University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Creating a pathway to success: teachers can change their students’ identity-based motivation

(USC Thesis Other)

Creating a pathway to success: teachers can change their students’ identity-based motivation

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Creating a Pathway to Success: Teachers Can Change their Students’ Identity-Based Motivation

Eric Horowitz

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS (PSYCHOLOGY)
Conferral, May 2017

2
Table of Contents
Abstract …….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….……. 3
Chapter 1: Introduction ………….…….…….…….…….…….…….….….…….…….…….. 4
Chapter 2: Materials and Methods ….…….…….….….…….…….……..…….…….……… 13
Chapter 3: Results …………..…….…….…….…….…….…….…….……..…….…………. 19
Chapter 4: Discussion .…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….... 22
References …….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….….….... 28
Tables …….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….….….. 35
Figures …….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….….….……. 44
Appendix …….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….….….…….…….….. 47

3

Abstract
School success is the path to future possibilities; like any path, making progress on a school path
requires taking current action and planning for choice points (forks in the road) and obstacles
(roadblocks) along the way. Students who experience school investment as the way to take steps
toward their positive and away from their negative possible future identities are more likely to
see difficulties along the way as signaling schoolwork’s value (difficulty-as-importance) not just
as an indicator of low odds of success (difficulty-as-impossibility). Unfortunately, students do
not always see school success this way. We predicted that teachers could successfully facilitate
development of their students’ identity-based engagement with school as the path if they
delivered an identity-based motivation intervention with fidelity. Indeed, structural equation
modeling (n=187 eighth graders) shows that intervention dosage (implementation fidelity)
predicts end-of-year school engagement via change in identity-based motivation (possible
identities, strategies, school efficacy).

Keywords: Identity-based Motivation, intervention, motivation, school engagement, possible
selves, academic attainment.

4
Creating a Pathway to Success: Teachers Can Change their Students’ Identity-Based Motivation
Chapter 1: Introduction
Students want to do well in school and to go on to college, yet often fail to attain their
high aspirations (Oyserman & Lewis, 2017). Parents and policy-makers hope that teachers can
harness student motivation to yield better results; indeed teachers are responsible for setting a
tone of learning in their classroom and facilitating skill development in their students. Yet, to
change the trajectory of their students’ lives, teachers do more than foster content learning, they
need to help students imagine school as the path to their future. Following identity-based
motivation theory (Oyserman, 2015a), students who see school as the path are more likely to do
well in school for a number of reasons. First, they will be more likely to experience school
investment as the way to take steps toward positive and away from negative possible future
identities. Second, they will be more likely to interpret experienced difficulties along the way as
signaling schoolwork’s value (difficulty-as-importance) and not simply as an indicator of low
odds of success (difficulty-as-impossibility). Indeed, when these aspects of identity-based
motivation are targeted, school engagement improves, as shown by the results of a randomized
controlled trial test of the “School-to-Jobs” intervention (Oyserman, Bybee, & Terry, 2006). In
the current paper, we examine whether teachers can change their students’ identity-based
motivation by implementing the School-to-Jobs intervention with fidelity.
There are a number of reasons why it is important to test the possibility that when
teachers deliver Schools-to-Jobs with fidelity they change their students’ identity-based
motivation. First, failure to deliver as intended is commonly cited as the root cause of null effects
of school-based interventions (Elias, Zins, Graczyk, & Weissberg, 2003; Hanselman, Rozek,
Grigg, & Borman, in press; Madon, Hofman, Kupfer, & Glass, 2007; McDonald, Keesler,
5
Kauffman, & Schneider, 2006). That is, when school-based interventions are not delivered as
intended, the typical result is that the intended pattern of effects is also not found (Durlak &
DuPre, 2008; Derzon, Sale, Springer, & Brounstein, 2005; Greenberg, Domitrovich, Graczyk, &
Zins, 2005; Wilson, Lipsey, & Derzon 2003). However, it is often difficult to diagnose what
were the problems with failed or under performing interventions because detailed assessment of
intervention delivery and delivery quality is not obtained (Crosse et al., 2011; McIntyre,
Gresham, DiGennaro, & Reed, 2007). Moreover, even if something works, it is often unclear
what it was that worked; given this lack of clarity as to what aspects of the intervention really
mattered, it is impossible to know how to deliver and scale these “active ingredients” cost-
efficiently (Durlak & DuPre, 2008; McIntyre, et al., 2007; Sanetti, Gritter, & Dobey, 2011).
Hence, we use a detailed assessment of intervention delivery quality. We use this assessment to
test whether differences in how teachers implement Schools-to-Jobs matters, predicting extent of
positive change in students’ identity-based motivation and if, via changing identity-based
motivation, teachers change their students’ school engagement.
Our rationale for choosing to focus on the School-to-Jobs intervention, an
operationalization of identity-based motivation theory (Oyserman, 2007; Oyserman, 2015a;
Oyserman, Fryberg, & Yoder, 2007), is as follows. First, School-to-Jobs has been empirically
tested in a randomized controlled trial that yielded significant effects on the targeted academic
outcomes (school attendance, grades, in class behavior) via intervention-induced changes in
identity-based motivation (Oyserman, et al., 2006). Second, School-to-Jobs is brief compared to
other school-based socio-emotional interventions (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, &
Schellinger, 2011)—each of the 12 half-hour School-to-Jobs sessions fits in a single class period.
Third, School-to-Jobs can be used as a stand-alone program or linked with other character, socio-
6
emotional, and motivational interventions and hence fits with teacher focus on their students
beyond subject matter. Fourth, and importantly, School-to-Jobs does not require extensive
training—both college students (Oyserman, Terry, & Bybee, 2002) and adults with
undergraduate degrees (Oyserman, et al., 2006) have been successfully trained to deliver the
intervention with a week of training.
Hence we start with the assumption that teachers can deliver School-to-Jobs with fidelity.
However, to function over time as a teacher-led intervention, School-to-Jobs would have to be
deliverable by a single teacher, to a full classroom, and with modest investment in professional
development hours. This may or may not be feasible. This paper outlines our first iterative cycle
of implementation, funded by an Institute for Education Sciences Development and Innovation
grant (IES grant number R305A140281). To situate our results, in the next section, we briefly
describe the core theory underlying School-to-Jobs, identity-based motivation theory, and its
empirical support (e.g. Oyserman, 2015a; 2015b; Oyserman, et al., 2007). We then describe how
identity-based motivation was operationalized into School-to-Jobs intervention activities and
how School-to-Jobs activities were modified so that teachers could run them alone in their
classroom. Finally, we explain how we used differences in teacher implementation fidelity to test
our prediction that if delivered with fidelity, teachers could change the identity-based motivation
of their students and that this would affect student classroom engagement.
Identity-Based Motivation
Identity-based motivation theory is a social psychology theory of motivation and goal
pursuit that explains when and in which situations people’s identities motivate them to take
action towards their goals (Oyserman, 2007; Oyserman, 2009). Throughout this paper, we use
the term “identity” to refer to the traits and characteristics, social relationships, roles, and group
7
memberships that define who a person is or might become, the combination of which defines
their sense of self (Oyserman, Elmore, & Smith, 2012). Identity-based motivation theory starts
with the assumption that people prefer to act and make sense of situations in identity-congruent
ways—ways consistent with what people ‘like me’ do. However, even though who one is feels
stable over time, which identities come to mind and what they imply for action and meaning
making is a dynamic construction. Thus, for example, consider the general finding that boys
underperform in school compared to girls, whether underperformance is assessed by desire to go
to college, grade point average, or enrollment in advanced classes (for reviews, Elmore &
Oyserman, 2012; Fortin, Oreopoulos, & Phipps, 2015). This difference might imply that boys do
not identify with school or that male identity and school attainment are not good matches (e.g.,
Hartley & Sutton, 2013; Houtte, 2005). Alternatively, identity-based motivation implies that
what maleness means is dynamically constructed in context and hence features of the immediate
situation could increase boys’ sense that schoolwork is identity-congruent, a “boy” thing to do.
That is, a boy might always know he is a boy, but will vary in whether he experiences being a
boy as implying working hard in school.
Elmore and Oyserman (2012) tested this possibility with middle school students. All
students were given test booklets that started with a graph showing accurate statewide Census
information followed by multiple-choice questions meant to ascertain that they understood the
graph. Unbeknownst to students, they had been randomly assigned to one of four groups, each
seeing a different version of the graph. Students in the control groups saw statewide median
earnings (Group 1) or high school graduation rate (Group 2) not separated by gender. Students in
the experimental groups saw statewide earnings (Group 3) or high school graduation rates
(Group 4) separately for each gender. Group 3 showed men outperforming women, earning
8
higher salaries in their jobs. Group 4 showed women outperforming men, graduating high school
at a higher rate. All data were reflections of reality, just different aspects of it. As predicted by
identity-based motivation theory, when features of the immediate situation implied that boys
succeed, they did, and otherwise they did not. Boys in the Boys-Outperform-Girls experimental
group (Group 3) outperformed boys in the control groups (Group 1 and 2) and boys in the Girls-
Outperform-Boys experimental group (Group 4). Boys in Groups 1, 2, and 4 looked alike: they
were less focused on school than girls as assessed by how they described their next year possible
identities and by how much effort that put into a math assignment they were given. In contrast,
the boys in Group 3 did just as well as girls on both the identity and math task measures (Elmore
& Oyserman, 2012). The implication is that working hard in school can be part of identity or not,
even in the case of identities that are seemingly well established, such as gender.
These results imply that when an identity is understood in a particular way, readiness to
act and to understand experienced difficulty is also cued. Action in this case is to start working
on the math problems (or not) and experienced difficulty can imply that one should quit (it is
impossible anyway) or that one should shift tactics (it is important to succeed). Identity-based
motivation theory predicts that effects are bidirectional, with interpretations of experienced
difficulty influencing identity as much as identity influences action readiness and interpretation
of difficulty. A series of experiments tested this bi-directionality. Some experiments guided
students to increased action-readiness and examined effects on identity and performance
(Landau, Oyserman, Keefer, & Smith, 2014; Lewis & Oyserman, 2015). Other experiments
guided students to interpret experienced difficulty with schoolwork as implying that schoolwork
is important to them and examined effects on identity (Aelenei, Lewis, & Oyserman, 2016;
Oyserman, Destin, & Novin, 2015; Smith & Oyserman, 2015) and performance (Elmore,
9
Oyserman, Smith, & Novin, 2016; Smith & Oyserman, 2015). Results support the prediction that
identity, action readiness, and interpretation of experience are all connected. Being guided to
consider taking action increased the experienced imminence of the future (Lewis & Oyserman,
2015) and improved academic performance (Landau, et al., 2014). Being guided to interpret
experienced difficulty as implying importance shifts identity content—students guided to have
this interpretation described academic attainment as more central to their current and future
possible identities and listed more strategies to work toward these identities (Aelenei et al., 2016;
Oyserman, et al., 2017). They also spent more time on (Smith & Oyserman, 2015) and
performed better on (Elmore et al., 2016; Oyserman et al., 2017) academic tasks.
The School-to-Jobs Intervention
School-to-Jobs is a brief, universal preventive, classroom-based intervention rooted in
identity-based motivation theory (Oyserman, et al., 2006; Oyserman, et al., 2002).). School-to-
Jobs involves small-group activities presented twice a week in class over the first weeks of the
school year. Sessions are: Introducing skills and abilities, adult images, timelines (I and II),
possible self poster boards (I and II), positive and negative forces, everyday problems (I and II),
high school and beyond, and wrapping up and moving forward (see Oyserman, et al., 2006;
Oyserman, 2015b for more details and the full manual). Each session involves an activity
focused on a particular take-home point stemming from identity-based motivation theory. That
is, the take home points draw on the notion that people prefer to act and interpret their
experiences in ways that feel consistent with important identities, but that which identities come
to mind and what they imply for action and meaning making is dynamically constructed in
context. For example, some activities link adult future images to school success, others made
school success and strategies (e.g., studying) feel congruent with important social identities (e.g.,
10
race-ethnicity, gender, social class), and others inoculated students from misinterpreting
difficulty as meaning that school-focused identities are impossible to attain.
School-to-Jobs was tested in public schools serving low-income students; in the
randomized control test, students participated in their regular classrooms with two trainers who
were people with undergraduate degrees. Trainers received about 40 hours of training and
worked in pairs with ten to fourteen students. Compared to students randomized to a control
(“school-as-usual”) condition, School-to-Jobs students had better grade point averages and
attendance, were better behaved in class, and spent more time on homework at the end of the
year (Oyserman, et al., 2006). At second year follow-up, effects were of the same size or
significantly larger. School-to-Jobs also affected students’ identities and change in identities
mediated change in school outcomes. Specifically, School-to-Jobs students had more school-
focused possible identities that were balanced—that is, corresponding positive identities to attain
and negative identities to avoid in the same domain (e.g. “great student” and “failing student”).
They had more strategies to attain positive school-focused possible identities and to avoid their
negative school-focused possible identities, making staying on track more plausible. Finally, they
had more negative off-track possible identities involving being concerned about drug use, gang
involvement, pregnancy and other negative possible identities that might derail future attainment.
Having “balanced” and “plausible” school-focused possible identities and feared off-track
identities mediated change in school performance, mirroring findings in longitudinal studies
without intervention (Oyserman, Bybee, Terry, & Hart-Johnson, 2004). These results matter both
because they demonstrate the posited positive effect of identity-based motivation on academic
outcomes and because they demonstrate that core identity-based motivation constructs are
susceptible to influence from brief intervention with effects lasting over the course of years.
11
Moreover, follow-up mediation analyses suggest that School-to-Jobs is especially effective for
students whose parents were not highly involved in school; low parent involvement with school
was associated with worse school outcomes for control group students but not School-to-Jobs
students (Oyserman, Brickman, & Rhodes, 2007).
Current Study
Prior experiments support a causal relationship between identity-based motivation and
school engagement and randomized control trial testing of the School-to-Jobs intervention shows
that identity-based motivation, once elicited, has lasting effects on school engagement. However,
in the randomized controlled trial test, trainers received 40 hours (5 days) of training and co-led
groups of 12-15 students. The new question being addressed in the current study is whether
teacher implementation fidelity is associated with change in students' identity-based motivation
and school engagement. We predicted that teachers could influence students’ identity-based
motivation if they were able to deliver School-to-Jobs with fidelity when they delivered it as they
typically teach, that is, as the sole teacher, in their full classroom, and with about 12 hours of
training (detailed below). Prior to training, we modified the School-to-Jobs intervention manual
so that activities and instructions could be delivered by a single teacher in a class about twice the
size of the groups in School-to-Jobs. To alleviate teacher burden, we looked for ways to
streamline, and reduced the number of sessions, from 12 to 11 by combining the two-part
timelines session into a single session. Given these changes, for clarity, we renamed the
intervention Pathways-to-Success. A snapshot overview of each session is included in the
appendix (the full revised manual is available from the research team). To test our prediction, we
assessed student variables in the fall and spring and measured implementation fidelity—the
extent to which teachers delivered and participants received the intervention as intended.
12
In the literature, two of the most common measures of implementation fidelity are
whether the planned number of sessions was delivered and whether the planned number of
students attended them. These indicators are insufficient in our case: They do not provide
information on what is actually happening in the classroom and hence are useless for testing
whether intervention led to change via a particular process of change. Moreover, these indicators
would be invariant in our case—each of our teachers did implement each session and students
came to each Pathways-to-Success session as part of their regular school day. Therefore, we used
three more in-depth indicators of implementation fidelity: adherence, quality of delivery, and
fidelity of receipt. Each is detailed next and reproduced in full in the Appendix.
Adherence, also called fidelity of treatment delivery, involves the extent to which
teachers implemented the activities and procedures outlined in the intervention manual (Bellg, et
al., 2004; Dane & Schneider, 1998; Dusenbury, Brannigan, Falco, & Hansen, 2003). We
operationalized adherence by using the Pathways-to-Success intervention manual to develop a
session-by-session detailed checklist of teacher activities and student responses. This checklist is
in the Appendix. We used observer ratings to assess session-by-session adherence. For ease, we
then calculated an adherence score for each session, which was the percentage of expected
teacher activities and student responses that were observed in each session.
Quality of delivery involves delivering the intervention so that it is experienced as
intended (Dusenbury, 2003; Durlak & DuPre; 2008). We focused on two elements of experience:
fluency and lightness of touch with which session content was delivered. We chose these
elements in assessing quality because people experience fluency as evidence of truthfulness
(Schwarz, 1998), and counter-argue heavy-handed influence attempts (Brehm 1966; Grandpre,
Alvaro, Burgoon, Miller, & Hall, 2003; Ringold, 2002; Schultz, Nolan, Cialdini, Goldstein, &
13
Griskevicius, 2007). We used observer ratings of each session and student reports at the end of
the intervention to assess quality of delivery. Observers rated: 1) The extent that each session
was delivered fluently (felt easy and inviting), 2) The extent that each session’s take home point
was delivered fluently (using students’ own words rather than heavy-handedly, in the teacher’s
words, or not at all), and 3) The extent that each session was delivered following a validated
metric of teaching and classroom interaction quality (the Classroom Assessment Scoring
System-Secondary guidelines—CLASS-S; Pianta, Hamre, Hayes, Mintz, & LaParo, 2008; Allen,
et al., 2011). At the end of intervention students rated the extent that their teacher and classmates
were supportive, engaging, and knowledgeable.
Fidelity of receipt involves the participants (students) demonstrating the skills and
understanding the knowledge an intervention aims to build (Bellg, et al., 2004; Lichstein, Riedel,
& Grieve, 1994). We operationalized fidelity of receipt as student-reported experienced ability to
engage in each of the activities of Pathways, as detailed in the methods section.
Chapter 2: Materials and Methods
Participants
All 8
th
graders (N=213) in two Chicago public K-8 elementary schools (eight classrooms)
participated in the Pathways program as part of the regular school day. For analyses sample size
ranged from n=171 to n=187 (63% Latino, 15% Asian, 10% Black, 9% White, 2% Other, 2%
unknown) for two reasons. First, we excluded the 26 students who enrolled only after consents
were collected (n=4), were absent when data were collected (n=20: of which n=6 in September,
n=12 in May, n=2 in both September and May), or whose parents refused to consent to data
collection (n=2). Second, we included in analyses all responses, including those of students who
skipped responding to some measures, resulting in variation in sample size for analyses.
14
Procedure
Obtaining consent. Our IRB protocol was approved by the school district. Only students
with parental consent for survey collection were included in analyses. To reduce teacher burden
and ensure that paperwork was complete, an American Institutes for Research (AIR) staff
member handed out and collected parental consent forms and each student was given two movie
tickets after returning a form, regardless of how it was completed.
Teacher training procedure and pathways implementation. A member of the research
team trained all eighth grade teachers (two Math, Science, English, and Special Education
teachers, and one History teacher) in two public schools and led a weekly call-in for each school.
The 12-hour training took place in a classroom in each school on two consecutive days in August
prior to the September start of the school year. It was abbreviated from the 40-hour training a
member of the research team provided to trainers in the School-to-Jobs intervention (Oyserman,
et al., 2002; Oyserman, et al., 2006). The member of the research team who trained the teachers
also led weekly calls. We allowed delivery to fit teacher choice. In one school, teachers gathered
together after school for a video call and delivered Pathways bi-weekly in their classrooms,
finishing by Halloween (the end of October); in the other school, teachers called in the evening
from their own homes and delivered Pathways weekly finishing prior to Thanksgiving (the end
of November). All eight-grade students in each school participated in Pathways; Subject teacher
classroom sizes ranged from 24 to 29 students; the Special Education teacher classroom size was
11. Though Special Education teachers were trained in both schools, in one school, the Special
Education students participated in their regular classrooms because the Special Education teacher
was transferred to other duties, leaving a final total of 8 teachers delivering the intervention.
All teachers signed videotaping consent forms. Immediately preceding each Pathways
15
session, an AIR staff member positioned and turned on an iPad on a tripod in each classroom,
insuring that each Pathways session was video recorded. Recordings were used to code
implementation fidelity; prior to coding, faces of students without parental consent for video
recording were blurred out.
Procedure for assessing fidelity of implementation. A coder (the author) used the
structured operationalizations of adherence and quality of delivery and the CLASS-S to code the
videotape of each teacher, each session. Nine tapes were randomly selected for double-coding by
another staff member at AIR, yielding 80% agreement on adherence codes and 75% agreement
on quality of delivery codes. At the end of the intervention in November, students completed
quality of delivery and fidelity of receipt measures (described next) via an online Web-based
survey (using Qualtrics software). Since each of the three measured aspects of fidelity (delivery
adherence, quality, and receipt) is a distinct and necessary aspect of fidelity, we created an
omnibus average fidelity measure that assigned each equal weight. Table 1 shows the
correlations among the three aspects of fidelity, which are moderate for adherence and quality of
delivery and for quality of delivery and fidelity of receipt. For completeness, in the Appendix we
provide analyses examining effects of each fidelity measure separately.
Adherence. Adherence (n=187, M =54.47%, SD= 10.64, α=.94) was a mean of the
percentage of expected teacher activities and matched student behaviors observed in each
session. Sessions differed in complexity, with the number of to-be-rated behaviors ranging from
35 to 84. Average trainer activity and student behavior by session and by teacher is presented in
Table 2a and Table 2b. As noted above, the full checklists available in the Appendix.
Quality of delivery. Quality of delivery (n=187, M =.01 SD= 63, α=.75) was the averaged
z-score of seven measures. Session-level scores are presented in Table 2a and teacher-level
16
scores are presented in Table 2b. Scoring method and descriptive statistics are presented in Table
2c. As noted above, the full checklists available in the Appendix.
Fidelity of receipt. Fidelity of receipt (M = 3.91, SD = 0.57, α=.87) was the extent that
students were confident in their ability to perform each of the core Pathways activities at the end
of Pathways. Teacher-level scores are presented in Table 2b (session-level fidelity of receipt is
not available, data were collected data only at the end of the intervention). Items and descriptive
statistics are presented in Table 3.
Procedure for assessing identity-based motivation and school engagement. Student
identity-based motivation and school engagement were assessed in September, prior to the
intervention and in May, at end-of-year via a web-based survey, using Qualtrics software. For
analyses, we regressed May score on September score and saved the residual for each participant
to create a change score for each measure.
Identity-based motivation: Possible identities and strategies. Possible identities were
elicited following an on-line adaptation of the open-ended protocol used in the original 2006
randomized controlled trial (Oyserman, et al., 2006). Students saw a screen with four identical
prompts that read, “Next year I expect to be…”, with space to type in an expected possible
identity. Students where then shown their responses again, and for each identity they were asked
to answer Yes or No to the statement, “I am currently doing something to work on this
expectation.” Students then completed a parallel set of prompts for their feared or to-be-avoided
possible identities (“Next year, I want to avoid…” followed by the sentence “I am currently
doing something to avoid this”). Next, participants saw the possible identities they had described
and claimed to be doing something about. For each of these possible identities, participants were
asked to write in what they were doing to attain or avoid the identities—their strategies.
17
The author content-coded expected and feared possible identities and strategies into six
categories (school/achievement, interpersonal relationships, personality traits, physical/health,
material/lifestyle, and off-track outcomes) using the standard coding scheme available on-line
(http://dornsife.usc.edu/daphna-oyserman/measures/). Ambiguous responses (10%) were double
coded and discussed to agreement with another member or the research team. A research
assistant blind to predictions and teacher information double coded a random sample of 20% of
responses, yielding a 90% overall agreement rate and a 90% agreement rate for the most
common category of responses, achievement possible identities and strategies. We focused on
school/achievement and off-track possible identities since these were the two domains
theoretically related to the intervention. School/achievement responses were coded for balance
(number of expected school/achievement possible identities with a corresponding to-be-avoided
possible identity, e.g. “getting good grades” and “getting bad grades”) and plausibility (a metric
based on the number of school/achievement possible identities and strategies) using the coding
scheme presented in Figure 1. School/Achievement Balance and Plausibility were correlated
(September, n=186, r=.60; May, n=186, r=.61) and so were standardized and averaged to create
a composite School/Achievement Possible Identities score (September α=.73, May α=.69). This
score was negatively correlated with off-track possible identities (September, n=186, r=-0.25;
May, n=186, r=-0.24).
Identity-based motivation: Interpretation of experienced difficulty. We used an
adaptation of the 6-item Difficulty-As-Importance scale (Oyserman, et al., 2015; Fisher &
Oyserman, 2017; e.g. If I’m working on a task that feels difficult, it means that the task is
important; Response scale, 1=Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree; September, n=185, α=.89;
May, n=185, α=.90) and 6-item Difficulty-As-Impossibility scale (e.g. When working on a task
18
feels hard, that feeling means it’s not for me; Response scale, 1=Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly
agree; September, n=186, α=.82; May, n=185, α=.87).
Identity-based ,otivation: Academic efficacy. We used the Wigfield and Eccles’ (1994)
6-item School Efficacy scale (e.g., How well can you live up to what teachers expect of you?;
Response scale, 1=Not at all to 5=Very well; September, n=186, α=.70; May, n=185, α=.85).
School engagement: Classroom behavior. We used the Finn, Pannozzo, and Voelkl
(1995) 14-item (7 negative behavior items reverse coded) Student Participation Questionnaire
(How often do you participate in class discussion? Response scale, 1=Never to 5=Always;
September, n=185 α=.65; May, n=184, α=.75).
School engagement: Homework. We used the Oyserman et al, (2006) measures of
Homework Time and Homework Effort. For Homework Time, we asked students how much
time they usually spend on homework each week in the format: ____ hours per week (open-
ended). Most open-ended responses fit the hours per week format and were included in the
analyses (September, n=180, M=5.22, SD=4.12; May, n=177, M=5.17, SD=4.25). The
exceptions were 11 responses that were not in the form of codable number (e.g. “it depends”,
“5000”; September n=5, post n=6) and 5 responses that were extreme outliers, greater than 20
hours per week (+3 SD). So that these few extreme outliers would not distort the pattern of
results, these extreme outliers were windsorized to 20 hours (September n=1, May n=3).
For Homework Effort, we asked students to answer: How often do you finish the
homework that has been assigned? (Response scale, 1=Never to 5=Always or Almost Always;
September, n=184, M=4.43, SD=0.77; May, n=185, M=4.31, SD=0.90), and How seriously do
you take your homework? (Response scale, 1=Not at all Seriously to 5=Very Seriously;
September, n=185, M=4.02, SD=0.79; May, n=185, M=3.92 SD=0.76); September α=.67, May
19
α=.79. The two responses were averaged together to create our Homework Effort measure.
Chapter 3: Results
Descriptive Analyses
Table 4 shows September and May descriptive statistics and corresponding paired-sample
t-test results for each identity-based motivation and school engagement measure. Table 5 shows
the correlations among the change scores for each of these measures. As can be seen, mean
school/achievement possible identity balance score declined, means number of off-track possible
identities increased, difficulty-as-importance beliefs declined, and school engagement
deteriorated.
Analysis Plan
To test our prediction that fidelity of implementation matters by influencing identity-
based motivation, which in turn influences school engagement, we set up structural equation
models using MPlus, version 7.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2016), and full information
maximum likelihood (FIML) for missing data. To test our prediction, we used the standard
metrics of model fit: good fit entails the combination of a non-significant chi-square test, a root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of less than .08 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993), a
standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) of less than .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999), and a
comparative fit index (CFI) score greater than .95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
We specified a model using maximum likelihood estimation. Specifically,
implementation fidelity predicted the five measures of identity-based motivation (achievement
possible identities, off-track possible identities, school self-efficacy, difficulty-as-importance,
difficulty-as-impossibility). In turn, identity-based motivating predicted the three measures of
school engagement (class behavior, homework effort, homework time.) We allowed correlation
20
of error variances among endogenous predictors completed at the same time and using the same
response structure (open-ended or closed-ended). Thus, we allowed error variances to correlate
among achievement and off-track possible identities, and among school self-efficacy, difficulty-
as-impossibility, and difficulty-as-importance measures. Because the possible identity and self-
efficacy measures focused on content of self, we allowed their error variances to correlate. The
full model without these latter two correlated error terms is similar and presented in the
Appendix.
Does Implementation Fidelity Matter?
Our final model, with all significant paths shown, is presented in Figure 2. Fit indices
indicated that this model is a good fit for the data: χ2 (4, N=187) = 6.54, p=.16; RMSEA=.06
(.000 - .136); CFI=.983; SRMR=.029. The full variance-covariance matrix for the measures in
the model is presented in the Appendix.
Implementation fidelity and change in identity-based motivation. We found support
for our prediction; implementation fidelity predicted change in measures of identity-based
motivation. As displayed graphically in Figure 2, implementation fidelity was positively related
to change in school/achievement possible identities (β=.21, SE=.07, p<.01) and school self-
efficacy (β=.16, SE=.07, p<.03). Implementation fidelity was not associated with changes in
scores on either difficulty-as-importance (β=.10, SE=.07, p=.19), or difficulty-as-impossibility
(β=-.03, SE=.07, p=.70), or in number of off-track possible identities (β=-.12, SE=.07, p=.09). A
summary of the direct and indirect effects of implementation fidelity is presented in Table 6.
For ease of visualization of the effect of higher implementation fidelity on change in
identity-based motivation, we combined affected identity-based motivation measures
(school/achievement possible identities and school self-efficacy). Then we plotted the difference
21
between the predicted and found September (x-axis) to May (y-axis) identity-based motivation
scores for students whose teachers delivered with better than average or worse then average
implementation fidelity. This relationship is shown in Figure 3. Pink dots represent students who
experienced implementation fidelity that was high (Mean + .25 standard deviation). Blue dots
represent students who experienced implementation fidelity that was low (Mean - .25 standard
deviation). Dots above the regression line are students whose May score is higher than their
September score would predict and dots below the regression line are students whose May score
is lower than their September score would predict. As can be seen in Figure 3, 66% of students
who experienced high fidelity had higher end-of-year identity-based motivation than their fall
scores would predict (47 of 71 pink dots). In contrast, only 37% of students who experienced low
fidelity had higher end-of-year identity-based motivation than their fall scores would predict (25
of 68 blue dots). For clarity, the 48 students who experienced fidelity close to the mean (< Mean
+.25 SD and >Mean -.25 SD) are not shown in the chart. Students in these average fidelity
classrooms were equally likely to have higher or lower end-of-year identity based motivation
than their fall scores would predict.
Associations with school engagement. We found support for our prediction; change in
identity-based motivation predicted change in measures of school engagement. As displayed
graphically in Figure 2, positive change in in-class behavior was predicted by positive change in
identity-based motivation, specifically, increased school/achievement possible identities (β=.22,
SE=.07, p<.01), increased school self-efficacy (β=.32, SE=.06, p<.01), and reduced difficulty-as-
impossibility (β=-.22, SE=.06, p<.01). Similarly, positive change in homework effort was
predicted by increased school self-efficacy (β=.33, SE=.07, p<.01) and reduced difficulty-as-
impossibility (β=-.16, SE=.07, p<.05). Fidelity of implementation had significant indirect effects
22
on both class behavior (β=.12, SE=.04, p<.01) and homework effort (β=.07, SE=.03, p<.05) via
its effects on identity-based motivation. Fidelity of implementation did not directly effect school
engagement (class behavior, β=.11, SE=.06, p=.08; homework effort, β=.01, SE=.07, p=.85).
Chapter 4: Discussion
We predicted that natural variation in the fidelity with which teachers implemented
Pathways-to-Success, a teacher-led identity-based motivation intervention, would be associated
with variation in how much their students’ identity-based motivation and school engagement
changed over the course of the school year. We tested our prediction using structural equation
modeling across an academic year (September to May), testing if higher vs. lower intervention
implementation fidelity predicted positive change in identity-based motivation. We followed the
literature (Bellg, et al., 2004; Dane & Schneider, 1998; Dusenbury, 2003; Lichstein, Riedel, &
Grieve, 1994; Durlak & DuPre, 2008) and operationalized fidelity as the mean of three
components, adherence (fidelity of delivery), quality of delivery (fluent engagement and
delivering the take home point in students’ words), and fidelity of receipt (student experience of
what the to-be-attained concepts).
We found that implementation fidelity varied among teachers and across Pathways-to-
Success sessions and that higher implementation fidelity predicted positive changes in students’
identity-based motivation, in particular, school/achievement possible identities and current
school self-efficacy. Teachers who delivered the Pathways-to-Success intervention with higher
fidelity had students with more balanced and plausible school/achievement possible identities,
more strategies to work toward positive and away from negative aspects of these identities, and
more belief that they could live up to the demands of their schoolwork (efficacy). Positive
changes in these aspects of identity-based motivation predicted positive change in school
23
engagement, as did decreased difficulty-as-impossibility beliefs. Hence, our results show that
even with brief training and in their first round of delivery teachers can make positive changes in
some aspects of students’ identity-based motivation. In terms of theory-building, these results
highlight that what teachers do in the first few weeks of the fall marking period of the school
year can change students’ identity-based motivation more than half a year later. The implication
is that identity is malleable and sensitive to small intervention and at the same time, once an
identity (e.g. ‘good student’) has been cued and linked to nearer and farther future goals a
virtuous cycle of contextual reinforcement may occur. Bolstering identity-based motivation is
important because it supports academic performance, and without this support, motivation and
attainment often begins to decline during the middle school years (Alspaugh, 1998; Rockoff &
Lockwood, 2010; Oyserman, et al., 2006). Indeed, we found that students experienced decline in
each of the assessed aspects of identity-based motivation and that differences in teacher fidelity
of implementation shifted with pattern.
We also found the predicted relationship between students’ interpretation of their
experienced difficulty with schoolwork and their engagement in class and with homework.
However, implementation fidelity did not influence students’ interpretation of experienced
difficulty with schoolwork, another aspect of identity-based motivation. Why might that be? One
possibility is that this was due to the fact that implementation fidelity was lower in sessions
focused on interpretation of experienced difficulty.
We also did not find an effect of implementation fidelity on change in off-track possible
identities. Change in these identities did not change school engagement. Though the current data
do not allow us to directly test this possibility, we suspect that an artifact of data collection may
have resulted in a different pattern of results in the current analyses as compared to the analyses
24
reported in School-to-Jobs data sets (Oyserman, et al., 2006). In School-to-Jobs, students wrote
about their possible identities by hand on paper, but in Pathways-to-Success students wrote in
text boxes on computer tablets. Though the actual amount that students could write was the
same, the computer may have created a sense of more limited space, since students would only
know that they had more space if they filled the space they could see. As a result, students who
had already written about feared possible identities in the school/achievement domain might not
have continued on to write about off-track possible identities, and the reverse—those who wrote
about off-track possible identities might not have continued on to write about feared
school/achievement possible identities.
Implications for research and application
Our results have a number of implications for understanding the relationship between
students’ identity-based motivation and academic outcomes. First, our results add to the growing
body of literature that links elements of identity-based motivation to important school outcomes
(e.g., Alelenei, et al., 2016; Elmore, et al., 2016; Townsend, Stephens, Hamedani, & Smallets,
2017). We replicate prior research showing a positive association between identity-based
motivation and school engagement (Aelenei et al., 2016; Elmore et al., 2016; Oyserman, et al,
2004; Oyserman, et al., 2017) and a positive association between brief school-based intervention
and identity-based motivation (Oyserman et al., 2002; Oyserman, et al., 2006; Townsend et al.,
2017). Second, our results contribute to the literature on the relationship between possible
identities, motivation, and action by showing that teachers can deliver interventions (Borman,
Grigg, & Hanselman, 2016; Durlak, et al., 2011, Wilson, Lipsey, & Derzon, 2003). Third, our
finding that there is an overall decline in key aspects of identity-based motivation over the 8
th

grade school year that can be stemmed by implementing Pathways-to-Success with fidelity
25
contributes to the literature on the middle school decline in motivation and engagement
(Alspaugh, 1998; Rockoff & Lockwood, 2010; Oyserman, et al., 2006).
Our results also have applied implications for those interested in delivering interventions
in classrooms as intended—with fidelity (see for example, O’Donnell, 2008). First, and most
broadly, our results add to the growing body of literature that links higher implementation
fidelity with a higher likelihood of attaining predicted outcomes (Durlak & DuPre, 2008;
Derzon, Sale, Springer, & Brounstein, 2005; Wilson, Lipsey, & Derzon 2003). Second, and more
specifically, our results highlight the need for fine-grained tools to evaluate implementation
fidelity, as it was only in analyzing these detailed measures that we were able to understand the
influence of implementation on aspects of identity-based motivation. Sometimes teacher-
delivered interventions work and other times they do not (Hanselman, et al., in press; Protzko &
Aronson, 2016; Stoet & Geary, 2010), and without fine-grained tools it may not be possible to
know what about implementation varied or which variation mattered. Understanding which
aspects of implementation vary and what the consequences of that variation are is crucial
because the costs of failed scale-up tests are high, both in real dollars and in terms of lost
motivation for educational reform (Aos, Lieb, Mayfield, Miller, & Pennucci, 2004; Greenberg, et
al., 2005).
Our ability to provide clear and fine-grained analyses of fidelity comes in part from the
clear link between identity-based motivation theory and the Pathways-to-Success intervention.
This level of detail in our fidelity analysis is unusual in the K-12 educational literature in which
few interventions are based in research—according to Crosse, et al. (2011) only 10% of
interventions are supported by research. If there is no process model that has been tested in prior
research, it is difficult to know what the active ingredients are and what a high-quality
26
implementation would look like. As a result, research often examines more gross-grained
measures like the number of sessions and the level of student attendance (Crosse, et al., 2011), or
fails to examine implementation fidelity at all (Sanetti, Gritter, & Dobey, 2011). In our case, we
were able to test quality of delivery and fidelity of receipt, for example, using very specific items
tailored to each session by using the implementation manual. It is easier to identify and evaluate
which aspects of implementation fidelity are associated with desired outcomes when process
model of change is reflected in the intervention and hence in fidelity assessment tools. Without
such measures, it becomes impossible to gauge whether or not intervention effects are rooted in
the purported theory or due to something else entirely.
Limitations and future directions
As noted above, our results are both practically useful and theoretically important, but,
like any study, the current study also has a number of limitations. First, some sessions were
delivered with quite low fidelity, and it is not clear whether higher fidelity of implementation
will yield larger changes in identity-based motivation and classroom engagement. We are testing
this possibility now, by providing a new set of teachers with longer training, an improved
implementation manual in which the original 12 sessions are presented (rather than attempting to
reduce implementation to 11 sessions), simplified materials and instructions, and a PowerPoint
deck developed for teacher use. These changes come from our fidelity coding and teacher
feedback and are intended to make it easier for teachers to attain quality of delivery. We expect
that this combination will result in average higher fidelity, allowing us to test whether the
association between fidelity and outcomes we found in the current study will be stronger when
average implementation fidelity is higher. Second, we do not have a comparison group of
students who did not receive the intervention at all. The goal we set forth was to learn what
27
differences in fidelity of implementation could tell us rather than to compare intervention receipt
to no intervention control group. Future research testing effects with increasing levels of fidelity
and comparing different levels of fidelity to control groups without intervention is needed.
None-the-less, our findings suggest that teachers can deliver a school-based identity-
based motivation intervention with enough fidelity to matter by changing their students’ identity-
based motivation. Teachers are potent vehicles for translating academic research into meaningful
intervention and are deserving of support in making this possible.

28
References
Aelenei, C., Lewis, N.A., & Oyserman, D. (2016). No pain no gain? Social demographic
correlates and identity consequences of interpreting experienced difficulty as importance.
Contemporary Educational Psychology.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.08.004
Allen, J.P, Gregory, A., Mikami, A., Lun, J., Hamre, B., & and Pianta, R.C. (n.d.) Predicting
Adolescent Achievement with the CLASS-S Observation Tool. Research brief. Center for
Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning, University of Virginia Curry School of
Education. Website: http://curry.virginia.edu/research/ centers/castl/projects/castl-
research-briefs.
Alspaugh, J. W. (1998). Achievement loss associated with the transition to middle school and
high school. The Journal of Educational Research, 92, 20-25.
Aos, S., Lieb, R., Mayfield, J., Miller, M., & Pennucci, A. (2004). Benefits and costs of
prevention and early intervention programs for youth (Document ID: 04-07-3901).
Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Last retrieved Feb. 8, 2017
from http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/Reports/121
Bellg, A. J., Borrelli, B., Resnick, B., Hecht, J., Minicucci, D. S., Ory, M., Ogedegbe, G., Orwig,
D., Ernst, D., & Czajkowski, S. (2004). Enhancing treatment fidelity in health behavior
change studies: best practices and recommendations from the NIH Behavior Change
Consortium. Health Psychology, 23, 443.
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.
Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen &
J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Beverly Hills, CA:
29
Sage.
Crosse, S., Williams, B., Hagen, C. A., Harmon, M., Ristow, L., DiGaetano, R., Broene, P.,
Alexander, D., Tseng, M., & Derzon, J. H. (2011). Prevalence and Implementation
Fidelity of Research-Based Prevention Programs in Public Schools. Final Report. Office
of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, US Department of Education.
Dane, A. V., & Schneider, B. H. (1998). Program integrity in primary and early secondary
prevention: are implementation effects out of control? Clinical Psychology Review, 18,
23-45.
Derzon, J. H., Sale, E., Springer, J. F., & Brounstein, P. (2005). Estimating intervention
effectiveness: Synthetic projection of field evaluation results. The Journal of Primary
Prevention, 26, 321–343.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The
impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta‐analysis of school‐
based universal interventions. Child development, 82, 405-432.
Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the
influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting
implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327-350.
Dusenbury, L., Brannigan, R., Falco, M., & Hansen, W. B. (2003). A review of research on
fidelity of implementation: implications for drug abuse prevention in school
settings. Health Education Research, 18, 237-256.
Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Graczyk, P. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2003). Implementation,
sustainability, and scaling up of social-emotional and academic innovations in public
schools. School Psychology Review, 32, 303-319.
30
Elmore, K. C., & Oyserman, D. (2012). If ‘we’ can succeed, ‘I’ can too: Identity-based
motivation and gender in the classroom. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37, 176-
185.
Elmore, K., Oyserman, D., Smith, G.C., & Novin, S. (2016). When the going gets tough:
Implication of reactance for interpretations of experienced difficulty in the classroom.
AERA Open, 2, 1-11.
Finn, J. D., Pannozzo, G. M., & Voelkl, K. E. (1995). Disruptive and inattentive-withdrawn
behavior and achievement among fourth graders. The Elementary School Journal, 95,
421-434.
Fisher, O. & Oyserman, D. (2017) Assessing interpretations of experienced ease and difficulty as
motivational constructs. Manuscript under editorial review.
Fortin, N. M., Oreopoulos, P., & Phipps, S. (2015). Leaving boys behind: gender disparities in
high academic achievement. Journal of Human Resources, 50(3), 549-579.
Grandpre, J., Alvaro, E. M., Burgoon, M., Miller, C. H., & Hall, J. R. (2003). Adolescent
reactance and anti-smoking campaigns: A theoretical approach. Health
Communication, 15, 349-366.
Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. E., Graczyk, P. A., & Zins, J. E. (2005). The study of
implementation in school-based preventive interventions: Theory, research, and
practice. Promotion of mental health and prevention of mental and behavior disorders.
Hanselman, P., Rozek, C. S., Grigg, J., & Borman, G. D. (in press). New Evidence on Self-
Affirmation Effects and Theorized Sources of Heterogeneity From Large-Scale
Replications. Journal of Educational Psychology.
31
Hartley, B. L., & Sutton, R. M. (2013). A stereotype threat account of boys’ academic
underachievement. Child Development, 84(5), 1716-1733.
Houtte, M. V. (2004). Why boys achieve less at school than girls: The difference between boys’
and girls’ academic culture. Educational Studies, 30(2), 159-173.
Hu, L. & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.
Landau, M. J., Oyserman, D, Keefer, L. A., & Smith, G. C. (2014). The college journey and
academic engagement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 679-698.
Lewis Jr., N.A. & Oyserman (2015). When does the future begin? Time metrics matter,
connecting present and future selves. Psychological Science, 26, 816-825.
Lichstein, K. L., Riedel, B. W., & Grieve, R. (1994). Fair tests of clinical trials: A treatment
implementation model. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 16, 1-29.
Madon, T., Hofman, K. J., Kupfer, L., & Glass, R. I. (2007). Implementation
science. Science, 318, 1728-1729.
McDonald, S. K., Keesler, V. A., Kauffman, N. J., & Schneider, B. (2006). Scaling-up
exemplary interventions. Educational Researcher, 35, 15-24.
McIntyre, L. L., Gresham, F. M., DiGennaro, F. D., & Reed, D. D. (2007). Treatment integrity of
school‐based interventions with children in the journal of applied behavior analysis
1991–2005. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 40, 659-672.
O’Donnell, C. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation
and its relationship to outcomes in K–12 curriculum intervention research. Review of
Educational Research, 78, 33-84.
32
Oyserman, D. (2007). Social identity and self-regulation. In A. Kruglanski & T. Higgins (Eds),
Social psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, 2
nd
Edition, pp. 432-453. New York,
NY: Guilford Press
Oyserman, D. (2009). Identity-based motivation and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 19, 276-279.
Oyserman, D. (2015a). Pathways to success through identity-based motivation. NY, New York:
Oxford University Press, USA.
Oyserman, D. (2015b). Identity-Based Motivation. Emerging Trends in the Social and
Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource. In R.
Scott, and S. Kosslyn (Eds) Emerging Trends in the Behavioral and Social Sciences,
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons available on line
Oyserman, D., Brickman, D., & Rhodes, M. (2007). School success, possible selves, and parent
school involvement. Family Relations, 56, 479-489.
Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., & Terry, K. (2006). Possible selves and academic outcomes: How and
when possible selves impel action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91,
188-204.
Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., Terry, K., & Hart-Johnson, T. (2004). Possible selves as roadmaps.
Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 130-149.
Oyserman, D., Destin, M., & Novin, S. (2015). The context-sensitive future self: Possible selves
motivate in context, not otherwise. Self and Identity, 14(2), 173-188.
Oyserman, D., Elmore, K., & Smith, G.C. (2012). Self, self‐concept and identity. In M. Leary &
J. Tangney (Eds). Handbook of Self and Identity, 2
nd
Edition (pp. 69-104). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
33
Oyserman, D., Fryberg, S. A., & Yoder, N. (2007). Identity-based motivation and health. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1011-1027.
Oyserman, D., & Lewis Jr., N.A. (2017). Seeing the destination and the path: Using identity-
based motivation to understand racial disparities in achievement and what we can do
about them. Social Issues and Policy Review. 11(1), 159-194.
Oyserman, D., Novin, S., Elmore, K., & Smith, G. C. (2017). How experienced difficulty is
interpreted matters, shaping identity, motivation and performance. Manuscript under
editorial review.
Oyserman, D., Terry, K., & Bybee, D. (2002). A possible selves intervention to enhance school
involvement. Journal of adolescence, 25, 313-326.
Protzko, J., & Aronson, J. (2016). Context Moderates Affirmation Effects on the Ethnic
Achievement Gap. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 500-507.
Ringold, D. J. (2002). Boomerang effects in response to public health interventions: Some
unintended consequences in the alcoholic beverage market. Journal of Consumer
Policy, 25, 27-63.
Rockoff, J. E., & Lockwood, B. B. (2010). Stuck in the middle: Impacts of grade configuration
in public schools. Journal of Public Economics, 94, 1051-1061.
Sanetti, L. M. H., Gritter, K. L., & Dobey, L. M. (2011). Treatment integrity of interventions
with children in the school psychology literature from 1995 to 2008. School Psychology
Review, 40, 72.
Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The
constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological
Science, 18, 429-434.
34
Schwarz, N. (1998). Accessible content and accessibility experiences: The interplay of
declarative and experiential information in judgment. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 2, 87-99.
Smith, G. C., & Oyserman, D. (2015). Just not worth my time? Experienced difficulty and time
investment. Social Cognition, 33, 1-18.
Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2012). Can stereotype threat explain the gender gap in mathematics
performance and achievement? Review of General Psychology, 16, 93–102.
Townsend, S. S. M., Stephens, N.M., Hamedani, M., & Smallets, S. (2017, January).
Empowerment through difference: An online difference-education intervention closes the
social class achievement gap. The Society for Personality and Social Psychology
Convention, San Antonio, TX.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1994). Children’s competence beliefs, achievement values, and
general self-esteem change across elementary and middle school. The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 14, 107-138.
Wilson, S. J., Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J. H. (2003). The effects of school-based intervention
programs on aggressive behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 71, 136–149.
35
Tables
Table 1
Correlations Among Implementation Fidelity Measures
Measure 1 2 3
1. Adherence --
2. Quality of Delivery .56** --
3. Fidelity of Receipt .13 .45** --
Note: * p <.05; ** p <.01

Table 2a.
Observer-Rated Fidelity Measures By Session
Session Adherence Quality
Teacher Act. Group Act. Take home point Fluency CLASS-S
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
1 61% 12% 63% 10% 1.13 .64 1.00 .00 4.27 .25
2 66% 14% 69% 13% 2.75 .46 1.50 .54 4.73 .60
3 67% 18% 63% 25% 1.25 .46 1.50 .54 4.73 .53
4 54% 13% 56% 9% 1.25 .89 1.00 .54 4.93 .59
5 56% 18% 56% 20% 0.63 .52 0.88 .35 4.43 .55
6 64% 16% 73% 16% 1.00 .54 1.00 .54 4.23 .57
7 46% 18% 47% 19% 1.13 .64 0.75 .71 4.33 .53
8 50% 17% 61% 17% 0.88 .84 0.88 .84 4.93 .65
9 57% 14% 61% 10% 0.63 .52 0.75 .46 4.71 .59
10 46% 17% 47% 13% 0.88 .35 0.88 .35 4.34 .62
11 29% 17% 26% 21% 0.88 .64 0.75 .71 4.33 .56
Note: Adherence Teacher Act. = Teacher Activities; Adherence Group Act.= Student Response
to Teacher Activities; CLASS-S= Classroom Assessment Scoring System-Secondary. Student-
rated aspects of fidelity were obtained at the end of the intervention only, so cannot be examined
at a session level.

36
Table 2b.
Teacher Implementation Fidelity: Means (SDs) Of Observer-Rated And Student-Rated Fidelity
Teacher Adherence Quality Receipt
Teacher Group THP Fluency CLASS-S
Teacher
Style
Classroom
Style
Teacher
Support
Classroom
Support
Fidelity of
Receipt
1 76% (10%) 70% (11%) 1.27 (.86) 1.27 (.62) 4.83 (.45) 4.06 (.63) 4.03 (.78) 3.98 (.75) 3.55 (.56) 3.94 (.69)
2 65% (13%) 66% (18%) 1.73 (.62) 1.55 (.50) 4.84 (.45) 4.26 (.62) 3.88 (.60) 4.12 (.60) 3.83 (.45) 4.06 (.52)
3 57% (18%) 57% (23%) 0.91 (.67) 0.82 (.39) 4.89 (.57) 4.03 (.84) 3.42 (.97) 3.93 (.76) 3.57 (.62) 3.90 (.62)
4 51% (14%) 52% (14%) 1.00 (.74) 0.91 (.29) 4.70 (.41) 4.08 (.58) 3.80 (.64) 3.90 (.74) 3.59 (.47) 3.91 (.48)
5 50% (20%) 60% (19%) 1.00 (.85) 0.64 (.77) 4.49 (.65) 4.05 (.74) 3.73 (.77) 3.93 (.59) 3.56 (.50) 3.87 (.62)
6 49% (15%) 60% (16%) 1.36 (.48) 1.18 (.39) 4.59 (.37) 4.43 (.50) 4.10 (.52) 4.22 (.45) 3.86 (.46) 3.96 (.40)
7 46% (12%) 51% (15%) 0.91 (.79) 0.91 (.29) 4.02 (.49) 4.05 (.49) 4.08 (.61) 3.90 (.66) 3.70 (.52) 3.91 (.45)
8 39% (12%) 36% (19%) 0.82 (.83) 0.64 (.48) 3.99 (.33 4.07 (.60) 3.66 (.81) 4.00 (.48) 3.53 (.57) 3.74 (.67)
Note: Adherence Teacher= Teacher Activities; Adherence Group=Student Response to Teacher Activities; Quality THP=Take Home
Point; CLASS-S= Classroom Assessment Scoring System-Secondary; SDs for observer measures are based on variability of measures
for each teacher across the 11 sessions.

37
Table 2c.
Quality of Delivery: Source, Sample Size, Scoring Method, Mean, Standard Deviations, and Reliability for Multi-Item Measures)
Rater Measure Scoring Method and Items
M SD
α
Observer (n=187)
Take-home point 0=key point is not evoked by all activities
1= key point was evoked but not linked to student generated content
2=key point was evoked clearly and consistently and concepts are connected to
student content
3=fulfilled the requirements for a ‘2’ score and also linked more deeply to the content
1.14 .31 --
Fluency score 0 =message not delivered or feels untrue
1=Sometimes feels true, sometimes feels untrue 2=message delivered fluently so that
it feels like it must be true
1.55 .30 --
CLASS-S score 1-low on dimension, 7-high on dimension 4.54 .35 .93
Student (n varies)
Teacher Style
(n=171)
1=Strongly disagree 5=Strongly agree
During Pathways, my teacher was:
1) enthusiastic,
2) knowledgeable,
3) warm,
4) clear
4.13 .64 .85
Classroom Style
(n=173)
1=Strongly disagree, 5=Strongly agree
During Pathways, my classmates were:
1) enthusiastic
2) knowledgeable
3) warm
4) clear
4.00 .75 .76
Teacher Support
(n=174)
1=Not at all, 5=A lot
In Pathways to Success, my teacher:
1) listened to my comments
2) understood my problems
3) Negatively criticized my ideas (reverse coded)
4) Used specific examples
4.00 .64 .86
38
5) Gave us all equal chance to participate
6) Gave us the chance to answer questions other students raised.
Classroom
Support (n=172)
1=Strongly disagree, 5=Strongly agree
In Pathways to Success…
1) I felt comfortable participating and asking questions 2) I could trust others to
listen to what I had to say
3) Others shared their experiences and difficulties working toward their futures
4) Other students have the same problems I do
5) What we talked about was relevant for me
6) I felt concerned I would be negatively criticized by another group member (reverse
coded).
3.65 .53 .65
Note: CLASS-S=Classroom Assessment Scoring System-Secondary. Cronbach alpha (calculated for multi-item measures only).
Student data sample size varies due to missing data, R=reverse coded

39

Table 3
Fidelity Of Receipt: Items, Sample Size, Mean and Standard Deviations
# Item N M SD
1 I can introduce myself in a way that emphasizes my skills. 172 3.74 0.86
2 I can imagine myself as an adult (working, having family and
friendships, having a nice lifestyle, and participating in my
community).
172 4.06 0.86
3 I can draw a timeline to get to my adult images, including obstacles
and forks in the road.
172 4.01 0.83
4 I can take action now to work toward my adult image. 172 4.04 0.79
5 I can break down everyday situations into problems to be solved. 172 3.79 0.91
6 I can ask for help making plans. 171 3.79 0.91
7 I can plan my class schedule to meet my future goals. 172 3.83 0.93
8 In the future I will experience difficulties and setbacks in my efforts to
do well in school.
173 3.93 0.82
9 In the future I have strategies to handle these difficulties so I know
what to do next.
173 3.99 0.72
10 In the future I can come up with alternatives when a setback happens. 173 3.97 0.77
Note: Response scale for items 1 to 7: 1= Not At All Confident, 5=Very Confident. Response
scale for items 8 to 10:1= Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree.

40
Table 4
Identity-based Motivation And School Engagement: Sample Sizes, September and May M (SD)
and Paired-Sample t-Tests of Change
September May
n M SD M SD t p
Achievement PIs (Avg. of z-scores) 185 0.02 0.90 0.00 0.88 .25 .81
PI Achievement Plausibility 185 3.59 1.48 3.37 1.58 1.51 .13
PI Achievement Balance 185 1.13 1.05 0.95 0.92 2.10 <.05
Off-track PI 185 1.21 1.15 1.68 1.13 -4.64 <.01
School Self-Efficacy 184 3.76 0.58 3.78 0.74 -.24 .81
Difficulty-as-Importance 183 3.64 0.82 3.51 0.76 2.15 <.05
Difficulty-as-Impossibility 184 2.48 0.79 2.54 0.79 -1.02 .31
Class Behavior 182 3.75 0.43 3.67 0.52 2.01 <.05
Homework Effort (Avg. of z-scores) 183 -0.03 0.88 0.05 0.88 -1.23 .21
Homework Finish 182 4.42 0.77 4.32 0.89 1.65 .10
Homework Seriousness 183 4.02 0.80 3.93 0.75 1.32 .19
Homework Time 172 5.08 3.96 5.08 4.25 -.01 .99
Note: PI=Possible Identity, Homework Time=Open-ended response windsorized as detailed in
the paper.
41

Table 5
Identity-Based Motivation And School Engagement: Correlations Among Change Scores
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Δ Achievement PI --
2. Δ Off-track PI -0.24** --
3. Δ School self-efficacy 0.15* -0.20** --
4. Δ Difficulty-as-importance -0.02 0.04 0.19* --
5. Δ Difficulty-as-impossibility -0.19* 0.05 -0.18* 0.14 --
6. Δ Class Behavior 0.33** -0.18* 0.43** 0.13 -0.31** --
7. Δ Homework effort 0.14 -0.07 0.36** 0.04 -0.23** 0.36** --
8. Δ Homework time 0.05 -0.04 0.12 -0.11 0.01 0.20** 0.27** --
Note: Δ = Change in (September to May), PI= Possible Identity, * p <.05, ** p <.01

42
Table 6
Effects Of Implementation Fidelity: Parameter Estimates And Significance Levels
Unstandardized Standardized
Parameter Estimate SE Estimate SE p
Fidelity èAchievement PI 0.23 0.08 0.21 0.07 <.01
Fidelity èOff-track PI -0.17 0.10 -0.12 0.07 .09
Fidelity èSchool self-efficacy PI 0.14 0.06 0.16 0.07 <.03
Fidelity èDifficulty-as-importance 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.07 .19
Fidelity èDifficulty-as-impossibility -0.03 0.07 -0.03 0.07 .70
Fidelity èClass behavior (direct) 0.07 0.04 0.11 0.06 .08
Fidelity èClass behavior (indirect) 0.07 0.02 0.12 0.04 <.01
Fidelity èHomework effort (direct) 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.07 .85
Fidelity èHomework effort (indirect) 0.07 0.03 0.07 0.03 <.05
Fidelity èHomework time (direct) 0.41 0.40 0.08 0.08 .31
Fidelity èHomework time (indirect) 0.06 0.13 0.01 0.02 .63
Note: Fidelity= Implementation Fidelity; PI=Possible Identity

43
Table 7.
Direct Effects Of Identity-based Motivation On School Engagement: Parameter Estimates And
Significance Levels

Note: PI=Possible Identity

Unstandardized Standardized
Parameter Estimate SE Estimate SE p
Achievement PI èClass behavior 0.11 0.03 0.22 0.07 <.01
Achievement PI èHomework effort 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 .36
Achievement PI èHomework time 0.14 0.38 0.03 0.08 .71
Off-track PI èClass behavior -0.01 0.03 -0.03 0.07 .63
Off-track PI èHomework effort 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.07 .78
Off-track PI èHomework time 0.06 0.30 0.02 0.08 .85
School self-efficacy èClass behavior 0.22 0.04 0.32 0.06 <.01
School self-efficacy èHomework effort 0.37 0.08 0.33 0.07 <.01
School self-efficacy èHomework time 0.88 0.52 0.15 0.09 .09
Difficulty-as-importance èClass behavior 0.06 0.04 0.09 0.07 .16
Difficulty-as-importance èHomework
effort
0.01 0.08 0.01 0.07 .94
Difficulty-as-importance èHomework time -0.86 0.47 -0.15 0.08 .07
Difficulty-as-impossibility èClass behavior -0.14 0.04 -0.22 0.06 <.01
Difficulty-as-impossibility èHomework
effort
-0.16 0.07 -0.16 0.07 <.03
Difficulty-as-impossibility èHomework
time
0.28 0.44 0.05 0.08 .52
44
Figures
Figure 1. Coding Scheme For Possible Identity Plausibility.
Plausibility
Score
Count
Academic
Expected
or Feared
Possible
Selves
(APS)
Count
Strategies
attached to
these APS
Plausibility as follows:
Codes noted with * mean code at this level only if at
least one of the possible selves and/or strategies that are
provided are detailed/concrete, that is if specific action
is implied and possible selves are not redundant,
otherwise code at the next lower level of plausibility.
Ex: APS (APS strategies): I expect to succeed in school
(doing homework and coming to class on time). I am
concerned that I may fail the eighth grade (always take
my books home)

0

0

EITHER 0 academic possible selves (APS)
OR
1 APS that is vague or general AND 0 APS strategy
1

0

1
1 1 EITHER 1 APS and 1 APS strategy
OR
2 APS but no APS strategies
2 0

2
1 2* or more

EITHER 1 APS and 2 or more APS strategies* OR
2 APS and 1- 2 APS strategies OR
3 APS and 0*-1 APS strategies
OR
4 or more APS and 0 APS strategies
2 1- 2

3 0*-1
4 or more 0

3

2 3* or more
EITHER 2 APS and 3 or more APS strategies* OR
3 APS and 2-3 APS strategies OR
4 or more APS and 1*-2 APS strategies
3 2-3
4 or more

1*-2

4

3

4 or more

EITHER 3 APS and 4 or more APS OR
4 APS and 2*-4 APS strategies 4 or more

2*, 3-4

5

4 or more

4-5+
4 or more APS AND 4 or more strategies AND at least
one strategy for an academic self is focused on
interpersonal aspects of school context.
(Ex: listen to the teacher (or not talk back), avoid peers
who skip, not listening to negative talk)
45

Figure 2. Path model showing influence of implementation fidelity on identity-based motivation
and influence of identity-based motivation on school engagement. Fit indices: χ2 (5, N=187) =
6.54, p=.16; RMSEA=.06 (.000 - .136); CFI=.983; SRMR=.029.

Interpretation of experienced
difficulty as impossibility
Achievement possible
identities (plausibility,
balance)
School Self-Efficacy
In-class behavior
Homework time
Implementation
Fidelity
Change in Identity-
Based Motivation
Change in School
Engagement
Adherence
Quality of Delivery
Fidelity of Receipt
Interpretation of experienced
difficulty as importance
.21**
Off-track Possible Identities
.16*
.22**
-.22**
.33**
Homework effort
.32**
-.16*
46

Figure 3. Teacher implementation fidelity influences change in student identity-based
motivation, as shown by this plot of students exposed to High (M >+ .25 SD) implementation
fidelity teachers (pink dots) and Low (M <- .25 SD) implementation fidelity teachers (blue dots).
The regression line shows average predicted change in identity-based motivation (standardized
average of school self-efficacy and achievement possible selves) in May given September
identity-based motivation scores. For clarity, the 48 students exposed to teachers with
implementation fidelity close to the mean (between < M +.25 SD and > M -.25 SD) are not
shown in the chart. Each dot’s position relative to the regression trend line reflects how much
their expected change in identity-based motivation was an over prediction (above trend line) or
under prediction (below trend line) of their actual change. Among students who received high
fidelity implementation, 66% (47/71) exceeded their predicted end-of-year identity-based
motivation; this was true of only 37% (25/68) of students who received low fidelity
implementation. Students in average fidelity classrooms were just as likely to exceed or
underperform their fall identity-based motivation levels.
−2
0
2
−2 0 2
September Identity−based Motivation (Z−score)
May Identity−based Motivation (Z−score)
Fidelity (Z−score)
High Fidelity
Low Fidelity
47
Appendix

Session Snapshots

Session 1, Setting the Stage & Introductions
Classroom activity flow: Students are paired up and briefly interview one another on the skills or ability they each have that will help
them complete the school year successfully (e.g., “well organized,” “positive attitude”). Then each student introduces his or her
interview partner in terms of these skills. This provides an initial example of academic possible identities being compatible with
important social identities because all youth engage in the task; the meta-message was, “we all care about school.”
Take home point: You have some skills and abilities to help you succeed in the coming year and others do too.
IBM active ingredient(s): Relevant strategies: Making relevant strategies feel like something one can do now

Session 2, Adult Images
Classroom activity flow: Students pick photographs that fit their adult “visions” (their adult possible self). Photographs include the
four domains of adulthood material (e.g., home), job, relationships (e.g., family, friends), and community engagement. Photographs
include both genders and match the racial-ethnic makeup of the school. Commonly most of the adult possible selves are images of
material success, yielding the meta-message, “we all want a good future,” which implies that important social identities are compatible
with a future orientation.
Take home point: We all have images of ourselves as adults in the far future.
IBM active ingredient(s): Future self: Making the future self feel connected to the present

Session 3, Positive and Negative Forces
Classroom activity flow: Students draw role models and negative forces—people or things that provide energy to work toward their
possible identities and those that are draining or nay-saying. The meta-message is, “everyone faces obstacles and difficulties; this does
not make a possible identity any less part of the ‘true’ self.”
Take home point: Positive forces help us lay out paths for success and handling difficulties and setbacks; negative forces do the
opposite, layout paths for failure and examples for how not to handle difficulties and setbacks.
IBM active ingredient(s): Relevant strategies: Making relevant strategies feel like something one can do now;
Productive interpretation of experienced difficulty: Framing interpretation of experienced difficulty to signal that a task is important
rather than impossible for oneself

Session 4, Timelines
48
Classroom activity flow: Students draw timelines into the future, including forks in the road and obstacles. Since students start with
the present, all timelines involve school. The meta-message is, “everyone has difficulties, and failures and setbacks are a normal part
of timelines and do not mean that academic possible identities are not true selves.”
Take home point: The future is a path, current actions set up which futures are possible
IBM active ingredient(s): Future self: Making the future self feel connected to the present; Productive interpretation of experienced
difficulty: Framing interpretation of experienced difficulty to signal that a task is important rather than impossible for oneself

Session 5, Action Paths/Action Goals
Classroom activity flow: Students write action paths linking next year and adult possible selves with actions we can take right away in
a specific time and place to concretize the plan. They do this using an easy to recall formula (because… I will… when…).
Take home point: We have some control over possible selves, but not hope and dreams. That control happens when we link the future
with the present through specific action goals.
IBM active ingredient(s): Future self: Making the future self feel connected to the present; Relevant strategies: Making relevant
strategies feel like something one can do now

Sessions 6, Possible Selves and Strategies
Classroom activity flow: Students map out their expected and to-be-avoided possible selves and strategies for next year on a Pathways
Board.
Take home point: Strategies are actions you are taking now or could take to become your next year possible self.
IBM active ingredient(s): Future self: Making the future self feel connected to the present; Relevant strategies: Making relevant
strategies feel like something one can do now

Session 7, Pathways to the Future
Classroom activity flow: Students complete Pathways Boards to concretize the link between current strategies for action, next year
possible selves, and adult possible selves.
Take home point: Any strategies I’m doing (or could be doing) now to get to my next year possible self, also help me get to my adult
possible self.
IBM active ingredient(s): Future self: Making the future self feel connected to the present; Relevant strategies: Making relevant
strategies feel like something one can do now

Session 8, Puzzles
Classroom activity flow: Students break down problems that seem impossible and use strategies to solve them.
49
Take home point: Things can seem impossible and difficult, but can be solved by breaking them down looking for alternative ways to
set up the problem.
IBM active ingredient(s): Productive interpretation of experienced difficulty: Framing interpretation of experienced difficulty to
signal that a task is important rather than impossible for oneself

Session 9, Solving Everyday Problems
Classroom activity flow: Students focus on a problem relevant to their own lives, learning that problems can be set up similar to the
timelines, poster board, or action path activities. Students learn to consider forces, choice points, and difficulties that need to be
navigated, but are ultimately solvable.
Take home point: There are everyday choice points and difficulties that are obstacles to navigate on the path linking near and far
possible selves.
IBM active ingredient(s): Productive interpretation of experienced difficulty: Framing interpretation of experienced difficulty to
signal that a task is important rather than impossible for oneself

Session 10, Solving Everyday Problems #2: Graduation
Classroom activity flow: Students discuss the needed pieces to finish high school and go to college, breaking down these outcomes
into steps (e.g., number of classes, of what kind).
Take home point: You can identify the steps to get from 8
th
grade to graduating high school.
IBM active ingredient(s): Future self: Making the future self feel connected to the present; Productive interpretation of experienced
difficulty: Framing interpretation of experienced difficulty to signal that a task is important rather than impossible for oneself

Session 11, Wrapping up and Moving Forward
Classroom activity flow: Students review the Pathways program to provide participants with a sense of coherence, reinforcing the
three main ingredients of the program.
Take home point: What I do now makes a big difference for attaining my possible selves for next year, for the next few years, and
farther as an adult. Possible selves that are linked to strategies and to time and place of action become action goals. There are forks
(choices) and roadblocks (failures) along the way. It will be difficult and may feel impossible, but asking questions helps break down
what I need to find out and helps me connect to others – positive forces and models – as well as to learn from negative forces and
models of what not to do.
IBM active ingredient(s): Future self: Making the future self feel connected to the present; Relevant strategies: Making relevant
strategies feel like something one can do now; Productive interpretation of experienced difficulty: Framing interpretation of
experienced difficulty to signal that a task is important rather than impossible for oneself

50

Fidelity Measures

Adherence (Teacher and Student Behavior) Measures

Youth Session 1: Creating a Group

School: ___ ____________ Grade: _____8______________ Start Time: _____ N Adults: ____________
Teacher: ______________ Observer: __________ End Time: ____ N Students: ___________

Task Y N Detailed Teacher Behavior Y N Student Behavior Y N
Agenda hung
Opening
Welcome Greet participants and latecomers Greet teacher
State program title, an overarching description of program
and how often and when it will meet.
Listen
Introductions Teacher introduces self (Name) Listen
States there is observer/videographer/camera in the room
to observe trainer (improve program not grade students)
Acknowledge observer/
videographer if present

Introduction
51
Introduce the concept of
introductions as goal oriented
Ask what an introduction is Share ideas

Write student responses down Listen
Reinforce: is a way of saying who you are and what you
can contribute

Different goals for introductions
Show preprinted newsprint definition (Introduction)
Introduce Pathways to Success as
success oriented
State that Pathways to Success will focus on working to
reach goals and being successful.
Listen
Ask about skills and abilities for succeeding in school Share ideas
Reintroduce self with a skill or ability Listen
Introductions task
Group creation process Explain activity Listen
Pass out marbles Take marble/Find Partner
Creating sense of competence Ask for questions Respond to teacher

Circulate, check for understanding Talk in pairs
Make big circle Form circle
Ask youth to introduce partners/ask for repetition of
names and skills
Introduce partner
State specific plan for who is speaking
Has students repeat the names/skills of ALL those who
have already been introduced
Repeat names and skills
Teacher participates
Expectations & Concerns
Elicit sense of self-control Introduce new task, explain concept
Ask for examples Participate
Use newsprint to write group expectations
Use newsprint to write group concerns
Reinforce and repeat 4 basic themes (seeing both my far
and near future/developing strategies to work toward my
future/seeing the path between now and my future/getting
help (parents, community members, and teachers can be
Listen
52
resources)
Rules
Provide a sense of safety Elicit group rules (everyone participates, no name calling) Participate
Write on newsprint
Goals
State goal Listen
Show prepared newsprint
Naming Group
Explain activity
Give examples, elicit ideas Share ideas
Call for a vote Vote
Human knot task
Group creation process Explain task, stand in circle, cross arms in front and grab
hands of two people across the circle, then without letting
go of hands, get them uncrossed so that we are again in a
circle
Move, reform circle
Ensures all students participate
Teacher is part of the circle
Reinforce cooperation and congratulate
Next session and goodbyes
Summary Statement: strengths to succeed Listen

Connecting Statement: Next session will work on adult
images

Completed necessary
components of session in
appropriate time

53
Youth Session 2: Adult Images

School: ___ ____________ Grade: _____8______________ Start Time: _____ N Adults: ____________
Teacher: ______________ Observer: __________ End Time: ____ N Students: ___________

Task Y N Detailed Teacher Behavior Y N Student Behavior Y N
Agenda hung
Opening
Welcome Greet participants and latecomers Greet trainer
Say today is session 2, adult images
Last session Ask for what happened last session and why Share ideas (Learned
names about each other,
expectations, concerns,
games as a team, adding
and building on each
others’ skills)

Reinforce student participation (Why: people have lots of
different skills that will help them succeed)

Bridging Teacher bridges last session and this session (last session
we focused on skills and abilities to succeed in school,
today we want to look towards the future and the adults
we want to become)
Listen
Images
Introduce the concept of adult
images
Explain task – choosing pictures that represent images of
yourself as an adult. Each to pick 3 to 5 pictures, what do
they mean for you and when these will be true of you,
afterwards share
Listen

Create personal images Make instructions clear/Ask for questions Ask questions/Clarifies
directions

Have participants begin

Move around room,
picking pictures

Mingle – check for understanding
Share Have everyone rejoin circle
Explain task – show 1 picture and explain to group, while Participate
54
group listens and pays attention
Write participant responses on newsprint, clustering by
themes
Listen
Domains of adulthood
Highlight various domains Explain task – participant to call out what they thought
was similar about everyone’s adult images
Share ideas

Reinforce personal competence in
noticing connections, ability to
contribute to the in group
Highlight themes that emerge (e.g., jobs, family, friends,
community involvement, life style; trainer need only
mention domains that did emerge)

Listen
Next session and goodbyes
Summary Statement: adult images can be about jobs,
family, friends, community involvement, and lifestyle
(only those group brought up or implied) (adult images +
repeat themes)
Listen

Connecting statement: next session we’ll identify models
and forces that help us work on those adult images that are
goals

Completed necessary
components of session in
appropriate time

55
Youth Session 3: Positive and negative forces

School: ___ ____________ Grade: _____8______________ Start Time: _____ N Adults: ____________
Teacher: ______________ Observer: __________ End Time: ____ N Students: ___________

Task Y N Detailed Teacher Behavior Y N Student Behavior Y N
Agenda hung
Opening
Welcome Greet participants and latecomers Greet trainer
Say today is session 3, positive role models & negative
forces

Last Session Ask for what happened last session and why (Why:
everyone has adult images)
Share ideas (picked
pictures of adult images,
when would happen and
what had in common)

Ask for domains of adulthood that discussed Share ideas (lifestyle,
career, relationship,
community involvement)

Reinforce student participation (reinforce what students
said: Both what happened, everyone has adult images, and
domains of adulthood)
Listen
Bridging Trainer bridges last session and this session (discuss
difference between dreams and possible selves)
Listen
Role models and
negative forces

Adults images come from
somewhere

Ask for what are positive models and negative forces. Share ideas

Reinforce participation.
Use Newsprint to write what they say
Define terms (positive role model – image of attained
goal/supports work toward it, negative model – image of
failure, undermines effort)
Share ideas
Show preprinted newsprint definition Listen
Those close to us, often parents, Explain task/handout worksheets. Start with Job domain – Write goals/role
56
can support or tear down write/draw adult image and a positive and negative force
for that adult image
models/force
Mingle, check for understanding
Have students organize into circle Students organized in a
circle

Discuss models and negative forces. Have students give
examples
Participate
Write on newsprint as they do (cluster similar)
Read through positive model list Listen,
Read through negative force list Listen,
Say close people in our lives can be supporting,
Say everyone has negative forces
Next session and goodbyes
Summary Statement: we worked on, role models and
negative forces, everyone has both
Listen
Connecting Statement: next session timelines into the
future

Completed necessary
components of session in
appropriate time

57
Youth Session 4: Timelines

School: ___ ____________ Grade: _____8______________ Start Time: _____ N Adults: ____________
Teacher: ______________ Observer: __________ End Time: ____ N Students: ___________

Task Y N Detailed Teacher Behavior Y N Student Behavior Y N
Agenda hung
Opening
Welcome Greet participants and latecomers Greet trainer

Say today is session 4, time lines
Last Session Ask for what happened last session and why (everyone
has positive and negative forces, can help us see path or
make more difficult). Ask to repeat themes
Share ideas (positive and
negative forces for career
possible selves, examples;
themes – jobs, family,
community participation,
friends, lifestyle)

Reinforce student participation (why: difficulties along
way are normal; working on difficult things is important)
Listen
Bridging Trainer bridges last session and this session (Today we
will begin to map out how to get from now to the future)
Listen
Timelines Activity
Create sense of linear time Ask what are timelines, ask for ideas Share ideas
Write ideas on newsprint
Repeat examples (linear, history, now in future and future
not for sure)
Listen
Reveal preprinted newsprint timeline (general)
Create sense of competence to
handle choices, obstacles;
Reinforce naturalness of obstacles
Explain fork in the road Listen
Ask students for examples Share ideas
Explain obstacles-barriers-road blocks Listen
Ask students for examples Share ideas
Reveal preprinted timeline into the future Listen
Create Timelines Explain the tasks – rough draft then on timeline, Listen
58
everything from now as far as can go, in order (at least 1
fork and 1 obstacle).
Pass out materials – tell to spread out Move
Repeat instructions as needed (out loud, individually) Work
Circulate & provide help Work
Discuss Timelines
Regroup Students (I know you are not done but..) Regroup
Ask students to show timelines Show timelines
Ask students to point to their fork in the road Show forks
Ask students to point to their obstacle Show obstacles
Get one or two students to state their fork Share ideas
Get one or two different students to state their obstacle
Time permitting, suggest an additional step in the timeline
for another student

Next session and goodbyes
Summary Statement: timelines, forks in the road,
obstacles, timelines into the future
Listen
Connecting Statement: next session is 5, Action Goals
Completed necessary
components of session in
appropriate time

59
Youth Session 5: Action Goals

School: ___ ____________ Grade: _____8______________ Start Time: _____ N Adults: ____________
Teacher: ______________ Observer: __________ End Time: ____ N Students: ___________

Task Y N Detailed Teacher Behavior Y N Student Behavior Y N
Agenda hung
Opening
Welcome Greet participants and latecomers Greet trainer
Say today is session 5, action goals
Last session Ask for what happened last session and why Participate (Timelines,
forks, obstacles)

Reinforce student participation (why: timelines help us
order things from next year to future)
Listen
Bridging Trainer bridges last session and this session (Say: action
goals, timelines, adult images)
Listen
Action Goals
Define term Before we talked about adult images, some were PS and
others were dreams. What is the difference between a PS
and a dream?
Share ideas
Reveal preprinted newsprint definitions (action goals)
Define terms (Goal, Action Goal, An action goal has an
adult PS, closer PS, strategy and when and where actions
occur; this takes the form of a sentence)

Use worksheet to practice Action
Goals
Explain task – write specific action goal for two domains
of adulthood, start with career (Because, I will, By, When-
Where)
Listen
Provide example of an action goal Share ideas
Circulate & provide help Work
Move back to circle Move
Have students read their action goals (starting with
someone who hasn’t yet participated),
Participate
60
Use newsprint to cluster common themes from the career
“Because,” clustering by the “I will” statements (these are
the near possible selves, many of which will involve
school)

Anyone who doesn’t have today action, trainer helps
problem solves suggests working on different peace
Participate
Summarize the cluster themes Listen
Next session and goodbyes
Summary statement: today worked on action goals Listen
Connecting statement: next session we will work on
possible selves and strategies

Completed necessary
components of session in
appropriate time

61
Youth Session 6: Possible Selves and Strategies

School: ___ ____________ Grade: _____8______________ Start Time: _____ N Adults: ____________
Teacher: ______________ Observer: __________ End Time: ____ N Students: ___________

Task Y N Detailed Teacher Behavior Y N Student Behavior Y N
Agenda hung
Opening
Welcome Greet participants and latecomers Greet
Say this is session 6, Possible selves and strategies
Last session Ask for what happened last session and why (helps
narrow down to focus on the possible selves we can
actually start working on now)
Share ideas (Action goal,
Because, I Will, By, When,
Where, give examples that
show these and the idea of
linking far and near future
goals)

Reinforce the concept of action goals (because, I will, by,
when-where) link more distal goals to closer ones with
activities to be done in certain times and contexts
Listen
Bridging Trainer bridges last session and this session (last session
we linked adult images to the next few year with action
that could be done right now, this week). This session we
will focus on the really close future, next year.
Listen
Possible Selves
Defining PS and strategies Introduce new concepts (expected, to-be avoided possible
selves and strategies)
Listen
Reveal preprinted newsprint definitions (possible selves)
Reveal preprinted newsprint definitions (strategies)
Connecting next year goals and
strategies
Show blank Poster Board (left, middle, right) Listen
Provide instructions for next year PS (focus on left only)
Making poster boards

Explain Use of Next Year PS stickers (read and choose 5
expected, 5 to be avoided for you, can write your own,
after read, do not pull off backing until picked best 5,
Listen
62
choose expected for the left top and to be avoided for
bottom)
Show with finger on board. Pass out sticker bag (repeat
instructions read before peeling, only 5, top expected,
bottom to be avoided)
Listen

Pass out boards (repeat instructions out loud) Move, Work
Circulate, check for understanding
Explain choosing strategies connecting to next year selves
Pass out strategy stickers (collect PS stickers)
Repeat Instructions (ask if are doing anything to work on
a PS and if so, use a sticker to say what and place on
board)
Listen
Circulate, check for understand Work
Explains use of red markers, pass out red markers Listen
Explains use of red markers again out loud and
individually
Work
Walk through group continuously, helping, giving
positive reinforcement, clarifying instructions

Explains use of blue markers Listen
Ask for red back in exchange for blue Work
Circulate, look at boards, remark out loud, some possible
selves have strategies we are using now, they are marked
with a red line, some possible selves have strategies we
could be using but are not now, they are marked with a
blue line, some possible selves have no strategies. Then
the strategy space is blank.

Next session and goodbyes
Summary Statement: today worked on possible selves and
strategies boards)
Listen
Connecting Statement: next session we will finish our
poster boards by listing adult possible selves and seeing if
there are pathways from next year to adulthood through

63
current action
Completed necessary
components of session in
appropriate time

64
Youth Session 7: Pathways to the Future

School: ___ ____________ Grade: _____8______________ Start Time: _____ N Adults: ____________
Teacher: ______________ Observer: __________ End Time: ____ N Students: ___________

Task Y N Detailed Teacher Behavior Y N Student Behavior Y N
Agenda hung
Opening
Welcome Greet participants and latecomers Greet trainer
Say today is session 7, Pathways to the future
Last session Ask for what happened last session and why Share ideas (Poster boards,
stickers, possible selves,
strategies, examples
showing idea that possible
selves can link to
strategies)

Put up preprinted newsprint (PS & strategies) from
Session 6

Reinforce concepts (possible selves are possible, not for
sure but not just hopes, can work on them with strategies
right now, strategies are the things we do or can do now to
make them happen).
Listen
Bridging Trainer bridges last session and this session (next year
possible selves and strategies, connected with red lines if
doing now, blue lines if could do).
Listen
Show poster board and point to right (adult possible
selves)

Now we are going to do this part (point to right)
Connecting next year and the
future

Show baggies. Like last session, I will give you a bag of
stickers. These are expected and to be avoided adult
selves. Read the stickers. Pick the best 5 expected and the
best 5 to be avoided. Do not pull off backing until ready.
Listen
Repeat instructions while passing back boards and adult Ask questions/Clarify
65
stickers instruction
Repeat instructions while circulating to look at boards,
positively reinforce effort
Work
Explain markers and distribute. Say: Put the stickers back
in the bag and I will trade you for a red marker. For each
adult or to-be-avoided possible self, if one of the
strategies that you are doing now can help you get to or
avoid it, then connect the strategy to the possible self with
a red line
Work on own
Circulate, repeat instructions, look at boards and check for
understanding
Work on own
As students finish, offer to trade red markers with blue.
Instruction: Look at the strategies you could use but are
not using now. Any of these that could help with adult
possible selves, draw a blue line from the strategy you
could use and the possible self it would help.
Raise hands, swap markers
Circulate, repeat instructions, check boards work
Sharing pathways
Ask students to move chairs, reorient to see each other’s
work
Students are with partners
or in groups

Ask students to show their work Show, Listen
Define pathway (Define connection as pathways (strategy
connects a next year self to adult self)
Listen
Ask students with a red pathway to read the current
pathway (strategy, next year, adult)
Show, Listen, Talk
Ask students with a blue pathway to read the potential
pathway (strategy could use, next year, adult).
Show, Listen, Talk
Reinforce individual participation in activity Listen
Next session and goodbyes
Summary Statement: today worked on pathways Listen
Connecting Statement: next session we will work difficult
puzzles in life

66
Completed necessary
components of session in
appropriate time

67

Youth Session 8: Puzzles

School: ___ ____________ Grade: _____8______________ Start Time: _____ N Adults: ____________
Teacher: ______________ Observer: __________ End Time: ____ N Students: ___________

Task Y N Detailed Teacher Behavior Y N Student Behavior Y N
Agenda hung
Opening
Welcome Greet participants and latecomers by name Greet
Say today is session 8, puzzles
Last session Ask for what happened last session and why Share ideas (Possible
selves, pathways,
strategies, red, blue;
explain idea of strategies
doing now vs. those could
try)

Reinforce student participation (why: some strategies are
linking pathways, they can help us get from next year to
adulthood)

Bridging Trainer bridges last session and this session (sometimes it
feels hard, impossible, so just have possible selves)
Listen
Elicit inoculation/vaccination discussion Share ideas
Use Newsprint to write student ideas
Today will work on inoculating from difficulty by solving
puzzles that feel impossible
Listen
Reveal preprinted newsprint (Inoculation)
Solving Puzzles, Puzzle 1
Provides puzzle activity instructions Listen
Passes out puzzle 1
Reads out loud Listen
Asks students to work in groups to figure out how to solve
(move to groups)
Students are with partners
or in groups

Reinforce cooperative participation, effort, ideas Work in groups
68
Have students regroup (orient to front) to give their plan
of action and talk through how far they got in trying to
solve the problem
Multiple groups share out
loud

Elicit discussion of feelings when solving something
difficult

Have multiple students walk through Puzzle 1 solution
Use Newsprint to write out student plans, possible
solution paths (or have students do it)

Reinforce many ways to solve
Reinforce that seems impossible before trying
Solving Puzzles, Puzzle 2
Get help passing out Puzzle 2 Help w/ passing out puzzle
2

Read out loud Puzzle 2 Listen
Asks students to work in groups to solve
Reinforces cooperative participation, effort, ideas Work in groups
Reinforces responses that move toward problem solution
Have students regroup (orient to trainer) and give their
plan of action and talk through how far they got in trying
to solve the problem
Multiple groups share out
loud

Write out student plans, possible solution paths (or has
students do it)

Write out grid, as a possible solution path, solves out loud
with students
Share ideas
Reinforce multiple ways to solve the problem

Reinforce how impossible seems before trying Listen
Next session and goodbyes
Summary Statement: everyday puzzles, seem impossible,
sometimes need trial and error
Listen
Connecting Statement: next session we will practice
dealing with everyday problems

69
Completed necessary
components of session in
appropriate time

70
Youth Session 9: Solving Everyday Problems

School: ___ ____________ Grade: _____8______________ Start Time: _____ N Adults: ____________
Teacher: ______________ Observer: __________ End Time: ____ N Students: ___________

Task Y N Detailed Teacher Behavior Y N Student Behavior Y N
Agenda hung
Opening
Welcome Greet participants and latecomers by name Greet
Today is session 9 solving everyday problems
Last session Ask for what happened last session and why Share ideas (Inoculation
from difficulty so won’t
get infected with the idea
that difficulty means
impossibility, difficult
puzzles)

Reinforce student participation (the last session’s
definitions/concepts, inoculation from thinking if it is
difficult it is impossible. Can do it, often the really
difficult is not impossible, need to start and answer some
questions.
Listen
Bridging Trainer bridges last session and this session (Today - I am
going to give you an everyday problem and you are going
to think of questions that you need to ask before solving
it.
Listen
Then I am going to ask you for everyday problems you
have and we will use what we learned to map out
questions to ask before solving it.

Everyday Problem 1, Math
Problem

Have students move into groups Students are with partners
or in groups

Ask for Student help to pass out math problem Help pass out math
71
problem
Read out loud math problem Listen

Give students newsprint/sheets to write questions
Ask students to consider the questions they need to ask
themselves to solve this

Circulate, reinforce effort, asking questions Work in groups
Have students move to one big circle Move
Have students hang up their newsprint or elicit their ideas
and write it down
Multiple groups share out
loud

Reinforce many solutions could do this as action goals:
Because (adult image) I will (next year possible self) by
(strategy) when and where during the day____), could do
as timeline, with obstacles and forks, could do as asking
for adult help (positive models, negative forces).
Listen
Everyday Problems 2
Ask students to think about a school problem like the
math problem they have faced or are facing now in
school.
Listen

Have students write down problem, crumple it up and
throw it on the floor in the middle of the room (should
still be in circle)
Writes, Throws paper on
floor/in bag

Trainer provides reinforcement, says: so many problems,
everyone has at least one.

Trainer reads out 4 problems, group selects one Vote
Asks, what are questions to ask Participate
Trainer stands with newsprint to write questions, writes in
clusters by theme
Listen
Uses clusters to link back to the action goal, timeline and
possible self activities and for coming up with forks in the
road obstacles, models to ask for help, negative forces to
avoid

Next session and goodbyes
72
Summary Statement: today everyday problems Listen
Connecting Statement: more inoculation by looking at
what you need to finish high school and get more training-
like college

Completed necessary
components of session in
appropriate time

73
Youth Session 10: Solving Everyday Problems II: Graduation

School: ___ ____________ Grade: _____8______________ Start Time: _____ N Adults: ____________
Teacher: ______________ Observer: __________ End Time: ____ N Students: ___________

Task Y N Detailed Teacher Behavior Y N Student Behavior Y N
Agenda hung
Opening
Welcome Greet participants and latecomers by name Greet trainer
This is session 10, ‘graduating’
Last session Ask for what happened last session and why Share ideas (Solved math
problem and everyday
problems by asking, could
use the PTS activities to do
it.)

Reinforce student participation (why: we all have
problems in school that we need to solve, need to think of
solution paths to those problems)

Bridging Trainer bridges last session and this session (Last session
we began to think about everyday problems by asking
questions and using PTS activities like timelines with
forks in the road and obstacles, action goals, forks in the
road and positive and negative models. Today we are
going to work on another part of the inoculation, working
on a plan for graduating high school)
Listen
Graduating High School
Ask students to divide into groups or turn chairs Students are in
partners/groups

Explain activity (what does it take to graduate) Listen
Ask students types of questions they might answer Provide responses
Circulate and check on groups’ progress Work in groups
Move to one circle Participate
Elicit students responses, write on newsprint
Prompt more questions: What classes, anything else? How
many classes? Anything else? Attendance?

Prompt more questions: Anything else?
74
Behavior/citizenship
Reinforce how much students know
Ask for help to pass out high school graduation
requirements for own location
Students help pass out
Read out loud Listen
Ask for help connecting this to what students already said. Share ideas
Repeats process with a second high school. Participate
Highlights how not all high schools are the same but
graduation requirements are the same
Listen
Facilitate connection of course names and content Participate/Group
discussion

Going to College
Explain task: So we figured out graduating high school, a
lot of you mentioned college, so we are going to do the
same thing, figuring out how to get from high school to
college.
Listen
Work with partner: What do you need for college?
Classes? Grades? What else
Work in groups
Elicits and write responses on newsprint about what need
for college
Participate
Passes out college entrance requirements Review college entrance
requirements

Helps link student statements to college Share ideas
Repeats with another college, reading out loud the
requirements and linking to student ideas
Participate
Makes connections between high school graduation
requirements and requirements to apply for colleges
Listen
Next session and goodbyes
Summary Statement (today worked on what you need to
finish high school and get more training-like college)
Listen
75
Connecting statement to next session (we will have a
wrap-up session. Next session we will review all sessions
and have a party

Completed necessary
components of session in
appropriate time

76

Youth Session 11: Wrapping Up and Looking Forward

School: ___ ____________ Grade: _____8______________ Start Time: _____ N Adults: ____________
Teacher: ______________ Observer: __________ End Time: ____ N Students: ___________

Task Y N Detailed Teacher Behavior Y N Student Behavior Y N
Agenda hung
Opening
Welcome Greet participants and latecomers Greet trainer
This is session 11 ‘wrapping up and moving forward’
Last session Ask for what happened last session and why Share ideas (Get through
high school, graduate to
college)

Reinforce student participation (why: wanted to see what
was needed for high school and college, and begin to
think about what our next year selves and strategies will
be to succeed)

Bridging Trainer statement of connection from last session to this
session and overview of this session (last session we
worked on planning for - high school and college by
knowing the requirements. This is our last in school PTS
session; this is our wrapping up and looking forward
session. I will ask you what we did each session and why,
what was best, what was worst and how to improve. This
is also our PTS party).
Listen
Party

Provide food and other party materials
Eat
Ask to move desks/chairs to circle Move desks to circle
What did we do at PTS
Review Ask for what did in each of the previous sessions Share or participate

Ask for help getting the right order Share (should be different
students)

Write on newsprint
77
Elicit a reason for each session, how connect
Give voice to students Ask for: favorite sessions, least liked sessions, what to
change about program
Share (should be different
students) or participate

Write responses on newsprint
Explain a connection between all sessions
Goodbyes
Goodbyes Say goodbyes
Completed necessary
components of session in
appropriate time

Observer Quality of Delivery (Fluency & Take Home Points) Measures

Session 1: Creating a Group

Take Home Point: You have some skills and abilities to help you succeed in the coming year and others do too.
0 1 2 Bonus Pt (only available if rating is
a 2)
Key point not evoked at all by
activities
Key point was partially evoked
but framing was unclear or
inconsistent
Key point was evoked clearly and
consistently; concepts are
connected to student-generated
examples.
Your expectations and concerns
will be heard, we’re going to work
together

Did the pace, repetition and clarity together converge to create a fluent experience (must be true)?

Message feels untrue. Sometimes feels true, sometimes feels untrue. Must be true
78
Session 2: Adult Images Date____/_____/_____
Take Home Point: We all have images of ourselves as adults in the far future.
0 1 2 Bonus Pt (only available if rating
is a 2)
Key point not evoked at all by
activities
Key point evoked but framing and
connections were unclear or
inconsistent
Key point was evoked clearly and
consistently; concepts are
connected to student-generated
examples.
Adult images fall into four general
domains (material lifestyle,
family/relationship, community
engagement, jobs/careers) and
having a job fuels all of the others.

Did the pace, repetition and clarity together converge to create a fluent experience (must be true)?

Message feels untrue. Sometimes feels true, sometimes feels untrue. Must be true

Session 3: Positive and Negative Forces Date____/_____/_____

Take Home Point: Positive and negative forces make some adult images possible selves. Positive forces help us lay out paths for success and
handling difficulties and setbacks; negative forces do the opposite, layout paths for failure and examples for how not to handle difficulties and
setbacks.
0 1 2 Bonus Pt (only available if rating
is a 2)
Key point not evoked at all by
activities
Key point evoked but framing and
connections were unclear or
inconsistent
Key point was evoked clearly and
consistently; concepts are
connected to student-generated
examples.
Positive forces make you feel like
you can persist in the face of
difficulty; negative forces make
you feel like you can’t persist
when things hard.

Did the pace, repetition and clarity together converge to create a fluent experience (must be true)?

79
Message feels untrue. Sometimes feels true, sometimes feels untrue. Must be true

Session 4: Timelines Date____/_____/_____

Take Home Point: The future is a path, current actions set up which futures are possible
0 1 2 Bonus Pt (only available if rating
is a 2)
Key point not evoked at all by
activities
Key point evoked but framing and
connections were unclear or
inconsistent
Key point was evoked clearly and
consistently; concepts are
connected to student-generated
examples.
Difficulties along the way are
normal for everyone. Because they
are normal we can anticipate them
now and plan accordingly.

Did the pace, repetition and clarity together converge to create a fluent experience (must be true)?

Message feels untrue. Sometimes feels true, sometimes feels untrue. Must be true

Session 5: Action Goals Date____/_____/_____

Take Home Point: We have some control over possible selves, but not hope and dreams. That control happens when we link the future with the
present through specific action goals.
0 1 2 Bonus Pt (only available if rating
is a 2)
Key point not evoked at all by
activities
Key point evoked but framing and
connections were unclear or
inconsistent
Key point was evoked clearly and
consistently; concepts are
connected to student-generated
examples.
When we think of action goals, we
can plan for stumbling blocks and
attend to our choices.

Did the pace, repetition and clarity together converge to create a fluent experience (must be true)?

Message feels untrue. Sometimes feels true, sometimes feels untrue. Must be true
80

Session 6: Possible Selves and Strategies Date____/_____/_____

Take Home Point: Strategies are actions you are taking now or could take to become your next year possible self.
0 1 2 Bonus Pt (only available if rating
is a 2)
Key point not evoked at all by
activities
Key point evoked but framing and
connections were unclear or
inconsistent
Key point was evoked clearly and
consistently; concepts are
connected to student-generated
examples.

Did the pace, repetition and clarity together converge to create a fluent experience (must be true)?

Message feels untrue. Sometimes feels true, sometimes feels untrue. Must be true

Session 7: Pathways to the Future Date____/_____/_____
Take home point: Any strategies I’m doing (or could be doing) now to get to my next year possible self, also help me get to my adult possible self.
0 1 2 Bonus Pt (only available if rating
is a 2)
Key point not evoked at all by
activities
Key point evoked but framing and
connections were unclear or
inconsistent
Key point was evoked clearly and
consistently; concepts are
connected to student-generated
examples.
Connect take home point the idea
of a pathway as a metaphor

Did the pace, repetition and clarity together converge to create a fluent experience (must be true)?

Message feels untrue. Sometimes feels true, sometimes feels untrue. Must be true

Session 8: Puzzles Date____/_____/_____
81
Take home point: Things can seem impossible and difficult, but can be solved by breaking them down looking for alternative ways to set up the
problem.
0 1 2 Bonus Pt (only available if rating
is a 2)
Key point not evoked at all by
activities
Key point evoked but framing and
connections were unclear or
inconsistent
Key point was evoked clearly and
consistently; concepts are
connected to student-generated
examples.
Explicitly connect take home
point to the idea of obstacles,
getting around them to attain
important possible selves either by
using the metaphor of using an
inoculation as protecting students
from misinterpreting or by linking
back to prior sessions.

Did the pace, repetition and clarity together converge to create a fluent experience (must be true)?

Message feels untrue. Sometimes feels true, sometimes feels untrue. Must be true
Session 9: Solving Everyday Problems Date____/_____/_____

Take home point: There are everyday choice points and difficulties that are obstacles to navigate on the path linking near and far possible selves.
0 1 2 Bonus Pt (only available if rating
is a 2)
Key point not evoked at all by
activities
Key point evoked but framing and
connections were unclear or
inconsistent
Key point was evoked clearly and
consistently; concepts are
connected to student-generated
examples.
Teacher makes explicit
connections between what
students say about their everyday
problems and possible selves,
positive/negative forces,
forks/obstacles, action goals and
/or strategies (by writing it on
newsprint/board and reflecting
back, or by asking students to link
to previous sessions).

Did the pace, repetition and clarity together converge to create a fluent experience (must be true)?
82

Message feels untrue. Sometimes feels true, sometimes feels untrue. Must be true

Session 10: Solving Everyday Problems II: Graduation Date____/_____/_____

Take home point: You can identify the steps to get from 8
th
grade to graduating high school.
0 1 2 Bonus Pt (only available if rating
is a 2)
Key point not evoked at all by
activities
Key point evoked but framing and
connections were unclear or
inconsistent
Key point was evoked clearly and
consistently; concepts are
connected to student-generated
examples.
Explicitly reinforce that taking the
steps is difficult—there may be
failures along the way—but
important.

Did the pace, repetition and clarity together converge to create a fluent experience (must be true)?

Message feels untrue. Sometimes feels true, sometimes feels untrue. Must be true

Session 11: Youth Session 11: Wrapping Up and Looking Forward Date____/_____/_____

Take home point: What I do now makes a big difference for attaining my possible selves for next year, for the next few years, and farther as an
adult. Possible selves that are linked to strategies and to time and place of action become action goals. There are forks (choices) and roadblocks
(failures) along the way. It will be difficult and may feel impossible, but asking questions helps break down what I need to find out and helps me
connect to others – positive forces and models – as well as to learn from negative forces and models of what not to do.
0 1 2 Bonus Pt (only available if rating
is a 2)
Key point not evoked at all by
activities
Key point evoked but framing and
connections were unclear or
Key point was evoked clearly and
consistently; concepts are

83
inconsistent connected to student-generated
examples.

Did the pace, repetition and clarity together converge to create a fluent experience (must be true)?

Message feels untrue. Sometimes feels true, sometimes feels untrue. Must be true

84
Alternative Models

Figure S1: Alternative Model #1 No correlated error terms between 1) change in achievement possible identities and change in self
efficacy, and 2) change in off-track possible identities and change in self-efficacy.
Fit indices: χ2 (6, N=187) = 13.64, p=.03; RMSEA=.08 (.021 - .141); CFI=.949; SRMR=.043. **p<.01 *p<.05
Interpretation of experienced
difficulty as impossibility
Achievement possible identities
(plausibility, balance)
School Self-Efficacy
In-class behavior
Homework time
Implementation
Fidelity
Change in Identity-
Based Motivation
Change in School
Engagement
Adherence
Quality of Delivery
Fidelity of Receipt
Interpretation of experienced
difficulty as importance
.21**
Off-track Possible Identities
.16*
.22**
-.22**
.33**
Homework effort
.32**
-.16*
85
Parameter Estimates And Significance Levels For Effects Of Fidelity
Unstandardized Standardized
Parameter Estimate SE Estimate SE p
Fidelity èAchievement PI 0.23 0.08 0.21 0.07 <.01
Fidelity èOff-track PI -0.18 0.10 -0.13 0.07 .09
Fidelity èSchool self-efficacy PI 0.14 0.06 0.16 0.07 <.03
Fidelity èDifficulty as importance 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.07 .19
Fidelity è Difficulty as impossibility -0.03 0.07 -0.03 0.07 .70
Fidelity èClass behavior (direct) 0.06 0.04 0.11 0.07 <.10
Fidelity èClass behavior (indirect) 0.07 0.02 0.12 0.04 <.01
Fidelity èHomework effort (direct) 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.07 .86
Fidelity èHomework effort (indirect) 0.07 0.03 0.07 0.03 <.05
Fidelity èHomework time (direct) 0.41 0.40 0.08 0.08 .31
Fidelity èHomework time (indirect) 0.06 0.13 0.01 0.03 .62
Note: PI=Possible Identity

Parameter Estimates And Significance Levels For Direct Effects Of Identity-Based Motivation On School Engagement
Unstandardized Standardized
Parameter Estimate SE Estimate SE p
Achievement PI èClass behavior 0.11 0.03 0.22 0.07 <.01
Achievement PI èHomework effort 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 .36
Achievement PI èHomework time 0.14 0.38 0.03 0.08 .71
Off-track PI èClass behavior -0.01 0.03 -0.03 0.07 .61
Off-track PI èHomework effort 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.07 .80
Off-track PI èHomework time 0.06 0.30 0.02 0.08 .85
School self-efficacy èClass behavior 0.22 0.04 0.32 0.06 <.01
School self-efficacy èHomework
effort
0.37 0.08 0.33 0.07 <.01
School self-efficacy èHomework
time
0.88 0.52 0.15 0.09 <.10
Difficulty as importance èClass
behavior
0.06 0.04 0.09 0.07 .16
Difficulty as importance 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.07 .93
86

èHomework effort
Difficulty as importance
èHomework time
-0.86 0.47 -0.15 0.08 <.10
Difficulty as impossibility èClass
behavior
-0.14 0.04 -0.22 0.06 <.01
Difficulty as impossibility
èHomework effort
-0.16 0.07 -0.16 0.07 <.05
Difficulty as impossibility
èHomework time
0.29 0.44 0.05 0.08 .52
87

Figure S2: Alternative Model #2 Only Adherence is used as a measure of fidelity:
Fit indices: χ2 (4, N=187) = 7.50, p=.11; RMSEA=.07 (.000 - .143); CFI=.976; SRMR=.031.
**p<.01 *p<.05 ^p<.10

Interpretation of experienced
difficulty as impossibility
Achievement possible identities
(plausibility, balance)
School Self-Efficacy
In-class behavior
Homework time
Adherence
Change in Identity-
Based Motivation
Change in School
Engagement
Teacher behavior
Student behavior
Interpretation of experienced
difficulty as importance
Off-track Possible Identities
.22**
-.23**
.33**
Homework effort
.33**
-.16*
.13^
-.14^
88
Parameter Estimates And Significance Levels For Effects Of Adherence
Unstandardized Standardized
Parameter Estimate SE Estimate SE p
Adherence èAchievement PI 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.07 <.10
Adherence èOff-track PI -0.01 0.01 -0.14 0.07 <.10
Adherence èSchool self-efficacy PI 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.07 .54
Adherence èInterpretation of
difficulty as importance
0.01 0.01 0.08 0.07 .26
Adherence èInterpretation of
difficulty as impossibility
0.00 0.01 .06 0.07 .39
Adherence èClass behavior (direct) 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.06 .17
Adherence èClass behavior (indirect) 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 .29
Adherence èHomework effort
(direct)
0.00 0.01 0.04 0.07 .55
Adherence èHomework effort
(indirect)
0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 .76
Adherence èHomework time (direct) 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.07 .34
Adherence èHomework time
(indirect)
0.00 0.01 -0.00 0.02 .98
Note: PI=Possible Identity

Parameter Estimates And Significance Levels For Direct Effects Of Identity-Based Motivation On School Engagement
Unstandardized Standardized
Parameter Estimate SE Estimate SE p
Achievement PI èClass behavior 0.11 0.03 0.22 0.07 <.01
Achievement PI èHomework effort 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 .40
Achievement PI èHomework time 0.16 0.38 0.03 0.08 .68
Off-track PI èClass behavior -0.01 0.03 -0.03 0.07 .66
Off-track PI èHomework effort 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.07 .73
Off-track PI èHomework time 0.08 0.30 0.02 0.08 .81
School self-efficacy èClass behavior 0.22 0.04 0.33 0.06 <.01
School self-efficacy èHomework
effort
0.37 0.08 0.33 0.07 <.01
89

School self-efficacy èHomework
time
0.92 0.52 0.15 0.09 <.10
Interpretation of difficulty as
importance èClass behavior
0.06 0.04 0.10 0.07 .14
Interpretation of difficulty as
importance èHomework effort
0.00 0.08 0.00 0.07 .96
Interpretation of difficulty as
importance èHomework time
-0.86 0.47 -0.15 0.08 <.10
Interpretation of difficulty as
impossibility èClass behavior
-0.14 0.04 -0.23 0.07 <.01
Interpretation of difficulty as
impossibility èHomework effort
-0.16 0.07 -0.16 0.07 <.05
Interpretation of difficulty as
impossibility èHomework time
0.25 0.44 0.04 0.08 .57
90

Figure S3: Alternative Model #3 Only Quality of Delivery is used as a measure of fidelity:
Fit indices: χ2 (4, N=187) = 5.91, p=.21; RMSEA=.05 (.000 - .130); CFI=.987; SRMR=.027.
**p<.01*p<.05

Interpretation of experienced
difficulty as impossibility
Achievement possible identities
(plausibility, balance)
School Self-Efficacy
In-class behavior
Homework time
Quality of
Delivery
Change in Identity-
Based Motivation
Change in School
Engagement
Fluency
Take home point
CLASS-S
Interpretation of experienced
difficulty as importance
.21**
Off-track Possible Identities
.22**
-.21**
.33**
Homework effort
.32**
-.15*
Teacher support
Classroom support
Teacher style
Classroom style
91
Parameter Estimates And Significance Levels For Effects Of Quality of Delivery
Unstandardized Standardized
Parameter Estimate SE Estimate SE p
Quality èAchievement PI 0.29 0.10 0.21 0.07 <.01
Quality èOff-track PI -0.13 0.13 -0.08 0.07 .29
Quality èSchool self-efficacy PI 0.13 0.08 0.13 0.07 <.10
Quality èInterpretation of difficulty
as importance
0.04 0.08 0.04 0.07 .58
Quality èInterpretation of difficulty
as impossibility
-0.08 0.08 -0.07 0.07 .37
Quality èClass behavior (direct) 0.08 0.05 0.12 0.06 <.10
Quality èClass behavior (indirect) 0.08 0.03 0.11 0.04 <.01
Quality èHomework effort (direct) 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.07 .79
Quality èHomework effort (indirect) 0.08 0.04 0.07 0.03 <.05
Quality èHomework time (direct) 0.04 0.48 0.01 0.08 .94
Quality èHomework time (indirect) 0.12 0.15 0.02 0.02 .42
Note: PI=Possible Identity

Parameter estimates and significance levels for direct effects of identity-based motivation on school engagement
Unstandardized Standardized
Parameter Estimate SE Estimate SE p
Achievement PI èClass behavior 0.11 0.03 0.22 0.07 <.01
Achievement PI èHomework effort 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 .37
Achievement PI èHomework time 0.21 0.38 0.04 0.08 .59
Off-track PI èClass behavior -0.02 0.03 -0.04 0.07 .58
Off-track PI èHomework effort 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.07 .78
Off-track PI èHomework time 0.04 0.30 0.01 0.08 .90
School self-efficacy èClass behavior 0.22 0.04 0.32 0.06 <.01
School self-efficacy èHomework
effort
0.37 0.08 0.33 0.07 <.01
School self-efficacy èHomework
time
0.91 0.53 0.15 0.09 <.10
Interpretation of difficulty as 0.06 0.04 0.10 0.06 .13
92

importance èClass behavior
Interpretation of difficulty as
importance èHomework effort
0.01 0.08 0.01 0.07 .93
Interpretation of difficulty as
importance èHomework time
-0.83 0.47 -0.14 0.08 <.10
Interpretation of difficulty as
impossibility èClass behavior
-0.13 0.04 -0.21 0.06 <.01
Interpretation of difficulty as
impossibility èHomework effort
-0.16 0.07 -0.15 0.07 <.05
Interpretation of difficulty as
impossibility èHomework time
0.29 0.44 0.05 0.08 .51
93

Figure S4: Alternative Model #4 Only Fidelity of Receipt is used as a measure of fidelity:
Fit indices: χ2 (4, N=172) = 6.15, p=.19; RMSEA=.06 (.000 - .138); CFI=.986; SRMR=.028.
**p<.01
*p<.05

Interpretation of experienced
difficulty as impossibility
Achievement possible identities
(plausibility, balance)
School Self-Efficacy
In-class behavior
Homework time
Fidelity of Receipt
Change in Identity-
Based Motivation
Change in School
Engagement
Interpretation of experienced
difficulty as importance
Off-track Possible Identities
.24**
.17*
-.22**
.36**
Homework effort
.37**
-.16*
-.16*
.13*
94
Parameter Estimates And Significance Levels For Effects Of Fidelity of Receipt
Unstandardized Standardized
Parameter Estimate SE Estimate SE p
Fidelity of Receipt èAchievement PI 0.20 0.11 0.14 0.08 <.10
Fidelity of Receipt èOff-track PI -0.11 0.14 -0.06 0.08 .46
Fidelity of Receipt èSchool self-
efficacy PI
0.27 0.09 0.24 0.07 <.01
Fidelity of Receipt èDifficulty as
importance
0.12 0.09 0.10 0.08 .17
Fidelity of Receipt è Difficulty as
impossibility
-0.08 0.10 -0.06 0.08 .42
Fidelity of Receipt èClass behavior
(direct)
0.03 0.05 0.04 0.07 .58
Fidelity of Receipt èClass behavior
(indirect)
0.11 0.04 0.14 0.04 <.01
Fidelity of Receipt èHomework effort
(direct)
-.06 0.09 -0.05 0.07 .45
Fidelity of Receipt èHomework effort
(indirect)
0.11 0.04 .10 0.04 <.01
Fidelity of Receipt èHomework time
(direct)
0.64 0.57 0.09 0.08 .26
Fidelity of Receipt èHomework time
(indirect)
0.09 0.19 0.01 0.03 .62
Note: PI=Possible Identity

95
Parameter Estimates And Significance Levels For Direct Effects Of Identity-Based Motivation On School Engagement

Unstandardized Standardized
Parameter Estimate SE Estimate SE p
Achievement PI èClass behavior 0.09 0.04 0.17 0.07 <.05
Achievement PI èHomework effort 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.08 .65
Achievement PI èHomework time 0.15 0.41 0.03 0.08 .72
Off-track PI èClass behavior -0.02 0.03 -0.05 0.07 .46
Off-track PI èHomework effort -0.00 0.05 0.01 0.07 .95
Off-track PI èHomework time -0.00 0.32 -.00 0.08 .99
School self-efficacy èClass behavior 0.26 0.05 0.37 0.07 <.01
School self-efficacy èHomework
effort
0.38 0.08 0.36 0.07 <.01
School self-efficacy èHomework
time
0.79 0.57 0.13 0.09 .16
Difficulty as importance èClass
behavior
0.09 0.05 0.13 0.07 <.05
Difficulty as importance
èHomework effort
-0.04 0.07 -0.04 0.07 .57
Difficulty as importance
èHomework time
-1.00 0.50 -0.16 0.08 <.05
Difficulty as impossibility èClass
behavior
-0.14 0.04 -0.22 0.07 <.01
Difficulty as impossibility
èHomework effort
-0.15 0.07 -0.16 0.07 <.05
Difficulty as impossibility
èHomework time
0.37 0.46 0.06 0.08 .42
96

Variance/Covariance Matrix of Measures From Full Model
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Fidelity 0.59
2. Δ Achievement PI 0.14 0.74
3. Δ Off-track PI -0.10 -0.22 1.16
4. Δ School self-efficacy 0.08 0.08 -0.14 0.44
5. Δ Difficulty as importance 0.05 -0.01 0.03 0.08 0.46
6. Δ Difficulty as impossibility -0.02 -0.11 0.04 -0.09 0.07 0.50
7. Δ Class Behavior 0.08 0.13 -0.08 0.13 0.04 -0.10 0.20
8. Δ Homework effort 0.05 0.09 -0.06 0.18 0.02 -0.12 0.12 0.55
9. Δ Homework time 0.27 0.19 -0.14 0.33 -0.28 -0.01 0.35 0.78 16.13

Abstract (if available)

Abstract School success is the path to future possibilities

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

People can change when you want them to: changes in identity-based motivation affect student and teacher Pathways experience

PDF

A roadmap for changing student roadmaps: designing interventions that use future “me” to change academic outcomes

PDF

Bridging possible identities and intervention journeys: two process-oriented accounts that advance theory and application of psychological science

PDF

The antecedents and consequences of believing that difficulties are character-building

PDF

Classrooms are game settings: learning through and with play

PDF

Intrinsic functional connectivity of the default mode network predicts the purposefulness of youths’ intended adult lives

PDF

Can I make the time or is time running out? That depends in part on how I think about difficulty

PDF

Difficulty-as-sanctifying: when difficulties build character, purify the self, and elevate the soul

PDF

“What difficulty means for me”: predictors and consequences of difficulty mindsets

PDF

Difficulty-as-importance and difficulty-as-impossibility: unpacking the context-sensitivity and consequences of identity-based inferences from difficulty

PDF

Affirmation and majority students: Can affirmation impair math performance?

PDF

Targeting sexism with cognitive dissonance

PDF

Selflessness takes time: altruistic (but not cooperative) prosocial behavior increases with decision time

PDF

Only half of what I’ll tell you is true: how experimental procedures lead to an underestimation of the truth effect

PDF

A dissonance-based intervention targeting cheating behavior in a university setting

PDF

Expressing values and group identity through behavior and language

PDF

The motivated affective behavior system: a dynamic account of the attachment behavioral system

PDF

When photos backfire: truthiness and falsiness effects in comparative judgements

PDF

Thinking Of Trump and Weinstein: the impact of prominent cases of sexual harassment on perceptions of sexual harassment across countries

PDF

Culture's consequences: a situated account

Asset Metadata

Creator Horowitz, Eric (author)

Core Title Creating a pathway to success: teachers can change their students’ identity-based motivation

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Psychology

Publication Date 03/08/2018

Defense Date 03/08/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag academic attainment,identity-based motivation,intervention,Motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,possible selves,school engagement

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Oyserman, Daphna (committee chair), Monterosso, John (committee member), Schwarz, Norbert (committee member)

Creator Email ejhorowi@usc.edu,ericjhoro@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-347083

Unique identifier UC11255861

Identifier etd-HorowitzEr-5132.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-347083 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-HorowitzEr-5132.pdf

Dmrecord 347083

Document Type Thesis

Rights Horowitz, Eric

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA