Motivation and Engagement Materials - Summary Document · PDF fileDocument includes...
-
Upload
vuongthuan -
Category
Documents
-
view
231 -
download
2
Transcript of Motivation and Engagement Materials - Summary Document · PDF fileDocument includes...
Lifelong
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com
MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT MATERIALS
Summary Document
Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
Lifelong Achievement Group
2012
To Order Materials, visit:
www.lifelongachievement.com
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
Document includes information on:
Motivation and Engagement Wheel
Motivation and Engagement Scale Suite
o Motivation and Engagement Scale – Junior (Elementary/Primary) School
o Motivation and Engagement Scale – High School
o Motivation and Engagement Scale – University/College
o Motivation and Engagement Scale – Sport
o Motivation and Engagement Scale – Music (incl. Performing/Creative Arts)
o Motivation and Engagement Scale – Work
Motivation and Engagement Scale Score Sheet
Motivation and Engagement Scale Profiling Sheet
Motivation and Engagement Workbooks
o Motivation and Engagement Workbook – Junior School
o Motivation and Engagement Workbook – High School
o Motivation and Engagement Workbook – University/College
Research using the motivation and engagement materials and concepts
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
Motivation and Engagement Wheel
Anxiety
Uncertaincontrol
Self-sabotage
Disengagement
Valuing school
Planning
Persistence
Self-belief
Learningfocus
Study management
Failure avoidance
ADAPTIVE COGNITIVE (BOOSTERS)
ADAPTIVE BEHAVIORAL (BOOSTERS)
IMPEDING COGNITIVE (MUFFLERS)
MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIORAL (GUZZLERS)
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
Motivation and Engagement Scale – High School (MES-HS)
Overview of MES-HS
The Motivation and Engagement Scale – High School (MES-HS) is an instrument that measures high
school students’ (12-18 years) motivation and engagement. It assesses motivation through three
adaptive cognitive dimensions (booster thoughts), three adaptive behavioral dimensions (booster
behaviors), three impeding/maladaptive cognitive dimensions (mufflers), and two maladaptive
behavioral dimensions (guzzlers) of motivation and engagement. Each of the eleven factors comprises
four items – hence it is a 44-item instrument. To each item, students rate themselves on a scale of 1
(‘Strongly Disagree’) to 7 (‘Strongly Agree’).
Motivation Scores
Each student’s answers to the four items on each motivation area are then aggregated and converted
to a raw score out of 100 and then to a norm score (Motivation Quotient Score – MQ Score – similar in
measurement to an IQ score) and a Grade between A and D. Hence, each student is assigned eleven
MQ scores and 11 Grades. MQs for the MES-HS are described more fully below.
Boosters
Each booster falls into one of two groups: thoughts and behaviors. Booster thoughts include self-belief
(or self-efficacy), learning focus (or mastery orientation), and valuing. Booster behaviors include
persistence, planning, and task management.
Self-belief (eg. "If I try hard, I believe I can do my schoolwork well") is students’ belief and confidence in
their ability to understand or to do well in their schoolwork, to meet challenges they face, and to perform
to the best of their ability.
Valuing school (eg. "Learning at school is important") is how much students believe what they learn at
school is useful, important, and relevant to them or to the world in general.
Learning focus (eg. "I feel very pleased with myself when I really understand what I’m taught at school")
is being focused on understanding, learning, solving problems, and developing skills.
Planning (eg. "Before I start an assignment I plan out how I am going to do it") is how much students
plan their schoolwork, assignments, and study and how much they keep track of their progress as they
are doing them.
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
Task (study) management (eg. “When I study, I usually study in places where I can concentrate”) refers
to the way students use their study time, organize their study timetable, and choose and arrange where
they study.
Persistence (eg. "If I can’t understand my schoolwork at first, I keep going over it until I understand it")
is how much students keep trying to work out an answer or to understand a problem even when that
problem is difficult or is challenging.
Mufflers
Mufflers are anxiety, failure avoidance, and uncertain control.
Anxiety (eg. "When exams and assignments are coming up, I worry a lot") has two parts: feeling
nervous and worrying. Feeling nervous is the uneasy or sick feeling students get when they think about
their schoolwork, assignments, or exams. Worrying is their fear about not doing very well in their
schoolwork, assignments, or exams.
Failure avoidance (eg. "Often the main reason I work at school is because I don’t want to disappoint my
parents") occurs when the main reason students do their schoolwork is to avoid doing poorly or to avoid
being seen to do poorly.
Uncertain control (eg. "I'm often unsure how I can avoid doing poorly at school") assesses students’
uncertainty about how to do well or how to avoid doing poorly.
Guzzlers
Guzzlers are self-sabotage (or self-handicapping) and disengagement.
Self-sabotage (eg. "I sometimes don’t study very hard before exams so I have an excuse if I don’t do as
well as I hoped") refers to students’ tendency to do things that reduce their chances of success at
school. Examples are putting off doing an assignment or wasting time while they are meant to be doing
their schoolwork or studying for an exam.
Disengagement (eg. "I often feel like giving up at school") assesses feelings and thoughts of giving up
in particular school subjects or school generally. Students high in disengagement tend to accept failure
and behave in ways that reflect helplessness.
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
Calculation of Global Scores
The eleven individual motivation scores can also be converted to four Global Scores that are the
average of booster thoughts, booster behaviors, mufflers, and guzzlers.
These Global Scores are computed by simply averaging the individual scores for each group of
factors.
Global Booster Thought Score
o Average of Self-belief, Valuing, and Learning Focus Scores
Global Booster Behavior Score
o Average of Planning, Task Management, and Persistence Scores
Global Muffler Score
o Average of Anxiety, Failure Avoidance, and Uncertain Control Scores
Global Guzzler Score
o Average of Self-sabotage and Disengagement Scores
MES Pack and Online Data Collection Service
The MES and associated forms and documentation are supplied in PDF format for printing and
distribution to respondents. There is also an Excel template to help clients in data entry of hard
copy survey responses. This is the MES Pack.
Lifelong Achievement Group also offers an MES online data collection service (see
www.lifelongachievement.com for information and ordering). Here, the client is sent a URL that is
a link to an online version of the MES. The client provides all intended respondents with this URL
to access the MES online. As respondents complete the survey, responses are stored by Lifelong
via the SurveyMonkey (www.surveymonkey.com) service. When all respondents have completed
the survey, the client contacts Lifelong and Lifelong then emails the dataset to the client in Excel
format. The client then processes and analyzes the data in the same way as they would if they had
collected and entered all hard copy surveys.
The MES Online Survey comprises the following items:
- Name (if required or relevant)
- ID number (if required or relevant)
- Gender
- Age
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
- Grade or year level
- Basic questions on school characteristics
- Basic questions on the respondent’s academic performance
- Basic questions about the respondent’s class and school engagement
- 44 MES items (4 items for each of the 11 parts of the Motivation and Engagement Wheel)
The MES Online Data Collection Service includes the MES Pack in the license.
MES-HS Psychometrics
Psychometric properties reported here are based on data collected from 21,579 high school students
from 58 schools (36 Government, 7 Systemic Catholic, and 15 Independent; 42 co-educational, 9
single-sex girls, 7 single-sex boys). Students were aged 12-13 years (31%), 14-15 years (36%), and
16-18 years (33%). The mean age of students was 14.52 (SD=1.57) years. Students were from Years
7 and 8 (35%), Years 9 and 10 (34%), and Years 11 and 12 (31%). In total, 55% of students were
males and 45% females. First order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using LISREL 8.80 yields an
excellent fit to the data (2=27,182.85, df=847, CFI=.98, RMSEA=.038), as does the higher order CFA
(2=35,315.47, df=886, CFI=.98, RMSEA=.042). The mean reliability (Cronbach’s ) for the 11
subscales is .79.
‘Normative’ MQ Scores
The raw scores on the Motivation and Engagement Scale can also be converted to ‘normative’ scores
referred to as MQ (Motivation Quotient) scores. MQs have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of
15 (like an IQ score). Using non-normalized MQs equates the means and standard deviations of the
different scores for each facet of motivation and engagement (but does not affect the shape of their
distributions). Subsequently, scores for each of the facets of motivation and engagement can then be
compared more meaningfully. Hence, converting scores to MQs has the advantage of placing each
booster, muffler, and guzzler on an approximately common metric. For example, using MQs we can say
that a student is higher on planning than self-belief if s/he scores 110 and 105 on planning and self-
belief respectively (even when in raw scores s/he scored lower on planning than self-belief).
Age-based MQs for boosters, mufflers, and guzzlers are presented in the Test User manual. They are
based on a ‘normative’ sample of 33,778 high school students from 92 Australian schools (48
Government/Systemic and 44 Independent schools; 63 co-educational, 15 single-sex girls, 14 single-
sex boys schools). Students were aged 12-13 years (32%), 14-15 years (39%), and 16-18 years (29%).
The mean age of students was 14.43 (SD=1.57) years. Students were from Years 7 and 8 (34%), Years
9 and 10 (38%), and Years 11 and 12 (28%). In total, 55% of students were males and 45% females. A
total of 15% of students were from a non-English speaking background. The MQs are separated into
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
early adolescence (12-13 years), mid adolescence (14-15 years), and late adolescence (16-18 years)
groupings.
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
Motivation and Engagement Scale – Junior School (MES-JS; Elementary/Primary School)
MES-JS Overview
The Motivation and Engagement Scale – Junior School (MES-JS) is an instrument that measures junior
(elementary/primary) school students’ (9-13 years) motivation and engagement. It assesses motivation
through three adaptive cognitive dimensions (booster thoughts), three adaptive behavioral dimensions
(booster behaviors), three impeding/maladaptive cognitive dimensions (mufflers), and two maladaptive
behavioral dimensions (guzzlers) of motivation and engagement. Each of the eleven factors comprises
four items – hence it is a 44-item instrument. To each item, students rate themselves on a scale of 1
(‘Strongly Disagree’) to 5 (‘Strongly Agree’).
Motivation Scores
Each student’s answers to the four items on each motivation area are then aggregated and converted
to a raw score out of 100 and then to a norm score (Motivation Quotient Score – MQ Score – similar in
measurement to an IQ score) and a Grade between A and D. Hence, each student is assigned eleven
MQ scores and 11 Grades. MQs for the MES-JS are described more fully below.
Boosters
Boosters are self-belief, learning focus, valuing of school, persistence, planning, and study
management.
Self-belief (eg. "If I try hard, I believe I can do my schoolwork well"): Self-belief is students’ belief and
confidence in their ability to understand or to do well in their schoolwork, to meet challenges they face,
and to perform to the best of their ability.
Valuing (school) (eg. "Learning at school is important"): Valuing (school) is how much students believe
what they learn at school is useful, important, and relevant to them or to the world in general. If
students value school they tend to believe that what they learn can be used in other parts of their life,
believe that it is important to learn at school, and feel that what they learn at school is relevant to
current events in the world.
Learning focus (eg. "I feel very happy with myself when I really understand what I’m taught at school"):
Learning focus is being focused on learning, solving problems, and developing skills. The goal of a
learning focus is to be the best student one can be. If students are learning focused they tend to work
hard, want to learn more, enjoy learning new things, enjoy solving problems by working hard, and do a
good job for its own satisfaction and not just for rewards.
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
Planning (eg. "Before I start a project I plan out how I am going to do it"): Planning is how much
students plan their schoolwork, assignments, and study and how much they keep track of their
progress as they are doing them.
Task (study) management (eg. “When I do homework, I usually do it where I can concentrate best”):
Task (study) management refers to the way students use their homework time, organise their
homework timetable, and choose and arrange where they do their schoolwork and homework.
Persistence (eg. "If I can’t understand my schoolwork, I keep trying until I do"): Persistence is how
much students keep trying to work out an answer or to understand a problem even when that problem
is difficult or is challenging. If students are persistent they tend to keep going over schoolwork until they
understand it, spend time trying to understand things that do not make sense straightaway, and keep
working at a task even when it is difficult.
Mufflers
Mufflers are anxiety, failure avoidance (fear of failure), and uncertain control.
Anxiety (eg. "When I have a project to do, I worry about it a lot"): Anxiety has two parts: feeling nervous
and worrying. Feeling nervous is the uneasy or sick feeling students get when they think about their
schoolwork, projects, or tests. Worrying is their fear about not doing very well in their schoolwork,
projects, or tests.
Failure avoidance (eg. "The main reason I try at school is because I don’t want to disappoint my
parents"): Students have an avoidance focus when the main reason they do their schoolwork is to
avoid doing poorly or to avoid being seen to do poorly. If students have an avoidance focus they tend to
do their schoolwork mainly to avoid getting bad marks, do their schoolwork mainly to avoid people
thinking they cannot do it, and do their schoolwork mainly because they do not want to disappoint their
parents or teachers.
Uncertain control (eg. "When I don’t do well at school I don’t know how to stop that happening next
time"): Students are uncertain in control when they are unsure about how to do well or how to avoid
doing poorly. If students are uncertain in control they can be at risk of helpless or disengagement at
school.
Guzzlers
Guzzlers are self-sabotage and disengagement.
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
Self-sabotage (eg. "Sometimes I don’t try hard at school so I can have a reason if I don’t do well"):
Students self-sabotage when they do things that reduce their chances of success at school. Examples
are putting off doing a project or wasting time while they are meant to be doing their schoolwork or
studying for a test. If students self-sabotage they do not try hard at projects or difficult schoolwork, do
not study very hard before tests, and do other things when they should be doing their homework.
Disengagement (eg. "I’ve given up being interested in school"): Students are disengaged or at risk of
disengagement when they lose interest or feel like giving up in particular school subjects or school
generally. Students high in disengagement tend to accept failure and believe there is little or nothing
they can do to avoid failure or attain or repeat success.
Calculation of Global Scores
The eleven individual motivation scores can also be converted to four Global Scores that are the
average of booster thoughts, booster behaviors, mufflers, and guzzlers.
These Global Scores are computed by simply averaging the individual scores for each group of
factors.
Global Booster Thought Score
o Average of Self-belief, Valuing, and Learning Focus Scores
Global Booster Behavior Score
o Average of Planning, Task Management, and Persistence Scores
Global Muffler Score
o Average of Anxiety, Failure Avoidance, and Uncertain Control Scores
Global Guzzler Score
o Average of Self-sabotage and Disengagement Scores
MES Pack and Online Data Collection Service
The MES and associated forms and documentation are supplied in PDF format for printing and
distribution to respondents. There is also an Excel template to help clients in data entry of hard
copy survey responses. This is the MES Pack.
Lifelong Achievement Group also offers an MES online data collection service (see
www.lifelongachievement.com for information and ordering). Here, the client is sent a URL that is
a link to an online version of the MES. The client provides all intended respondents with this URL
to access the MES online. As respondents complete the survey, responses are stored by Lifelong
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
via the SurveyMonkey (www.surveymonkey.com) service. When all respondents have completed
the survey, the client contacts Lifelong and Lifelong then emails the dataset to the client in Excel
format. The client then processes and analyzes the data in the same way as they would if they had
collected and entered all hard copy surveys.
The MES Online Survey comprises the following items:
- Name (if required or relevant)
- ID number (if required or relevant)
- Gender
- Age
- Grade or year level
- Basic questions on school characteristics
- Basic questions on the respondent’s academic performance
- Basic questions about the respondent’s class and school engagement
- 44 MES items (4 items for each of the 11 parts of the Motivation and Engagement Wheel)
The MES Online Data Collection Service includes the MES Pack in the license.
MES-JS Psychometrics
Psychometric properties reported here are based on data collected from 1,249 students across 63
classes in 15 junior (primary/elementary) schools. Students were aged (a) 9 years to 11 years 6
months (47%) and (b) 11 years 7 months to 13 years (53%). The mean age of students was 10.86
(SD=.75) years. Students were from Year 5 (46%) and Year 6 (54%). In total, 54% of students were
males and 46% females. First order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using LISREL 8.80 yields an
excellent fit to the data (2=2724.92, df=847, CFI=.98, RMSEA=.04), as does the higher order CFA
(2=3,197.18, df=886, CFI=.98, RMSEA=.046). The mean reliability (Cronbach’s ) for the 11
subscales is .78.
‘Normative’ MQ Scores
The raw scores on the Motivation and Engagement Scale can also be converted to ‘normative’ scores
referred to as MQ (Motivation Quotient) scores. MQs have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of
15 (like an IQ score). Using non-normalized MQs equates the means and standard deviations of the
different scores for each facet of motivation and engagement (but does not affect the shape of their
distributions). Subsequently, scores for each of the facets of motivation and engagement can then be
compared more meaningfully. Hence, converting scores to MQs has the advantage of placing each
booster, muffler, and guzzler on an approximately common metric. For example, using MQs we can say
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
that a student is higher on planning than self-belief if s/he scores 110 and 105 on planning and self-
belief respectively (even when in raw scores s/he scored lower on planning than self-belief).
MQs for boosters, mufflers, and guzzlers are presented in the Test User manual. They are based on a
sample of 1,904 students across more than 100 classes in 36 junior (primary/elementary) schools.
Students were aged 10 years to 12 years. The mean age of students was 10.92 (SD=.63) years. In
total, 54% of students were males and 46% females.
.
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
Motivation and Engagement Scale – University/College (MES-UC)
Overview of MES-UC
The Motivation and Engagement Scale – University/College (MES-UC) is an instrument that measures
University/College (post-school) students’ motivation and engagement. It assesses motivation through
three adaptive cognitive dimensions (booster thoughts), three adaptive behavioral dimensions (booster
behaviors), three impeding/maladaptive cognitive dimensions (mufflers), and two maladaptive
behavioral dimensions (guzzlers) of motivation and engagement. Each of the eleven factors comprises
four items – hence it is a 44-item instrument. To each item, students rate themselves on a scale of 1
(‘Strongly Disagree’) to 7 (‘Strongly Agree’).
Motivation Scores
Each student’s answers to the four items on each motivation area are then aggregated and converted
to a raw score out of 100 or a raw score out of 7 (if converted back to the rating scale metric). Hence,
each student is assigned eleven scores.
Boosters
Each booster falls into one of two groups: thoughts and behaviors. Booster thoughts include self-belief
(or self-efficacy), learning focus (or mastery orientation), and valuing. Booster behaviors include
persistence, planning, and task management.
Self-belief (eg. "If I try hard, I believe I can do my university/college work well"): Self-belief is students’
belief and confidence in their ability to understand or to do well in their university/college studies, to
meet challenges they face, and to perform to the best of their ability.
Valuing (university/college) (eg. "Learning at university/college is important"): Valuing
(university/college) is how much students believe what they learn at university/college is useful,
important, and relevant to them or to the world in general. If students value university/college they tend
to believe that what they learn can be used in other parts of their life, believe that it is important to learn
at university/college, and feel that what they learn at university/college is relevant to current events in
the world.
Learning focus (eg. "I feel very pleased with myself when I really understand what I’m taught at
university/college"): Learning focus is being focused on learning, solving problems, and developing
skills. The goal of a learning focus is to be the best student one can be. If students are learning focused
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
they tend to work hard, want to learn more, enjoy learning new things, enjoy solving problems by
working hard, and do a good job for its own satisfaction and not just for rewards.
Planning (eg. "Before I start an assignment, I plan out how I am going to do it"): Planning is how much
students plan their university/college work, assignments, and study and how much they keep track of
their progress as they are doing them.
Task (study) management (eg. “When I study, I usually try to find a place where I can study well”): Task
(study) management refers to the way students use their study time, organize their study timetable, and
choose and arrange where they study.
Persistence (eg. "If I can’t understand my university/college work at first, I keep going over it until I do"):
Persistence is how much students keep trying to work out an answer or to understand a problem even
when that problem is difficult or is challenging. If students are persistent they tend to keep going over
university/college work until they understand it, spend time trying to understand things that do not make
sense straightaway, and keep working at a task even when it is difficult.
Mufflers
Mufflers are anxiety, failure avoidance, and uncertain control.
Anxiety (eg. "When exams and assignments are coming up, I worry a lot"): Anxiety has two parts:
feeling nervous and worrying. Feeling nervous is the uneasy or sick feeling students get when they
think about their university/college work, assignments, or exams. Worrying is their fear about not doing
very well in their university/college work, assignments, or exams.
Failure avoidance (eg. "Often the main reason I work at university/college is because I don’t want to
disappoint others (eg. lecturers, family, partner)"): Students have an avoidance focus when the main
reason they do their university/college work is to avoid doing poorly or to avoid being seen to do poorly.
If students have an avoidance focus they tend to do their university/college work mainly to avoid getting
bad marks, do their university/college work mainly to avoid people thinking they cannot do it, and do
their university/college work mainly because they do not want to disappoint their parents or lecturers.
Uncertain control (eg. "I'm often unsure how I can avoid doing poorly at university/college"): Students
are uncertain in control when they are unsure about how to do well or how to avoid doing poorly. If
students are uncertain in control they can be at risk of helpless or disengagement at university/college.
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
Guzzlers
Guzzlers are self-sabotage (or self-handicapping) and disengagement.
Self-sabotage (eg. "I sometimes don’t study very hard before exams so I have an excuse if I don’t do so
well"): Students self sabotage when they do things that reduce their chances of success at
university/college. Examples are putting off doing an assignment or wasting time while they are meant
to be doing their university/college work or studying for an exam. If students self-sabotage they do not
try hard at assignments or difficult university/college, do not study very hard before tests or exams, and
do other things when they should be doing their university/college or studying.
Disengagement (eg. "I’ve pretty much given up being interested in university/college"): Students are
disengaged or at risk of disengagement when they feel like giving up in particular university/college
subjects or university/college generally. Students high in disengagement tend to accept failure, believe
there is little or nothing they can do to avoid failure or attain or repeat success, behave in ways that
reflect helplessness, and are chronically low in self-esteem and general optimism.
Calculation of Global Scores
The eleven individual motivation scores can also be converted to four Global Scores that are the
average of booster thoughts, booster behaviors, mufflers, and guzzlers.
These Global Scores are computed by simply averaging the individual scores for each group of
factors.
Global Booster Thought Score
o Average of Self-belief, Valuing, and Learning Focus Scores
Global Booster Behavior Score
o Average of Planning, Task Management, and Persistence Scores
Global Muffler Score
o Average of Anxiety, Failure Avoidance, and Uncertain Control Scores
Global Guzzler Score
o Average of Self-sabotage and Disengagement Scores
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
MES Pack and Online Data Collection Service
The MES and associated forms and documentation are supplied in PDF format for printing and
distribution to respondents. There is also an Excel template to help clients in data entry of hard
copy survey responses. This is the MES Pack.
Lifelong Achievement Group also offers an MES online data collection service (see
www.lifelongachievement.com for information and ordering). Here, the client is sent a URL that is
a link to an online version of the MES. The client provides all intended respondents with this URL
to access the MES online. As respondents complete the survey, responses are stored by Lifelong
via the SurveyMonkey (www.surveymonkey.com) service. When all respondents have completed
the survey, the client contacts Lifelong and Lifelong then emails the dataset to the client in Excel
format. The client then processes and analyzes the data in the same way as they would if they had
collected and entered all hard copy surveys.
The MES Online Survey comprises the following items:
- Name (if required or relevant)
- ID number (if required or relevant)
- Gender
- Age
- Year level
- Undergraduate, post-graduate status
- Full-time, part-time status
- Faculty, course, degree
- Basic questions on university/college characteristics
- Basic questions on the respondent’s academic performance
- Basic questions about the respondent’s academic engagement
- 44 MES items (4 items for each of the 11 parts of the Motivation and Engagement Wheel)
The MES Online Data Collection Service includes the MES Pack in the license.
MES-UC Psychometrics
Psychometric properties reported here are based on 420 undergraduate students from two Australian
universities. One university is well-established and one of the oldest in the country (68% of sample).
The other is a more recently established institution (32%). Most students were enrolled in education
(66%), with other students enrolled in arts (18%), psychology/social science (8%), social work (3%),
science (3%), and communications (2%). Most were full-time students (96%), with 4% part-time. Most
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
were in their first year of study (65%), with 25% in second year, 7% in third year, and 3% in fourth or
fifth year. The mean age of students was 21.47 (SD=6.62) years, with 60% under 20 years of age and
40% 20 years and over. First order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using LISREL 8.80 yields an
excellent fit to the data (2 = 1,697.75, df = 847, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .05), as does the higher order
CFA (2 = 1,968.82, df = 886, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .05). The mean reliability (Cronbach’s ) for the 11
subscales is .78.
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
Summary of Other Motivation and Engagement Scales: Work, Music, Sport
Motivation and Engagement Scale – Work (MES-W)
The Motivation and Engagement Scale – Work (MES-W) is an instrument that measures motivation
and engagement in the workplace. It assesses employee/staff motivation through three adaptive
cognitive dimensions (booster thoughts – self-belief, valuing, learning focus), three adaptive
behavioral dimensions (booster behaviors – planning, task management, persistence), three
impeding/maladaptive cognitive dimensions (mufflers – anxiety, failure avoidance, uncertain control),
and two maladaptive behavioral dimensions (guzzlers – self-sabotage, disengagement). Each of the
eleven factors comprises four items – hence it is a 44-item instrument. To each item, respondents rate
themselves on a scale of 1 (‘Strongly Disagree’) to 7 (‘Strongly Agree’).
The eleven individual motivation scores can also be converted to four Global Scores that are the
average of booster thoughts, booster behaviors, mufflers, and guzzlers. These Global Scores are
computed by simply averaging the individual scores for each group of factors. Hence, the Global
Booster Thought Score is the average of self-belief, valuing, and learning focus scores; the Global
Booster Behavior Score is the average of planning, task management, and persistence scores; the
Global Muffler Score is the average of anxiety, failure avoidance, and uncertain control scores; and,
the Global Guzzler Score is the average of self-sabotage and disengagement scores.
Psychometrics for the MES-W reported here are based on 637 personnel from 18 elementary and
high schools. Eight were government schools, 8 were systemic Catholic schools, and 2 were
independent schools. Eight were elementary schools, 7 were high schools, and 3 were both. Two-
thirds (68%) of the respondents were female and 32% were male. The mean age of respondents was
43.77 (SD = 10.70) years, working in schools for an average of 16.71 (SD = 10.96) years. Most
participants (81%) were teachers, 3% were counseling staff, 3% were administrative staff, and 13%
were executive staff. Just under half (47%) reported their highest educational qualification was an
undergraduate degree, 44% reported a postgraduate qualification as their highest qualification, 8%
reported a certificate or diploma as their highest qualification, and a further 1% reported school as
their highest educational attainment. First order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using LISREL 8.80
yields an excellent fit to the data (2 = 2,033.71, df = 847, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .05), as does the
higher order CFA (2 = 2,441.68, df = 886, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .05). The mean reliability (Cronbach’s
) for the 11 subscales is .78.
Motivation and Engagement Scale – Music (MES-M – including other Performing Arts)
The Motivation and Engagement Scale – Music (MES-M) is an instrument that measures motivation
and engagement in the music domain – but is readily adapted for use in other performing arts (eg.
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
drama, dance etc.) domains. It assesses musicians’ (and other performing artists’) motivation through
three adaptive cognitive dimensions (booster thoughts – self-belief, valuing, learning focus), three
adaptive behavioral dimensions (booster behaviors – planning, task management, persistence), three
impeding/maladaptive cognitive dimensions (mufflers – anxiety, failure avoidance, uncertain control),
and two maladaptive behavioral dimensions (guzzlers – self-sabotage, disengagement). Each of the
eleven factors comprises four items – hence it is a 44-item instrument. To each item, respondents rate
themselves on a scale of 1 (‘Strongly Disagree’) to 7 (‘Strongly Agree’).
The eleven individual motivation scores can also be converted to four Global Scores that are the
average of booster thoughts, booster behaviors, mufflers, and guzzlers. These Global Scores are
computed by simply averaging the individual scores for each group of factors. Hence, the Global
Booster Thought Score is the average of self-belief, valuing, and learning focus scores; the Global
Booster Behavior Score is the average of planning, task management, and persistence scores; the
Global Muffler Score is the average of anxiety, failure avoidance, and uncertain control scores; and,
the Global Guzzler Score is the average of self-sabotage and disengagement scores.
Psychometrics for the MES-M reported here are based on 224 young classical musicians from a high
school (N=138) with a specialist focus on music and a university (N=86). These students are skilled
young musicians. Hence, for these respondents music is a salient domain in their lives. The school
musicians were in junior high school (Years 7 and 8: 33% – approx. 12-14 years), middle high (Years
9 and 10: 33% – approx. 14-16 years), and senior high (Years 11 and 12: 34% – approx. 16-18
years). Just under two-thirds (60%) of respondents were female and 40% were male. The mean age
of school musicians was 14.43 (SD = 1.82) years. On average, school musicians had been playing
their target instrument for 6.83 (SD = 2.95) years. The university musicians were enrolled in music-
related degrees and in first year (69%), second year (20%), and third and fourth years (8% and 3%
respectively). Just over half (59%) the university musicians were female and 41% were male. The
mean age of university musicians was 19.60 (SD = 2.63) years. On average, university musicians had
been playing their target instrument for 10.09 (SD = 3.63) years. The major target instruments played
in the music sample were violin (20% of respondents), piano (19%), clarinet (9%), flute (8%), cello
(6%), voice (6%), trumpet (5%), with (in declining order of frequency) viola, saxophone, oboe, double
bass, bassoon, French horn, trombone, percussion, tuba, guitar, organ, and recorder each being a
target instrument for less than 5% of the sample. First order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using
LISREL 8.80 yields an excellent fit to the data (2 = 1,439.75, df = 847, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .06), as
does the higher order CFA (2 = 1,533.95, df = 886, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .06). The mean reliability
(Cronbach’s ) for the 11 subscales is .79.
Motivation and Engagement Scale – Sport (MES-S)
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
The Motivation and Engagement Scale – Sport (MES-S) is an instrument that measures motivation
and engagement in the sporting domain. It assesses sportspeople’s motivation through three adaptive
cognitive dimensions (booster thoughts – self-belief, valuing, learning focus), three adaptive
behavioral dimensions (booster behaviors – planning, task management, persistence), three
impeding/maladaptive cognitive dimensions (mufflers – anxiety, failure avoidance, uncertain control),
and two maladaptive behavioral dimensions (guzzlers – self-sabotage, disengagement). Each of the
eleven factors comprises four items – hence it is a 44-item instrument. To each item, respondents rate
themselves on a scale of 1 (‘Strongly Disagree’) to 7 (‘Strongly Agree’).
The eleven individual motivation scores can also be converted to four Global Scores that are the
average of booster thoughts, booster behaviors, mufflers, and guzzlers. These Global Scores are
computed by simply averaging the individual scores for each group of factors. Hence, the Global
Booster Thought Score is the average of self-belief, valuing, and learning focus scores; the Global
Booster Behavior Score is the average of planning, task management, and persistence scores; the
Global Muffler Score is the average of anxiety, failure avoidance, and uncertain control scores; and,
the Global Guzzler Score is the average of self-sabotage and disengagement scores.
Psychometrics for the MES-S reported here are based on 239 young sportspeople. All participants
played competitive sport (e.g., for school, district, state, and/or country) or were part of a formal sports
program for young sportspeople with potential. Hence, for these respondents sport is a salient domain
in their lives. Just under half (43%) the respondents were female and 57% were male. The mean age
of respondents was 14.20 (SD = 1.61) years. The major target sports played were rugby/league (21%
of respondents), football/soccer (19%), netball (11%), swimming (8%), basketball (7%), surfing (7%),
dancing (6%), athletics (5%), with baseball, cricket, softball, tennis, equestrian, squash, golf, hockey,
ice hockey, skating, martial arts, snow boarding, gymnastics, cycling, shooting, sailing, and water polo
each being a target sport for less than 5% of the sample. On average, the participants had been
playing their target sport for 6.66 (SD = 3.21) years. First order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
using LISREL 8.80 yields an excellent fit to the data (2 = 1,563.13, df = 847, CFI = .94, RMSEA =
.06), as does the higher order CFA (2 = 1,701.97, df = 886, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .06). The mean
reliability (Cronbach’s ) for the 11 subscales is .74.
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
SCORE SHEET
Motivation and Engagement Profile for
Age years Testing Date
TABLE 1. BOOSTERS – higher MQs are better
Raw Score / 100
ROUNDED
MQ
Grade
SB. Self belief Q13 + Q23 + <<full item set supplied with license>>
P. Persistence Q1 + Q9 + <<full item set supplied with license>>
LF. Learning focus Q2 + Q7 + <<full item set supplied with license>>
V. Valuing Q4 + Q14 + <<full item set supplied with license>>
TM. Task management Q3 + Q17 + <<full item set supplied with license>>
PLN. Planning Q21 + Q27 + <<full item set supplied with license>>
TABLE 2. MUFFLERS AND GUZZLERS – lower MQs are better
Raw Score / 100
ROUNDED
MQ
Grade
D. Disengagement Q8 + Q15 + <<full item set supplied with license>>
SS. Self-sabotage Q5 + Q24 + <<full item set supplied with license>>
UC. Uncertain control Q6 + Q12 + <<full item set supplied with license>>
FA. Failure avoidance Q11 + Q20 + <<full item set supplied with license>>
A. Anxiety Q10 + Q19 + <<full item set supplied with license>>
TABLE 3. GLOBAL MQs MQ Grade Global Booster Thoughts Average* of SB and LF and V MQs
Global Booster Behaviors Average* of P and TM and PLN MQs
Global Muffler Average* of UC and FA and A MQs
Global Guzzler Average* of D and SS MQs
* Only compute an average if student has an MQ for every facet on this dimension 100 is the average MQ for a large ‘normative’ sample of school students Booster Grades range from A (‘Strength’: >1 SD above 100) to D (‘Needs More Work’: >1 SD below 100) Muffler and Guzzler Grades range from A (‘Strength’: >1 SD below 100) to D (‘Needs More Work’: >1 SD above 100)
GRADE PROFILING SHEET
Motivation & Engagement Grade Profile for Date
SB V LF PLN TM P
MQ Higher MQs are better (100 is the average)
Grade Booster Grades range from A (‘Strength’: >1 SD above 100) to D (‘Needs More Work’: >1 SD below 100)
A FA UC SS D
MQ Lower MQs are better (100 is the average)
Grade Muffler and Guzzler Grades range from A (‘Strength’: >1 SD below 100) to D (‘Needs More Work’: >1 SD above 100)
BOOSTER THOUGHTS
Planning (PLN)
BOOSTER BEHAVIORS
Learning focus (LF)
A
D
B
CSelf- belief (SB)
Anxiety (A)
Disengagement (D)
Persistence (P)
Uncertain control (UC) MUFFLERS
Self- sabotage (SS) GUZZLERS
Failure avoidance (FA)
Task management (TM)
Valuing (V)
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
Motivation & Engagement Grade Profile for John Brown Date March 15th 2011
SB V LF PLN TM P
MQ 120 100 110 100 115 120 Higher MQs are better (100 is the average)
Grade A B B B A A Booster Grades range from A (‘Strength’: >1 SD above 100) to D (‘Needs More Work’: >1 SD below 100)
A FA UC SS D
MQ 105 80 80 95 85 Lower MQs are better (100 is the average)
Grade C A A B A Muffler and Guzzler Grades range from A (‘Strength’: >1 SD below 100) to D (‘Needs More Work’: >1 SD above 100)
Learning focus (LF)
D
B
Valuing (V)
Planning (PLN)
Task management (TM)
Failure avoidance (FA)
Self- sabotage (SS) MUFFLERS GUZZLERS
BOOSTER BEHAVIORS
C
A
Uncertain control (UC)
Disengagement (D)
Disengagement (D)
Anxiety (A) Anxiety (A)
Pe Persistence
(P)
BOOSTER THOUGHTS
Self- belief (SB)
BOOSTER THOUGHTS
Self- belief (SB)
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
Motivation and Engagement Workbook – Summary of Modules
PROGRAM MODULE COMPONENTS 1 TO 4
MODULE 1. Self-belief
1. Prepare—Define factor, general rules, advance organizer for Module 2. Generate—
a. Challenging negative thinking b. Identifying ways to build more success into one’s schoolwork c. Identify one’s academic strengths and talents
3. Reflect—Identifying important messages, how to apply them, and rating one’s confidence in applying messages 4. Closure—Revisiting important strategies and having work signed off by oneself and one’s parent/teacher
MODULE 2. Valuing school
1. Prepare—Define factor, general rules, advance organizer for Module 2. Generate—
a. Linking school to the world b. Linking school to one’s life c. Skills learnt in school
3. Reflect—Identifying important messages, how to apply them, and rating one’s confidence in applying messages 4. Closure—Revisiting important strategies and having work signed off by oneself and one’s parent/teacher
MODULE 3. Learning focus
1. Prepare—Define factor, general rules, advance organizer for Module 2. Generate—
a. Achieving Personal Bests (PBs) b. Developing active learning c. Changing the reasons for learning
3. Reflect—Identifying important messages, how to apply them, and rating one’s confidence in applying messages 4. Closure—Revisiting important strategies and having work signed off by oneself and one’s parent/teacher
MODULE 4. Planning
1. Prepare—Define factor, general rules, advance organizer for Module 2. Generate—
a. Planning what to do and how to do it b. Understanding what one is asked to do c. Monitoring progress
3. Reflect—Identifying important messages, how to apply them, and rating one’s confidence in applying messages 4. Closure—Revisiting important strategies and having work signed off by oneself and one’s parent/teacher
MODULE 5. Task management
1. Prepare—Define factor, general rules, advance organizer for Module 2. Generate—
a. Working under good study conditions b. Using one’s time better c. Developing a weekly study timetable
3. Reflect—Identifying important messages, how to apply them, and rating one’s confidence in applying messages 4. Closure—Revisiting important strategies and having work signed off by oneself and one’s parent/teacher
MODULE 6. Persistence
1. Prepare—Define factor, general rules, advance organizer for Module 2. Generate—
a. Breaking work into more achievable components b. Identifying the keys to previous times of persistence c. Understanding previous times when persistence was a problem
3. Reflect—Identifying important messages, how to apply them, and rating one’s confidence in applying messages 4. Closure—Revisiting important strategies and having work signed off by oneself and one’s parent/teacher
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
Workbook modules and component summary cont . . .
PROGRAM MODULE COMPONENTS 1 TO 4
MODULE 7. Anxiety
1. Prepare—Define factor, general rules, advance organizer for Module 2. Generate—
a. Relaxation techniques b. Preparing for tests c. Taking tests
3. Reflect—Identifying important messages, how to apply them, and rating one’s confidence in applying messages 4. Closure—Revisiting important strategies and having work signed off by oneself and one’s parent/teacher
MODULE 8. Uncertain control
1. Prepare—Define factor, general rules, advance organizer for Module 2. Generate—
a. Identifying reasons for past academic outcomes b. Identifying which of these are within one’s control c. Identifying ways to focus on these controllable reasons more
3. Reflect—Identifying important messages, how to apply them, and rating one’s confidence in applying messages 4. Closure—Revisiting important strategies and having work signed off by oneself and one’s parent/teacher
MODULE 9. Failure avoidance
1. Prepare—Define factor, general rules, advance organizer for Module 2. Generate—
a. Identifying the actions and thoughts that can deal with fear b. Seeing mistakes as keys to improvement c. Tackling ‘unhelpful’ reasons for learning
3. Reflect—Identifying important messages, how to apply them, and rating one’s confidence in applying messages 4. Closure—Revisiting important strategies and having work signed off by oneself and one’s parent/teacher
MODULE 10. Self-sabotage
1. Prepare—Define factor, general rules, advance organizer for Module 2. Generate—
a. Identifying examples of self-sabotage b. Identifying reasons why one might self-sabotage c. Identifying strategies to tackle self-sabotage
3. Reflect—Identifying important messages, how to apply them, and rating one’s confidence in applying messages 4. Closure—Revisiting important strategies and having work signed off by oneself and one’s parent/teacher
MODULE 11. Disengagement
1. Prepare—Define factor, general rules, advance organizer for Module 2. Generate—
a. Identifying one’s own contribution in academic outcomes b. Identifying past times at school when things were not so bad c. Using this information to ‘glimpse’ the future
3. Reflect—Identifying important messages, how to apply them, and rating one’s confidence in applying messages 4. Closure—Revisiting important strategies and having work signed off by oneself and one’s parent/teacher
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
Workbook modules and component summary cont . . .
PROGRAM MODULE COMPONENTS 1 TO 5
MODULE 12. Topping Up
1. Identifying the lowest confidence rating in the ‘Reflect’ component across the eleven modules
2. Revisiting this module and refreshing major points 3. Identifying how these major points can be helpful 4. Identifying ways to apply these major points 5. Signing off—revisiting important strategies and having work signed off by oneself
and one’s parent/teacher MODULE 13. Finishing on a high note
1. Identifying the highest confidence rating in the ‘Reflect’ component across the eleven modules
2. Revisiting this module and refreshing major points 3. Identifying how these major points can be helpful 4. Identifying ways to apply these major points 5. Signing off—revisiting important strategies and having work signed off by oneself
and one’s parent/teacher
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
SOME RECENT RESEARCH USING THE MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT
MATERIALS AND CONCEPTS
Bobis, J., Anderson, J., Martin, A.J., & Way, J. (in press). A model for mathematics instruction to
enhance student motivation and engagement. In D.J. Brahier (Ed.). Motivation and
disposition: Pathways to learning mathematics. Reston, VI: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics (NCTM).
Fredricks, J., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Montrosse, B., Mordica, J., & Mooney, K. (2011).
Measuring student engagement in upper elementary through high school: A description of
21 instruments. (REL 2011 No. 098) Washington DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
Green, J., Martin, A.J., & Marsh, H.W. (2007). Motivation and engagement in English,
mathematics and science high school subjects: Towards an understanding of
multidimensional domain specificity. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 269-279.
Jackson, S.A., Martin, A.J., & Eklund, R.C. (2008). Long and short measures of flow: Examining
construct validity of the FSS-2, DFS-2, and new brief counterparts. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 30, 561-587.
Howard, D.M. (2006). African American students: Instructional strategies to improve students’
motivation to achieve. Proquest Dissertations and These Database (Publication No. AAT
3216045)
Liem, G.A., & Martin, A.J. (in press). Peer relationships and adolescents’ academic and non-
academic outcomes: Same-sex and opposite-sex peer effects and the mediating role of
school engagement. British Journal of Educational Psychology.
Mansour, M., & Martin, A.J. (2009). Home, parents, and achievement motivation: A study of key
home and parental factors that predict student motivation and engagement. Australian
Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 26, 111-126.
Marsh, H.W., Liem, G.A., Martin, A.J., Nagengast, B., & Morin, A.J.S. (in press). Methodological-
measurement fruitfulness of Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM): New
approaches to key substantive issues in motivation and engagement. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment.
Marsh, H.W., Martin, A.J., & Cheng, J. (2008). A multilevel perspective on gender in classroom
motivation and climate: Potential benefits of male teachers for boys? Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100, 78-95.
Martin, A.J. (2003). How to motivate your child for school and beyond. Sydney: Random
House/Bantam.
Martin, A.J. (2003). The role of significant others in enhancing the educational outcomes and
aspirations of Indigenous/Aboriginal students. Aboriginal Studies Association Journal, 12,
23-26.
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
Martin, A.J. (2004). School motivation of boys and girls: Differences of degree, differences of kind,
or both? Australian Journal of Psychology, 56, 133-146.
Martin, A.J. (2004). The role of positive psychology in enhancing satisfaction, motivation, and
productivity in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 24, 113-133.
Martin, A.J. (2005). Exploring the effects of a youth enrichment program on academic motivation
and engagement. Social Psychology of Education, 8, 179-206.
Martin, A.J. (2005). How to help your child fly through life: The 20 big issues. Sydney: Random
House/Bantam.
Martin, A.J. (2005). The Student Motivation and Engagement Wheel – ‘Researcher in Profile’
section. In. D. McInerney & V. McInerney. Educational Psychology: Constructing Learning
(4th Edition). Sydney: Prentice Hall.
Martin, A.J. (2006). A motivational psychology for the education of Indigenous students.
Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 35, 30-43.
Martin, A.J. (2006). Personal bests (PBs): A proposed multidimensional model and empirical
analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 803-825.
Martin, A.J. (2006). The relationship between teachers’ perceptions of student motivation and
engagement and teachers’ enjoyment of and confidence in teaching. Asia-Pacific Journal of
Teacher Education, 34, 73-93.
Martin, A.J. (2007). Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and engagement
using a construct validation approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 413-
440.
Martin, A.J. (2008). Enhancing student motivation and engagement: The effects of a
multidimensional intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 239-269.
Martin, A.J. (2008). How domain specific are motivation and engagement across school, sport,
and music? A substantive-methodological synergy assessing young sportspeople and
musicians. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 785-813.
Martin, A.J. (2008). Motivation and engagement in diverse performance domains: Testing their
generality across school, university/college, work, sport, music, and daily life. Journal of
Research in Personality, 42, 1607-1612.
Martin, A.J. (2008). Motivation and engagement in music and sport: Testing a multidimensional
framework in diverse performance settings. Journal of Personality, 76, 135-170.
Martin, A.J. (2009). Age appropriateness and motivation, engagement, and performance in high
school: Effects of age-within-cohort, grade retention, and delayed school entry. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 101, 101-114.
Martin, A.J. (2009). Motivation and engagement across the academic lifespan: A developmental
construct validity study of elementary school, high school, and university/college students.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 794-824.
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
Martin, A.J. (2009). Motivation and engagement in the workplace: Examining a multidimensional
framework from a measurement and evaluation perspective. Measurement and Evaluation
in Counseling and Development, 41, 223-243.
Martin, A.J. (2010). Building classroom success: Eliminating academic fear and failure. London:
Continuum.
Martin, A.J. (2010). Multidimensional motivation and engagement: The Motivation and
Engagement Wheel – ‘Extension Study’ section. In. D. McInerney & V. McInerney.
Educational Psychology: Constructing Learning (5th Edition) (pp. 238-241). Sydney:
Pearson.
Martin, A.J. (2010). Physical activity motivation in the year following high school: Assessing
stability and appropriate analytical approaches. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 107-
113.
Martin, A.J. (2010). Physical activity motivation in late adolescence: Refinement of a recent
multidimensional model. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 81, 278-289.
Martin, A.J. (2010). Should students have a gap year? Motivation and performance factors
relevant to time out after completing school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 561-
576.
Martin, A.J. (in press). Courage in the classroom: Exploring a new framework predicting academic
performance and engagement. School Psychology Quarterly.
Martin, A.J. (in press). Holding back and holding behind: Grade retention and students’ non-
academic and academic outcomes. British Educational Research Journal.
Martin, A.J., Bobis, J., Anderson, J., Way, J., & Vellar, R. (2011). Patterns of multilevel variance
in psycho-educational phenomena: Exploring motivation, engagement, climate, teacher, and
achievement factors. German Journal of Educational Psychology / Zeitschrift für
Pädagogische Psychologie, 25, 49-61.
Martin, A.J., Colmar, S.H., Davey, L.A., & Marsh, H.W. (2010). Longitudinal modeling of academic
buoyancy and motivation: Do the '5Cs' hold up over time? British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 80, 473-496.
Martin, A.J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement, and
achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and practice. Review of Educational
Research, 79, 327-365.
Martin, A.J., & Hau, K-T. (2010). Achievement motivation amongst Chinese and Australian school
students: Assessing differences of kind and differences of degree. International Journal of
Testing, 10, 274-294.
Martin, A.J., & Jackson, S.A. (2008). Brief approaches to assessing task absorption and
enhanced subjective experience: Examining ‘Short’ and ‘Core’ flow in diverse performance
domains. Motivation and Emotion, 32, 141-157.
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
Martin, A.J., & Liem, G.A. (2010). Academic Personal Bests (PBs), engagement, and
achievement: A cross-lagged panel analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 20,
265-270.
Martin, A.J., Liem., G.A., Coffey, L., Martinez, C., Parker, P., Marsh, H.W., & Jackson, S. (2010).
What happens to physical activity behavior, motivation, self-concept, and flow after
completing school? A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22, 437-457.
Martin, A.J., Malmberg, L-E., & Liem, G.D. (2010). Multilevel motivation and engagement:
Assessing construct validity across students and schools. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 70, 973-989.
Martin, A.J., & Marsh, H.W. (2003). Fear of failure: Friend or foe? Australian Psychologist, 38, 31-
38.
Martin, A.J., & Marsh, H.W. (2005). Motivating boys and motivating girls: Does teacher gender
really make a difference? Australian Journal of Education, 49, 320-334.
Martin, A.J., & Marsh, H.W. (2006). Academic resilience and its psychological and educational
correlates: A construct validity approach. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 267-282.
Martin, A.J., & Marsh, H.W. (2008). Academic buoyancy: Towards an understanding of students’
everyday academic resilience. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 53-83.
Martin, A.J., & Marsh, H.W. (2008). Workplace and academic buoyancy: Psychometric
assessment and construct validity amongst school personnel and students. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 26, 168-184.
Martin, A.J., & Marsh, H.W. (2009). Academic resilience and academic buoyancy:
Multidimensional and hierarchical conceptual framing of causes, correlates, and cognate
constructs. Oxford Review of Education, 35, 353-370.
Martin, A.J., Marsh, H.W., McInerney, D.M., & Green, J. (2009). Young people’s interpersonal
relationships and academic and non-academic outcomes: The relative salience of teachers,
parents, same-sex peers, and opposite-sex peers. Teachers College Record, March,
http://www.tcrecord.org.
Martin, A.J., Marsh, H.W., McInerney, D.M., Green, J., & Dowson, M. (2007). Getting along with
teachers and parents: The yields of good relationships for students’ achievement motivation
and self-esteem. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 17, 109-125.
Martin, A.J., Tipler, D.V., Marsh, H.W., Richards, G.E., & Williams. M.R. (2006). Assessing
multidimensional physical activity motivation: A construct validity study of high-school
students. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 28, 171-192.
Parker, P.D., & Martin, A.J. (2009). Coping and buoyancy in the workplace: Understanding their
effects on teachers’ work-related well-being and engagement. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 25, 68-75.
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
© 2012 Lifelong Achievement Group www.lifelongachievement.com Motivation Engagement Achievement Performance
Parker, P.D., & Martin, A.J. (in press). Clergy motivation and occupational well-being: Exploring a
quadripolar model and its role in predicting burnout and engagement. Journal of Religion
and Health.