaching “these strategies while performing the strategies” as effective professional development. Not only do teachers have the opportunity to see the technique first-hand, but they also get to experience the strategy from students’ perspectives. One teacher completed a book study of Teach Like a Champion 2.0 (Lemov & Atkins, 2015) in order to learn more about engaging students. Ian explained that although the book included dozens of techniques, he “walked away with about three.” Reading and talking about several instructional strategies at each session was not in-depth enough training for Ian to adopt more than a few methods. This reaction supports the work of Dixon et al. (2014). Cody said, “I think we should have a strategy of the week, like a competition, and then you have to do it at some point in the week, and then during your CTT [department meeting] you have to report.” These data show that teachers possess interest in furthering their knowledge on LCI, but in order to implement instructional strategies with fidelity, in-depth, concrete professional development is required. Conclusion The purpose of this study was to determine how knowledgeable, experienced, and efficacious secondary teachers are implementing strategies that engage and motivate secondary students. The researcher was also curious as to what barriers prevent teachers FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 63 from implementing these student-centered strategies – PjBL, PBL, cooperative learning, and differentiated instruction – and what learner-centered practices educators are interested in studying to improve their effectiveness at engaging and motivating secondary students. While most of the teachers in this study were familiar with PjBL, PBL, cooperative learning, and differentiated instruction, teachers rarely or sometimes implemented the strategies. Educators reported using student-centered techniques like cooperative learning, real-world application, choice, and self-paced instruction. Roadblocks that challenged teacher implementation of LCI included pressures of time and content, classroom management, concerns about student autonomy and failure, and lack of understanding about student-centered practices. According to the focus group, educators were interested in furthering their knowledge of strategies such as PBL and cooperative learning, as well as techniques unfamiliar to teachers that have been proven to engage and motivate secondary students. However, participants admitted trainings are sometimes unproductive. Secondary teachers in the focus group expressed a need for more effective professional development to help them polish their practices and foster motivation and engagement in their students. Limitations and Recommendations This study was limited by the small number of participants from a localized region who were surveyed and interviewed in a focus group. Had the survey been more inclusive of other school districts and multiple focus groups been conducted, results may have varied. Participants in the survey were asked to rate their familiarity, implementation frequency, and efficacy of four student-centered strategies proven to engage and motivate students: PjBL, PBL, cooperative learning, and differentiated FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 64 instruction (Anderson & Cook, 2014; Anyafulude, 2013; Basche et al., 2016; Chatila & Husseiny, 2017; Norel & Necşoi, 2011; Soleimani et al., 2012). If the survey had asked participants about other learner-centered practices that engage and motivate secondary students, the study may have resulted in different findings. The researcher did not examine course topics in preservice teacher education programs or investigate current professional development at the Title I charter school – both areas that may affect participants’ experiences with LCI strategies and barriers to teacher implementation of learner-centered techniques that motivate and engage secondary students. Further research is recommended on fostering engagement, motivation, and self-determination in secondary students with a broader selection of participants and a focus on common subject areas. The structure and quality of current teacher trainings on instructional methods should be explored in more depth. The researcher recommends a comparable study examining secondary students’ perspectives on engagement and motivation strategies, as well as practice and research-related professional development for secondary teachers at the site of study. Final Reflection Conducting this study provided me with insights and validations about my own teaching practice. I was unsurprised that cooperative learning and differentiated instruction were the most familiar techniques to teachers. I studied the importance of incorporating those strategies in my future classroom as a preservice teacher, but I rarely observed other teachers implementing cooperative learning and differentiation. Education courses in my undergraduate program discussed neither PjBL nor PBL, and I did not learn about those strategies until much later in my teaching career by reading professional FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 65 articles, not proper educational training. As my research revealed, teachers are familiar with these strategies but lack the efficacy to implement them regularly. Cooperative learning is the strategy I am most familiar and confident with and use most frequently, which aligns with data collected in the survey. My experience with PjBL, cooperative learning, and differentiated instruction has typically been successful at motivating and engaging students, yet roadblocks identified in this project, such as pressure of time and content and lack of exposure, similarly challenge my implementation of these strategies. I was encouraged to find that teachers desire to motivate and engage students and are willing to adapt their instructional methods if given access to effective professional development because it revealed growth mindset and student-centered intentions. The findings of this study are important because they reveal a conflict between teacher-centered and learner-centered instruction (LCI) in secondary classrooms. Participants disclosed that there are LCI techniques they use to motivate and engage their students, and they are interested in learning how to be more effective at motivation and engagement. However, barriers challenge the aspirations of educators, leading to a lack of learning and empowerment. This research should affect future professional development for educators and calls for an adjustment in training topics and methods and the acknowledgement that teachers need additional support in providing effective instruction in order to foster engagement and motivation in secondary students. FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 66 REFERENCES Anderson, D., & Cook, T. (2014). Committed to differentiation and engagement: A case study of two American secondary social studies teachers. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 5(1), 1–19. Anyafulude, J. C. (2013). Effects of problem-based and discovery-based instructional strategies on students’ academic achievement in chemistry. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 3(6), 105–111. doi: 10.5901/jesr.2013.v3n6p105 Barksdale-Ladd, M. A., & Thomas, K. F. (2000). What’s at stake in high-stakes testing: Teachers and parents speak out. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(5), 384–397. Basche, A., Genareo, V., Leshem, A., Kissell, A., & Pauley, J. (2016). Engaging middle school students through locally focused environmental science project-based learning. Natural Sciences Education, 45, 1–10. doi: 10.4195/nse2016.05.0012 Beam, A. P. (2009). Standards-based differentiation: Identifying the concept of multiple intelligence for use with students with disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 5(4), 1–13. Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83(2), 39–43. doi: 10.1080/00098650903505415 Berliner, D. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing: The case of curriculum narrowing and the harm that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(3), 287–302. doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2011.607151 Berling, J. A. (1998). Getting out of the way: A strategy for engaging students in collaborative learning. Teaching Theology and Religion, 1(1), 31–35. FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 67 Borda, E. J., Boudreaux, A., Fackler-Adams, B., Frazey, P., Julin, S., Pennington, G., & Ogle, J. (2017). Adapting a student-centered chemistry curriculum to a large-enrollment context: Successes and challenges. Journal of College Science Teaching, 46(5), 8–13. Brown, K. L. (2003). From teacher-centered to learner-centered curriculum: Improving learning in diverse classrooms. Education, 124(1), 49–54. Chatila, H. & Husseiny, F. (2017). Effect of cooperative learning strategy on students’ acquisition and practice of scientific skills in biology. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health (JESEH), 3(1), 88–99. Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol. 23). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Crim, C. L., Kennedy, K. D., & Thornton, J. S. (2013). Differentiating for multiple intelligences: A study of students’ understandings through the use of aesthetic representations. Issues in Teacher Education, 22(2), 69–91. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum. Dixon, F. A., Yssel, N., McConnell, J. M., & Hardin, T. (2014). Differentiated instruction, professional development, and teacher efficacy. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(2), 111–127. doi: 10.1177/0162353214529042 FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 68 Dole, S., Bloom, L., & Kowalske, K. (2016). Transforming pedagogy: Changing perspectives from teacher-centered to learner-centered. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 10(1). doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1538 Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153l Filippatou, D., & Kaldi, S. (2010). The effectiveness of project-based learning on pupils with learning difficulties regarding academic performance, group work and motivation. International Journal of Special Education, 25(1), 17–26. Finn, J. D., Pannozzo, G. M., & Voelkl, K. E. (1995). Disruptive and inattentive-withdrawn behavior and achievement among fourth graders. Elementary School Journal, 95, 421–454. Frederick, C. M., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Self-determination in sport: A review using cognitive evaluation theory. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26, 5–23. Fredericks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59– 109. Froiland, J. M., & Oros, E. (2014). Intrinsic motivation, perceived competence and classroom engagement as longitudinal predictors of adolescent reading achievement. Educational Psychology, 34(2), 119–132. doi:10.1080/01443410.2013.822964 Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., & Clay-Chambers, J. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 69 inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 922–939. Gibbs, A. (2017). Focus groups and group interviews. In Coe, R., Waring, M., Hedges, L. V., & Arthur, J. (Eds), Research methods & methodologies in education (2nd ed.) (pp. 223–233). London: SAGE. Gibbs, J. (2006). Reaching all by creating tribes learning communities. Windsor, CA: CenterSource Systems, LLC. Grant, M. M., & Hill, J. R. (2006). Weighing the risks with the rewards: Implementing student centered pedagogy within high-stakes testing. In R. Lambert & C. McCarthy (Eds.), Understanding teacher stress in an age of accountability (pp. 19–42). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Press. Haerens, L., Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B. & Van Petegem, S. (2015). Do perceived autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching relate to physical education students’ motivational experiences through unique pathways? Distinguishing between the bright and the dark side of motivation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 26–36. Hulya, J. Y. (2005). A study of collaborative learning style and team learning performance. Education + Training, 47(3), 216–229. doi: 10.1108/00400910510592257 International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2018). ISTE Standards for Students. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/for-students. FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 70 Jang, H. (2008). Supporting students' motivation, engagement, and learning during an uninteresting activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 798–811. http://dx.doi.org.hal.weber.edu:2200/10.1037/a0012841 Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2014) Cooperative learning: Improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25(4), 1–26. Kaymakamoğlu, S. E. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs, perceived practice and actual classroom practice in relation to traditional (teacher-centered) and constructivist (learner-centered) teaching (note 1). Journal of Education and Learning, 7(1), 29–37. Küçüksüleymanoğlu, R., & Terzioğlu, C. (2017). Secondary school teachers’ perceptions on their school’s openness to change. Educational Research and Reviews, 12(15), 732-743. doi: 10.5897/ERR2017.3307 Lemov, D., & Atkins, N. (2015). Teach like a champion 2.0: 62 techniques that put students on the path to college. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. McMurrer, J. (2008). Instructional time in elementary school subjects. A closer look at changes for specific subjects. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. Retrieved from https://www.cep-dc. org//index.cfm?fuseaction=document.showDocu-mentByID& nodeID=1&DocumentID=234 FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 71 Minter, M. K. (2011). Learner-centered (LCI) vs. teacher-centered (TCI) instruction: A classroom management perspective. American Journal of Business Education, 4(5), 55–62. Nichols, S. N., & Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral damage: The effects of high stakes testing on America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Norel, M. & Neşoi, D. (2011). Valorisation of students’ individual potential using the multiple intelligences theory: Examples of good practice. Journal of Educational Sciences & Psychology, I (LXIII)(1), 102–109. Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 261–290. Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational differences in work values: A review of theory and evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 73(1), 79– 96. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00285.x Passman, R. (2001). Experiences with student-centered teaching and learning in high-stakes assessment environments. Education, 122(1), 189–199. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40. http://dx.doi.org.hal.weber.edu:2200/10.1037/0022- 0663.82.1.33 Ravitch, D. (2016). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books. FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 72 Rotermund, S., DeRoche, J., Ottem, R., National Center for Education Statistics, & Insight Policy, Research (2017). Teacher professional development by selected teacher and school characteristics: 2011–12. Stats in Brief. NCES 2017–200. Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of Personality 63(3), 397–427. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55(1), 68–78. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–36). Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester Press. Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. M. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65, 529– 565. Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Sansone, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance. New York, NY: Academic. Savin-Baden, M., & Major, C. H. (2013). Qualitative research: The essential guide to theory and practice. London: Routeledge. Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), 257–279. FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 73 Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., & Reis, H. T. (1996). What makes for a good day? Autonomy and competence in the day and in the person. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(12), 1270-1279. Skinner, E. A. & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571–581. Soleimani, H., Moinnzadeh, A., Kassaian, Z., & Ketabi, S. (2012). The effect of instruction based on multiple intelligences theory on the attitude and learning of general English. English Language Teaching, 5(9), 45–53. doi:10.5539/elt.v5n9p45 Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., & Hertberg, H. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2/3), 119–145. Tomlinson, C. A., & Kalbfleisch, M. L. (1998). Teach me, teach my brain: A call for differentiated classrooms. Educational Leadership, 56(3), 52–55. Turner, A. (2015). Generation Z: Technology and social interest. Journal of Individual Psychology, 71(2), 103–113. Tymms, P. (2017). Questionnaires. In Coe, R., Waring, M., Hedges, L. V., & Arthur, J. (Eds), Research methods & methodologies in education (2nd ed.) (pp. 223–233). London: SAGE. Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N., De Muynck, G., Haerens, L., Patall, E., & Reeve, J. (2018). Fostering personal meaning and self-relevance: A self-determination FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 74 theory perspective on internalization. The Journal of Experimental Education, 86(1), p. 30–49. Waterhouse, L. (2006). Inadequate evidence for multiple intelligences, Mozart effect, and emotional intelligence theories. Educational Psychologist, 41(4), 247–255. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4104_5 Wismath, S. L., & Orr, D. (2015). Collaborative learning in problem solving: A case study in metacognitive learning. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(3), 1–17. Wohlfarth, D., Sheras, D., Bennett, J. L., Simon, B., Pimentel, J. H., & Gabel, L. E. (2008). Student perceptions of learner-centered teaching. InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 3(1), 67–74. Wolfensberger, B., & Canella, C. (2015). Cooperative learning about nature of science with a case from the history of science. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 10(6), 865–889. Yair, G. (2000). Educational battlefields in America: The tug-of-war over students’ engagement with instruction. Sociology of Education, 73(4), 247–269. doi: 10.2307/2673233 FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 75 APPENDIX A Google Forms Survey Questions 1. How familiar are you with project-based learning strategies? 2. How often would you estimate you use project-based learning in your classroom? 3. How confident do you feel about implementing project-based learning in your teaching practice? 4. How familiar are you with problem-based learning strategies? 5. How often would you estimate you use problem-based learning in your classroom? 6. How confident do you feel about implementing problem-based learning in your teaching practice? 7. How familiar are you with cooperative learning strategies? 8. How often would you estimate you use cooperative learning in your classroom? 9. How confident do you feel about implementing cooperative learning in your teaching practice? 10. How familiar are you with differentiated instruction? 11. How often would you estimate you use differentiated instruction in your classroom? 12. How confident do you feel about implementing differentiated instruction in your teaching practice? FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 76 13. What barriers do you think challenge or discourage teachers from using learner-centered techniques (such as differentiated instruction)? 14. What is your educational background? 15. What has been your approach to teacher licensure? 16. How many years of teaching experience do you have? 17. What grade level(s) do you currently teach? 18. What subject area(s) do you currently teach? 19. Would you be willing to participate in a small group discussion about motivating and engaging students with learner-centered strategies at a later time? FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 77 APPENDIX B Research Approval Letters The principal of the Title I charter school approved the researcher’s study. However, the decision was made not to publish the letter directly because it was drafted on official school letterhead, and including the approval letter in this project would clearly identify the research site. In sum, the letter states that the researcher is permitted to complete her research at the school if student demographic data is collected with parental permission as per FERPA guidelines and personal information of employees not be disclosed without written consent. The principal also requires the findings of this study be shared with administrators to improve school progress and organizational growth. FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION 78