Using Observational Data to Analyze Motivationally Supportive Instruction and Culturally Responsive and Sustaining Pedagogies

• In Event: Real insights from real classrooms: Motivation scholars’ experiences designing for and working with observational data

Abstract

We present a novel approach to analyzing classroom observation data in the investigation of the relationships between culturally responsive and sustaining (CRS) pedagogies and motivationally-supportive instructional practices. Motivation scholars suggest that CRS aligns with motivationally-supportive instructional practices (e.g., Kiefer, 2023); however, the empirical study of CRS and achievement motivation is impeded by tensions between research paradigms undergirded by divergent ontological and epistemological assumptions (Nolen, 2020). CRS research emphasizes sociopolitical, historical, and cultural contexts of educational phenomena, often leading to the use of qualitative analytic techniques that deviate from post-positivist traditions (Kumar et al., 2018). In this presentation, we share insights from our attempts to address this concern by adopting transformative pragmatism (Mertens, 2007) to analyze classroom data. This approach used constant comparative analysis, a technique used in grounded theory methodologies (Corbin & Strauss, 2014). Our experiences reveal both the challenges and opportunities presented by embracing new traditions in motivation research.
Building on scholarship that suggests synergy between CRS and instructional practices associated with mastery goal structures (Kumar & Hamer, 2013), we developed a conceptual framework that bridges literature on CRS and achievement motivation. Motivation researchers often use the TARGETS framework (Ames, 1992) to study practices related to learning tasks, autonomy supports, recognition of students, grouping strategies, evaluation, timing, and social supports. CRS research has been guided by numerous theoretical frameworks, such as culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995) and cultural modeling (Lee, 2001). Common themes in CRS relate to teacher praxis (i.e., critical self-reflection, Freire, 2000), teacher beliefs, boosting students’ sense of self, using culturally grounded instructional methods, and nurturing inclusive learning environments. This framework identifies potential synergies from the two bodies of literature (Table 2).
Participants were three fourth-grade teachers, and the primary source of data was video-recorded lessons (seven per teacher) from a curricular intervention study. Observational data were reduced through running records, lesson summaries, teacher summaries, and diagrams. Open and deductive coding were conducted in the first two phases of analysis. The final phase of analysis consisted of axial coding (relating concepts to each other) and selective coding (integrating concepts into a cohesive narrative) and was conducted using two analytic tools, paradigm and the conditional/consequences matrix (Figures 1 and 2; Corbin & Strauss, 2014). Validity in grounded theory is guided by the principle of saturation (Corbin & Strauss, 1990) and was established with a combination of techniques drawn from post-positivist, pragmatist, and critical research paradigms, including cultivating researcher sensitivity, reflexivity, and triangulation (Creswell & Miller, 2000).
CRS research is often guided by epistemologies that reject post-positivist stances (i.e., researcher neutrality and objectivity) (Rogers et al., 2024); by integrating CRS with motivation research, our work introduces a new research paradigm to the field. Insights from this study offer examples of innovative approaches to analysis that deviate from post-positivist traditions. This exploratory endeavor illustrates analytic techniques for examining instructional practice while considering how students and teachers are situated in broader sociohistorical contexts (Nolen, 2020). It also raises concerns about the rigor and validity of motivational research on CRS.

Authors

• Adriana I. Martinez Calvit, University of Missouri - St. Louis

• Haeun Park, The Ohio State University

• Tzu-Jung Lin, The Ohio State University

• Eric M. Anderman, The Ohio State University