Student Motivation Scale 0

Martin, A.J. (2001). The Student Motivation Scale: A tool for measuring and enhancing motivation. Australian

Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 11, 1-20.

This article may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the journal. It is not the copy of

record.
 Student Motivation Scale 1

The Student Motivation Scale: A Tool for Measuring and Enhancing Motivation

Andrew J. Martin
AJ Martin Research

Running Head: The Student Motivation Scale

Author Note
Requests for further information about this investigation should be sent to Dr Andrew Martin, AJ
Martin Research, PO Box 380 Summer Hill, New South Wales, Australia, 2130. E-Mail:
andrew@ajmartinresearch.com.
 Student Motivation Scale 2

The Student Motivation Scale: A Tool for Measuring and Enhancing Motivation

Abstract

This paper assesses the psychometric properties of the Student Motivation Scale, an instrument
measuring school students’ motivation. Motivation is assessed through nine measures, separated into
what are referred to as boosters and guzzlers. Boosters are constructs that reflect adaptive motivation
and guzzlers are constructs that reflect less adaptive motivation. Boosters are subsumed by thoughts
(self-belief, learning focus, value of schooling) and behaviours (persistence and planning and
monitoring). Guzzlers are subsumed by thoughts or feelings (low control and anxiety) and behaviours
(avoidance and self-sabotage). Data show that the Student Motivation Scale has a clear factor structure
reflecting the hypothesised five boosters and four guzzlers, is reliable, and correlated with achievement.
Gender and year level differences also emerge: girls are significantly more learning focused and engage
in more planning and monitoring than boys; girls are significantly more anxious than boys; Year 9
students are significantly lower than Year 10 and Year 11 students in learning focus, significantly
higher than Year 11 students in avoidance, and significantly higher than Year 10 and Year 11 students
in self-sabotage. Strategies for intervention are discussed in the context of these findings and the issue
of academic resilience is introduced as an additional aspect of motivation that the Student Motivation
Scale is able to assess.
 Student Motivation Scale 3

Introduction
Motivation is students’ energy and drive to learn, work hard, and achieve at school. There are
many instruments that measure student motivation. For the most part, however, they tend to reflect only
a single dimension of motivation underpinned by a single theoretical perspective. Thus, for example,
there are instruments measuring students’ attributions reflecting attribution theory (eg. the
Multidimensional Multiattributional Causality Scale – Lefcourt, Von Baeyer, Ware, & Cox, 1979),
instruments measuring control reflecting control theory (eg. Multidimensional Measure of Children’s
Perceptions of Control – Connell, 1985), instruments measuring self-concept reflecting theory relevant
to self-concept and the self system (eg. Self Description Questionnaire – Marsh, 1990), instruments
measuring performance orientation reflecting motivation orientation theory (eg. Motivation Orientation
Scale – Nicholls, 1989), and instruments measuring planning and monitoring, reflecting self-regulation
theory (eg. Cognitive Engagement Scale – Miller, Greene, Montalvo, Ravindran, and Nichols, 1996). The
fact that a number of theoretical perspectives exist reflects the multidimensionality of motivation and these
instruments have been pivotal to unravelling this multidimensionality.
However, from the perspective of an educator or counsellor seeking to enhance students’ motivation,
instruments reflecting single theoretical perspectives will yield directions for intervention that target only a
few (at best) dimensions of motivation. There is, therefore, a need for an instrument that can draw together
a number of theoretical perspectives and which can efficiently and effectively measure aspects of
motivation that reflect its multidimensionality. The Student Motivation Scale1 is an instrument that seeks to
do this. This paper explores the psychometric properties of the Student Motivation Scale.
Pivotal theoretical contributions to motivation
There are a number of theoretical contributions to our understanding of motivation that are
important to represent in an encompassing measure of motivation. These are need achievement theory,
self-worth motivation theory, self-efficacy theory, expectancy x value theory, attribution theory,
control theory, and motivation orientation theory. Taken together, these theories tell us (a) why
students do what they do, (b) how they do it, and (c) their confidence in being able to do it. When
educators and counsellors understand these three dimensions, they are able to better understand
students’ motivation, and as a consequence, are in a strong position to enhance their motivation.
Need achievement and self-worth motivation theory
From a need achievement perspective, students can be broadly characterised in terms of their
motive to avoid failure and approach success (Atkinson 1957; see also McClelland, 1965). Need
 Student Motivation Scale 4

achievement theory has more recently been revisited from a self-worth motivation perspective
(Covington, 1992) which focuses on students’ need to protect their self-worth. According to the self-
worth theory of motivation, the need to protect self-worth arises primarily from a fear of failure and the
implications this failure may have for one’s private and public sense of ability and subsequent self-
worth.
The tendency for students to avoid failure and protect their self-worth has been shown to reflect
itself in two ways in students’ lives: avoidance and self-sabotage (Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 2001, in
press). These in turn have been shown to impact on students’ motivation and achievement. From need
achievement and self-worth motivation perspectives, then, avoidance and self-sabotage are two
constructs important to measure when assessing students’ motivation. Also relevant to any discussion
of need achievement and self-worth motivation is the issue of anxiety, which arises from a student’s
fear of failure and uncertainty about their ability to perform (Alpert & Haber, 1960).
Attribution and control theory
According to attribution theory, the causes individuals attribute to events can determine how they
behave on future occasions. The perceived cause of an outcome is hypothesised to vary primarily along
three dimensions: locus, stability, and controllability (Weiner, Frieze, Kukla, Reed, Rest, &
Rosenbaum, 1971; Weiner, 1985). Together, they provide the individual with information about the
controllability of future events. In an achievement context, control refers to the extent to which
individuals feel they are able to avoid failure and achieve success. Students who feel they have little or
no control over outcomes are increasingly uncertain as to whether they can avoid failure or bring about
success. In response to this, they may engage in counterproductive behaviour (eg. self sabotage) or may
give up altogether (eg. become learned helpless). Patrick, Skinner, and Connell (1993) found that
perceived control strongly predicted students’ persistence, attention, effort, and participation. Harter
and Connell (1984) found that uncertain control was negatively correlated with achievement, mastery
motivation, competence evaluation, and competence affect (feeling good about one’s work). Similarly,
Connell (1985) reported that students high on an uncertain control dimension were likely to score
significantly lower on IQ tests and teachers’ ratings of competence. These students were also low in
mastery orientation, perceived competence, and autonomous judgement. Taken together, this evidence
suggests that students low in perceived control are not inclined to engage in behaviour consistent with
an adaptive achievement orientation. From attribution and control theory perspectives, then, control is a
construct important to measure when assessing students’ motivation.
 Student Motivation Scale 5

Self-efficacy and expectancy x value theory

Self-efficacy (a) constitutes a generative capacity such that students high in self-efficacy tend to
generate and test alternative courses of action when they do not meet with initial success, (b) enhances
students’ functioning through elevated levels of effort and persistence, and (c) enhances students’
ability to deal with a problem situation by influencing cognitive and emotional processes related to the
situation (Bandura 1986, 1997). Students low in self-efficacy tend to dwell on their deficiencies and
view situations as more difficult than they really are (Bandura 1986, 1997). It is not surprising, then,
that self-efficacy and self-belief have been linked to such outcomes as self-regulation, effort,
persistence, and achievement (Marsh, 1990; Martin & Debus, 1998; Meece, Wigfield, & Eccles, 1990;
Pintrich & Blumenfeld, 1985; Schunk, 1990; Skinner, Wellborn, & Connell, 1990). Self-belief is,
therefore, a construct directly relevant to students’ motivation and achievement.
Another way of conceptualising self-belief is in terms of expectancy: students who believe they
are capable of mastering their schoolwork also have positive expectations for success. Much along the
lines of self-belief, students’ expectations for academic outcomes have been found to be strongly
connected to their motivation and achievement. What further contributes to students’ motivation is their
valuing of a task. Moreover, the interaction of their expectations and their valuing of a given task
predict their motivation on it such that those with high expectations and who also value the task are
most motivated to do it. This interaction is conceptualised in expectancy x value theory (Eccles, 1983;
Wigfield 1994). Another important component of motivation, then, is value of schooling and tasks
within it.
Motivation orientation theory
Motivation orientation is the individual’s focus on the task at hand (learning focus) or on how he
or she is performing on it (performance focus). Students’ task orientation (learning focus) is the focus
in this paper. Task-orientation or learning focus refer to the tendency of students to feel successful and
gain satisfaction in mastering what they have set out to do (Duda & Nicholls, 1992; Nicholls, 1989).
Learning-focused students are motivated to attain mastery rather than outperform others. They view
tasks in terms of effort rather than ability and failure is seen as diagnostic feedback that can lead to
improvement at a later time (Middleton & Midgley, 1997). Because of this effort and mastery
orientation, learning-focused students are not so threatened by failure because failure reflects on their
effort rather than their ability. It has been found that learning-focused students choose challenging tasks
(reflecting optimism) and are less inclined to worry about performance (Duda, 1992). Learning focus is
positively associated with the practice of mastery strategies and negatively correlated with avoidance
 Student Motivation Scale 6

strategies (Lochbaum & Roberts, 1993). Learning focus, then, appears to be a critical element of
students’ motivation. Importantly, the means by which a learning focus is often operationalised in a
student’s life is through persistence and self-regulation (planning and monitoring – Martin, 1998).
Simplifying the picture
As outlined above, these theories provide us with an understanding about: (a) why students do
what they do, (b) how they do it, and (c) their confidence in being able to do it. When we understand
this, we understand students’ motivation. However, to be of use to us, this coordination of motivation
theory must be operationalised. This brings into consideration quantifiable measures that reflect these
underlying theoretical perspectives. These measures were identified in the discussion above and are
figuratively represented in Figure 1.
Insert Figure 1 about here
However, in proposing these measures as an holistic approach to student motivation, we are still
left with a complex representation reflecting seven theoretical perspectives which, from a practitioner’s
and student’s perspective, is unmanageable. I therefore propose a simple separation of measures into
factors that enhance motivation and achievement behaviour and those that reduce motivation and
achievement behaviour. These I call boosters and guzzlers respectively. I then separate boosters and
guzzlers into thoughts (and/or feelings) and behaviours. Thus we have booster thoughts and booster
behaviours. We also have guzzler thoughts and guzzler behaviours. We can now reorganise the
framework presented in Figure 1 into a simpler framework as shown in Figure 2. As is evident, booster
thoughts are measured through self-belief, learning focus, and value of schooling; booster behaviours
are measured through persistence and planning and monitoring; guzzler thoughts/feelings are measured
through anxiety and low control; and, guzzler behaviours are measured through avoidance and self-
sabotage.
Insert Figure 2 about here
This conceptualisation, although representing a complex aggregation of theory, is an easy way for
students to understand their motivation and an easy way for educators and counsellors to explain it to
them. When students understand motivation and the broad dimensions that comprise it, intervention is
more meaningful to them, and as a consequence, is likely to be more successful.
The purpose of the present investigation
The Student Motivation Scale has been developed to measure the five boosters and four guzzlers
presented above. The purpose of this paper is to present psychometric data on the Student Motivation
Scale and to explore its effectiveness in measuring motivation. This brings into consideration a number
 Student Motivation Scale 7

of research questions, as follows: What is the factor structure of the Student Motivation Scale? How
reliable are the factors (boosters and guzzlers) underpinning the Student Motivation Scale and what are
their distributional properties? Are there gender or year-level differences on each of the factors? What
are the relationships between the factors? How are the factors related to academic achievement?
Method
Sample and procedure
Respondents were 479 high school students (50% girls; 50% boys) in Years 9, 10, and 11.
Teachers administered the Student Motivation Scale to students during pastoral care time. The rating
scale was first explained and sample items were presented. Students were then asked to complete the
Student Motivation Scale on their own and to return the completed instrument to the teacher at the end
of pastoral care.
Materials
The Student Motivation Scale is an instrument that measures students’ motivation and academic
resilience. It assesses these two dimensions through five boosters and four guzzlers.
Boosters
Each booster falls into one of two groups: booster thoughts and booster behaviours. Booster
thoughts include self-belief, learning focus, and value of schooling. Booster behaviours include
persistence and planning and monitoring.
Self-belief (eg. "If I try hard, I believe I can do my schoolwork well"): Self-belief is students’
belief and confidence in their ability to understand or to do well in their schoolwork, to meet challenges
they face, and to perform to the best of their ability. If students have self-belief they tend to believe that
they can understand their schoolwork and do well in it, do difficult schoolwork confidently, and feel
optimistic about their ability to do their best.
Value of schooling (eg. "Learning at school is important to me"): Value of schooling is how
much students believe what they learn at school is useful, important, and relevant to them or to the
world in general. If students value schooling they tend to believe that what they learn can be used in
other parts of their life, believe that it is important to learn at school, and feel that what they learn at
school is relevant to current events in the world.
Learning focus (eg. "I feel very pleased with myself when I really understand what I’m taught at
school"): Learning focus is being focused on learning, solving problems, and developing skills. The
goal of a learning focus is to be the best student one can be. If students are learning focused they tend
 Student Motivation Scale 8

to work hard, want to learn more, enjoy learning new things, enjoy solving problems by working hard,
and do a good job for its own satisfaction and not just for rewards.
Planning and monitoring (eg. "When I begin homework or an assignment, I get it clear in my
head what I’m being asked to do"): Planning and monitoring is how much students plan their
schoolwork, assignments, and study and how much they keep track of their progress as they are doing
them. If students plan and monitor they tend to get it clear as to what they need to do for their
homework or assignments, plan how to do their schoolwork or study for tests and exams, and keep
track of their progress as they do their schoolwork.
Persistence (eg. "If I can’t understand my schoolwork at first, I keep going over it until I
understand it"): Persistence is how much students keep trying to work out an answer or to understand a
problem even when that problem is difficult or is challenging. If students are persistent they tend to
keep going over schoolwork until they understand it, spend time trying to understand things that do not
make sense straightaway, and keep working at a task even when it is difficult.
Guzzlers
Each guzzler falls into one of two groups: guzzler thoughts/feelings and guzzler behaviours.
Guzzler thoughts/feelings include anxiety and low control. Guzzler behaviours include avoidance and
self-sabotage.
Anxiety (eg. "I worry a lot about doing exams and assignments"): Anxiety has two parts: feeling
nervous and worrying. Feeling nervous is the uneasy or sick feeling students get when they think about
their schoolwork, assignments, or exams. Worrying is their fear about not doing very well in their
schoolwork, assignments, or exams. If students are too anxious they tend to feel very nervous before
tests or exams, worry a lot about failing, feel sick in the stomach, have a racing heart, or sweat when
they do tests or exams.
Low control (eg. "I'm often unsure how I can avoid doing poorly at school"): Students are low in
control when they are unsure about how to do well or how to avoid doing poorly. If students are low in
control they tend to be unsure about how to do well, be unsure about how to avoid doing poorly, and
feel helpless when doing their schoolwork.
Avoidance focus (eg. "Often the main reason I work at school is because I don’t want to get bad
marks"): Students have an avoidance focus when the main reason they do their schoolwork is to avoid
doing poorly or to avoid being seen to do poorly. If students have an avoidance focus they tend to do
their schoolwork mainly to avoid getting bad marks, do their schoolwork mainly to avoid people
 Student Motivation Scale 9

thinking they cannot do it, and do their schoolwork mainly because they do not want to disappoint their
parents or teachers.
Self-sabotage (eg. "I tend to avoid study when an exam or test is coming up"): Students self
sabotage when they do things that reduce their chances of success at school. Examples are putting off
doing an assignment or wasting time while they are meant to be doing their schoolwork or studying for
an exam. If students self-sabotage they do not try hard at assignments or difficult schoolwork, do not
study very hard before tests or exams, and do other things when they should be doing their schoolwork
or studying.
Measurement and statistical analysis
Each booster and guzzler was tested with five items. To each item, students rated themselves on a
scale of 1 (‘Strongly Disagree’) to 7 (‘Strongly Agree’). Each student’s answers to the five items on
each motivation area were then aggregated and converted to a score out of 100. Hence, each student
was assigned nine scores out of 100. If a student answered less than three questions for any given
booster or guzzler, he or she did not receive a score for that booster or guzzler.
Data were analysed using SPSS for Windows. Analyses included factor analysis, tests of
reliability, independent samples t-tests, one-way ANOVAs, and Pearson correlations.
Results
To assess the psychometric properties of the Student Motivation Scale, factor analysis was first
conducted on the 45 items (nine subscales with five items each). This entailed Principal Axis Factoring
with oblique rotation (because factors were expected to be correlated) identifying factors with
eigenvalues greater than unit value. The hypothesised nine factors were identified in this analysis (with
one problematic cross loading of a ‘planning and monitoring’ item on ‘persistence’ that requires further
consideration). This factor structure explained 65% of the variance. Factor loadings are shown in Table
1. Only loadings greater than .30 are presented.
Insert Table 1 about here
Descriptive and reliability statistics are presented in Table 2. Results show that all boosters and
guzzlers are reliable. Distributional data also show that each booster and guzzler is approximately
normally distributed.
Insert Table 2 about here
Gender differences on each booster and guzzler were then explored using a series of independent
samples t-tests. Results are shown in Table 3. Clearly, girls are significantly more likely than boys to
 Student Motivation Scale 10

adopt a learning focus and more likely to engage in planning and monitoring. Girls are also
significantly higher than boys in anxiety.
Insert Table 3 about here
Year-level differences on each booster and guzzler were explored using a series of one-way
ANOVAs. Significant effects were followed up using the Student-Newman-Keuls test. Results are
shown in Table 4. Year 9 students were significantly lower than Year 10 and Year 11 students in
learning focus. Year 9 students were significantly higher than Year 11 students in avoidance and
significantly higher than Year 10 and Year 11 students in self-sabotage.
Insert Table 4 about here
The relationships amongst all boosters and guzzlers were then examined using a series of Pearson
correlations. Results are shown in Table 5. Predictably, all boosters were significantly positively
correlated and either correlated negatively or at near-zero with guzzlers. All guzzlers were significantly
positively correlated. The mean correlation amongst boosters was r=.49 (ie. share a mean of 24%
variance) indicating concurrent validity amongst boosters yet sufficient distinctiveness to retain them as
separate measures. The mean correlation amongst guzzlers was r=.39 (ie. share a mean of 15%
variance) indicating concurrent validity amongst guzzlers yet sufficient distinctiveness to retain them as
separate measures. The mean correlation between boosters and guzzlers was r=-.09 (ie. share a mean of
<0.1% variance) indicating good discriminant validity.
Insert Table 5 about here
Finally, the relationship between each booster and guzzler and achievement was examined using
a series of Pearson correlations. Results are presented in Table 6. Taken together, each booster is
significantly correlated with achievement such that higher scores on each booster are associated with
higher achievement. In terms of guzzlers, students low in control and higher in self-sabotage tend to
achieve at a lower level on one or more of the achievement measures.
Insert Table 6 about here
Discussion
Data show that the Student Motivation Scale has a clear factor structure and is a reliable and valid
measure of students’ motivation and academic resilience. The measures demonstrate good convergent
and discriminant validity and are significantly correlated with achievement. Data also show that there
are significant differences between girls and boys as well as between year levels on some measures.
 Student Motivation Scale 11

Enhancing students’ motivation

Enhancing students’ motivation is achieved by focusing on each booster and guzzler and tackling
these on two levels: the student level and the educator/class level. Enhancing motivation at the student
level involves improving students’ (a) approach to their schoolwork, (b) beliefs about themselves, (c)
attitudes towards learning, achievement, and school, (d) study skills, and (e) reasons for learning.
Enhancing students’ motivation at the educator/class level involves addressing (a) educators’ messages
to students, (b) educators’ expectations for students, (c), how learning is structured and paced, (d)
feedback to students on their work, and (e) classroom goals and assessment.
Strategies for intervention using constructs in the Student Motivation Scale
Because the Student Motivation Scale is theory driven, intervention can be soundly based on
theory. The aim of intervention is to (a) keep high boosters high, (b) keep low guzzlers low, (c)
increase low boosters, and (d) reduce high guzzlers. Students’ scores on each booster and guzzler are
reviewed and target boosters and guzzlers identified for intervention. Intervention for each booster and
guzzler is considered here in turn.
Addressing guzzlers
Because avoidance, anxiety, and self-sabotage are underpinned by need achievement and self-
worth motivation theories, we are able to draw on these to show students how to address motivational
gaps and sustain motivational strengths. A fear of failure underpins these three guzzlers (Covington,
1992) and so this must be tackled. Ways to address a fear of failure include promoting a classroom
climate of self-improvement and personal bests (Qin, Johnson, & Johnson, 1995), showing that
mistakes can be a springboard for success and do not reflect on students’ worth as a person (Covington,
1992), and repositioning success so that it seen more in terms of personal progress and improvement
than outperforming others (Covington, 1992). Reducing anxiety, avoidance, and self-sabotage is also
achieved by enhancing students’ control (Martin et al., 2001, in press).
Students are able to develop a strong sense of control when they see the connection between their
effort and strategy and academic outcomes. Ways to build students’ sense of control include showing
them how hard work and effective study strategies impact on achievement, reviewing study skills in
class, and giving students some choice (within sensible parameters) over lesson objectives, assessment
tasks, criteria for marking, and due dates (McInerney, 2000). Other ways to build control include
providing task-based feedback on their work that makes it very clear how they can improve (Craven,
Marsh, & Debus, 1991; Martin et al., 2001, in press).
 Student Motivation Scale 12

Addressing boosters
Developing students’ learning focus, persistence, and planning and monitoring involves
promoting a focus on mastery (Qin et al., 1995), showing students how effort and strategy are key
means of improvement and accomplishment (Craven et al., 1991), encouraging students to set goals
and showing them how to work towards these, making it clear to students how to break schoolwork
into components, plan how to do each component, how to review their progress, and overcome
obstacles they may experience in working towards their goals (McInerney, 2000).
Developing students’ self-belief involves restructuring learning so as to maximise students’
opportunities for success. Success increases self-belief. Ways to structure learning along these lines
include breaking schoolwork into components so that students can experience small successes along
the way (even if they do not arrive at the correct solution at the end), perhaps individualising tasks so
that challenges match students’ capacities, and repositioning success in terms of personal bests and
improvement rather than outperforming others and being the best (Covington, 1992). Ways to build
self-belief also involve encouraging students to challenge their negative thinking through (a) observing
their automatic thoughts when they receive a mark or are assigned schoolwork, (b) looking for the
evidence that challenges their negative thinking habits, and (c) challenging these thoughts with this
evidence.
Developing students’ value of schooling requires educators to link what is taught with world
events, students’ lives or interests, what they may do when they leave school, and perhaps what they
learn in other school subjects. In doing this, students see the relevance, utility, and importance of what
they learn – this builds a value of schooling. Value of schooling is also developed by showing how
school not only teaches students facts but also teaches them how to think and analyse and that these
help them in many walks of life including their social and personal lives, in the workplace, and on the
sporting field. A value of schooling is also enhanced when educators are a role model and show that
they value what they are teaching (McInerney, 2000).
Academic Resilience
Academic resilience is a dimension of motivation that has not received a great deal of attention to
date. Academic resilience is students’ ability to deal effectively with academic setbacks, stress, and
study pressure in the school setting. In the few papers that do deal with the issue, most are focused on
ethnic minority groups and extreme underachievers (eg. see Catterall, 1998; Finn & Rock, 1997;
Gonzalez & Padilla, 1997; Overstreet & Braun, 1999). However, I argue that academic resilience is
relevant to all students. This is because at some stage in every student’s school life, he or she will
 Student Motivation Scale 13

experience some level of poor performance or stress or pressure. This immediately renders academic
resilience relevant to every student.
Although there has not been a great deal of research on academic resilience, there has been
substantial focus on resilience in terms of broader life events (eg. resilience to disadvantaged
backgrounds, poor parenting, family break-up, mental illness, drug addiction, emotional ups and downs
etc.) in Australia (Fuller, 2000; National Crime Prevention, 1999; Shochet & Osgarby, 1999) and
overseas (Davis & Paster, 2000; Gilligan, 1999; Lindstroem, 2001; Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000; Luthar,
Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000; Masten, 2001; Slap, 2001). This research has shown that resilient young
people have a number of protective factors in their lives. The research has also shown that young
people who lack resilience have a number of risk factors in their lives.
In the school setting, I propose that there are a number of student-level protective and risk factors
that contribute to academic resilience and that these are boosters and guzzlers respectively. I suggest
that students high on boosters and low on guzzlers are resilient to academic setback and deal with
schoolwork pressures and stress effectively. Students low on boosters and high on guzzlers are not so
resilient to academic setback and do not deal with schoolwork pressures and stress very effectively. If
this is the case, then the Student Motivation Scale is also an effective measure of resilience and can
provide important data on what specific areas of motivation need to be tackled to sustain resilient
students and assist students low in resilience. Indeed, this is an area for further research.
Future directions
There are some issues to consider when interpreting findings and which provide direction for further
research. Firstly, the data were derived from self-reports and so it is important that future research
examines the constructs using data derived from additional sources (eg. teacher ratings). Secondly, the
measures relate to school as a whole and not particular school subjects. Future research should test
these constructs in the context of specific school subjects. It may be that the more focused the measures
are on specific subjects, the greater their association with achievement in those subjects and the more
actionable they are from an intervention perspective. Thirdly, the data were collected at the one time
point and so ‘causal’ statements regarding the ability of the measures to predict achievement at a later
time are not advanced. Future longitudinal work is needed.
Conclusion
The proposed yields of the present study are multifold. It has (a) unified a number of important
theoretical perspectives to develop an holistic measure of motivation, (b) clarified the factors
underpinning motivation and positioned them in a simplified model of motivation more amenable to
 Student Motivation Scale 14

student understanding, (c) explored individual differences on each of these factors, (d) validated the
factors against academic achievement, and (e) contributed to the rather small body of work into
academic resilience. Taken together, the findings of the present investigation hold not only substantive
and methodological implications for researchers studying motivation and academic resilience, but are
also relevant to practitioners operating in contexts in which students require assistance to sustain
motivational strengths and address areas of motivation that may be of some concern.
 Student Motivation Scale 15

References
Alpert, R., & Haber, R.N. (1960). Anxiety in academic achievement situations. Journal of
Abnormal & Social Psychology, 61, 207-215.
Atkinson, J.W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking. Psychological Review, 64, 359-
372.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman & Co.
Catterall, J.S. (1998). Risk and resilience in student transitions to high school. American Journal
of Education, 106, 302-333.
Connell, J.P. (1985). A new multidimensional measure of children’s perceptions of control. Child
Development, 56, 1018-1041.
Covington, M.V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school
reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Craven, R.G., Marsh, H.W., & Debus, R.L. (1991). Effects of internally focused feedback and
attributional feedback on the enhancement of academic self-concept. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 83, 17-26.
Davis, T., & Paster, V.S. (2000). Nurturing resilience in early adolescence: A tool for future
success. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 15, 17-33.
Duda, J.L. (1992). Motivation in sport settings: A goal perspective approach. In G.C. Roberts
(Ed.). Motivation in sport and exercise. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books.
Duda, J.L., & Nicholls, J.G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and
sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 290-299.
Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. Spence (Ed). Achievement
and achievement motivation. San Francisco: Freeman.
Finn, J.D., & Rock, D.A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 221-234.
Fuller, A. (2000). Bungy jumping through the ups and downs of life. Journal of Contemporary
Analysis, 72, 25-27.
Gilligan, R. (1999). Enhancing the resilience of children and young people in public care by
mentoring their talents and interests. Child and Family Social Work, 4, 187-196.
 Student Motivation Scale 16

Gonzalez, R., & Padilla, A.M. (1997). The academic resilience of Mexican American high school
students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 19, 301-317.
Harter, S., & Connell, J.P. (1984). A model of children’s achievement and related self-perceptions
of competence, control, and motivation orientation. In J. Nicholls (Ed.). The development of
achievement motivation. London: JAI Press.
Lefcourt, H.M., Von Baeyer, C.L., Ware, E.E., & Cox, D.J. (1979). The Multidimensional-
Multiattributional Causality Scale: The development of a goal specific locus of control scale. Canadian
Journal of Behavioural Science, 11, 286-304.
Lindstroem, B. (2001). The meaning of resilience. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine
and Health, 13, 7-12.
Lochbaum, M.R., & Roberts, G.C. (1993). Goal orientations and perceptions of the sport
experience. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 15, 160-171.
Luthar, S.S., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions
and social policies. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 857-885.
Luthar, S.S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation
and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71, 543-562.
Marsh, H.W. (1990). A multidimensional, hierarchical model of self-concept: Theoretical and
empirical justification. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 77-172.
Martin, A.J. (1998). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism: Predictors and consequences
from a self-worth motivation perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Western
Sydney, Macarthur.
Martin, A.J., & Debus, R.L. (1998). Self-reports of mathematics self-concept and educational
outcomes: The roles of ego-dimensions and self-consciousness. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
68, 517-535.
Martin, A.J. Marsh, H.W., & Debus, R.L. (2001). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism:
Exploring a model of predictors and outcomes from a self-protection perspective. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93, 87-102.
Martin, A.J. Marsh, H.W., & Debus, R.L. (in press). A quadripolar need achievement representation
of self-handicapping and defensive pessimism. American Educational Research Journal.
Masten, A.S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist,
56, 227-238.
 Student Motivation Scale 17

McClelland, D.C. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. American Psychologist, 20,
321-333.
McInerney, D. (2000). Helping kids achieve their best. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Meece, J.L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J.S. (1990). Predictors of mathematics anxiety and its
influence on young adolescents’ course enrolment intentions and performance in mathematics. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 82, 60-70.
Middleton, M.J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An
unexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710-718.
Miller, R.B., Greene, B.A., Montalvo, G.P., Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J.D. (1996). Engagement
in academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and perceived
ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 388-422.
National Crime Prevention (1999b). Pathways to prevention: Developmental and early
intervention approaches to crime in Australia. Canberra: National Crime Prevention.
Nicholls, J.G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Overstreet, S., & Braun, S. (1999). A preliminary examination of the relationship between
exposure to community violence and academic functioning. School Psychology Quarterly, 14, 380-396.
Patrick, B.C., Skinner, E.A., & Connell, J.P. (1993). What motivates children’s behavior and
emotion? Joint effects of perceived control and autonomy in the academic domain. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 781-791.
Pintrich, P.R., & Blumenfeld, P.C. (1985). Classroom experience and children’s self-perceptions
of ability, effort, and conduct. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 646-657.
Qin, Z., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and
problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 65, 129-144.
Schunk, D.H. (1990). Introduction to the special section on motivation and efficacy. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82, 3-6.
Shochet, I., & Osgarby, S. (1999). The Resourceful Adolescent Project: Building psychological
resilience in adolescents and their parents. Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 16,
46-65.
Skinner, E.A., Wellborn, J.G., & Connell, J.P. (1990). What it takes to do well in school and
whether I’ve got it: A process model of perceived control and children’s engagement and achievement
in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 22-32.
 Student Motivation Scale 18

Slap, G.B. (2001). Current concepts, practical applications and resilience in the new millenium.

International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 13, 75-78.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.

Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.
Weiner, B., Frieze, L., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R. (1971). Perceiving the
causes of success and failure. In E.E. Jones., D.E. Kanouse., H.H. Kelley., R.E. Nisbett., S. Valin., & B.
Weiner (eds). Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental
perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 49-78.

Address for Correspondence: Dr Andrew Martin, AJ Martin Research, PO Box 380 Summer Hill,
New South Wales, 2130, Australia. Phone: (02) 9554 7445. E-Mail: andrew@ajmartinresearch.com.
 Student Motivation Scale 19

Footnote 1. The Student Motivation Scale is available from the author upon request
 Student Motivation Scale 20

Figure 1. Central theoretical perspectives and associated measures

MEASURE

THEORETICAL Avoidance
PERSPECTIVE

Self-sabotage
Need achievement and
self-worth motivation
Anxiety

Low control
Attribution and control

Learning focus

Persistence
Motivation orientation

Planning & monitoring

Self-efficacy and
expectancy x value Self-belief

Value of schooling
 Student Motivation Scale 21

Figure 2. Booster thoughts and behaviours and guzzler thoughts and behaviours

BOOSTER BOOSTER
Learning
THOUGHTS focus
Planning & BEHAVIOURS
monitoring

Value of
schooling

Persistence

Self-
belief

Self- Anxiety
sabotage

GUZZLER GUZZLER
Low
BEHAVIOURS Avoidance control
THOUGHTS
 Student Motivation Scale 22

Table 1. Factor loadings for the Student Motivation Scale (loadings >.30)

Self belief Value of Learning Planning & Persistence Anxiety Low Avoidance Self-
(SB) schooling focus (LF) Monitoring (P) (ANX) control (AVOID) sabotage
(VS) (PM) (LC) (SS)
SB1 .32 .30
SB2 .33
SB3 .64
SB4 .63
SB5 .73
VS1 .47
VS2 .66
VS3 .34
VS4 .69
VS5 .56
LF1 .70
LF2 .43
LF3 .43
LF4 .58
LF5 .56
PM1 .42 .30
PM2 .57
PM3 .57
PM4 .80
PM5 .75
P1 .72
P2 .75
P3 .86
P4 .75
P5 .80
ANX1 .52
ANX2 .80
ANX3 .61
ANX4 .40
ANX5 .70
LC1 .64
LC2 .63
LC3 .74
LC4 .71
LC5 .58
AVOID1 .39
AVOID2 .68
AVOID3 .72
AVOID4 .67
AVOID5 .68
SS1 .59
SS2 .79
SS3 .80
SS4 .82
SS5 .83
 Student Motivation Scale 23

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and Cronbach’s alphas

Mean SD Skew Kurtosis Cronbach’s alpha
Boosters
Self-belief 77 14 -.54 .31 .81

Value of schooling 76 13 -.94 1.50 .79

Learning focus 79 13 -.91 1.60 .79

Planning and monitoring 66 15 -.51 .07 .80

Persistence 68 16 -.62 .32 .88

Guzzlers
Anxiety 62 18 -.13 -.45 .82

Low control 51 17 .07 -.36 .85

Avoidance 55 17 .11 -.53 .76

Self-sabotage 37 17 .73 .01 .86

Table 3. Gender differences on each booster and guzzler

Girls Boys
Mean SD Mean SD t (df)
Boosters
Self-belief 77 13 77 14 .04 (470)

Value of schooling 76 13 76 13 .22 (468)

Learning focus 82 12 78 13 3.55 (474)*

Planning and monitoring 69 14 63 16 4.00 (474)*

Persistence 69 16 68 16 .28 (474)

Guzzlers
Anxiety 65 18 59 18 3.46 (474)*

Low control 51 17 51 17 .04 (474)

Avoidance 55 16 55 17 .25 (471)

Self-sabotage 37 17 37 16 .20 (467)

* p<0.001
 Student Motivation Scale 24

Table 4. Year-level differences on each booster and guzzler

Year 9 Year 10 Year 11
Mean Mean Mean F (df) Where?
Boosters
Self-belief 75 76 77 1.76 (2,470)

Value of schooling 73 77 76 2.59 (2,468)

Learning focus 76 81 80 3.89 (2,474)* Yr 9 < Yrs 10&11

Plan and monitoring 65 65 67 .75 (2.474)

Persistence 68 68 69 .25 (2,474)

Guzzlers
Anxiety 59 63 63 1.38 (2,474)

Low control 50 53 50 1.08 (2,474)

Avoidance 58 57 53 4.07 (2,471)* Yr 9 > Yr 11

Self-sabotage 41 34 37 5.22 (2,467)** Yr 9 > Yrs 10&11

* p<0.05 ** p<0.01

Table 5. Correlations amongst boosters and guzzlers

SB VS LF PM P A LC AV SS
Self-belief (SB) -
Value school (VS) .52** -
Learning focus (LF) .49** .55** -
Plan & monitor (PM) .36** .50** .47** -
Persistence (P) .50** .49** .40** .65** -
Anxiety (A) -.15* -.01 .10* .11* .03 -
Low control (LC) -.33** -.18** -.08 -.12* -.17** .52** -
Avoidance (AV) -.04 -.01 .11* .14* .06 .38** .34** -
Self-sabotage (SS) -.29** -.26** -.19** -.17** -.26** .29** .47** .33** -
* p<0.01 ** p<0.001
 Student Motivation Scale 25

Table 6. Correlations between boosters and guzzlers and achievement

GPA Maths English
Boosters
Self-belief .34*** .20*** .36***

Value of schooling .24*** .14* .26***

Learning focus .27*** .12 .33***

Planning and monitoring .17** .07 .21***

Persistence .30*** .19** .30***

Guzzlers
Anxiety -.07 -.01 -.11

Low control -.22*** -.11 -.26***

Avoidance -.03 .04 -.09

Self-sabotage -.38*** -.21*** -.41***

* p<0.05 ** p<0.01 *** p<0.001
Note. GPA=Grade Point Average (mean of final year Math and English results). Correlations based on achievement data for 269 students