A Motivational Model of Rural Students� Intentions to Persist in, Versus Drop Out of, High

A Motivational Model of Rural Students� Intentions to Persist in, Versus Drop Out of, High

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
A Motivational Model of Rural Students’ Intentions to Persist in, Versus Drop Out of, High School Patricia L. Hardre and Johnmarshall Reeve University of Iowa Using self-determination theory, the authors tested a motivational model to explain the conditions under which rural students formulate their intentions to persist in, versus drop out of, high school. The model argues that motivational variables underlie students’ intentions to drop out and that students’ motivation can be either supported in the classroom by autonomy-supportive teachers or frustrated by controlling teachers. LISREL analyses of questionnaire data from 483 rural high school students showed that the provision of autonomy support within classrooms predicted students’ self-determined motivation and perceived competence. These motivational resources, in turn, predicted students’ intentions to persist, versus drop out, and they did so even after controlling for the effect of achievement. Nationwide, policy makers generally set a goal of a 90% high school completion rate (Goal 7.2 of Healthy People 2010 ; United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2000). The most recent data places the current national high school dropout rate at just over 12%, though dropout rates for rural high school students are about 20% and as high as 40% in the most remote schools (Colangelo, Assouline, & New, 1999; D’Amico, Matthes, Sankar, Merchant, & Zurita, 1996; McGranahan, 1994; National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 2001; Stern, 1994). External resources provide students with academic and social opportunities that contribute positively to their achievement and school retention, such as school–business partnerships, field trips, and secondary and higher education collaborations (Colangelo et al., 1999; D’Amico et al., 1996; Stern, 1994). When schools face severe limitations in external resources (e.g., socioeconomic con- straints), as is common with geographically remote rural schools, they must rely on other kinds of resources to support the goals of achievement and persistence. Although some rural students have at-home resources to support positive academic outcomes, many face at-home and community resource deficits associated with low achievement and dropout risk (e.g., low socioeconomic status, single-parent families, low parental education, low parental and community valuing of education; Fowler & Walberg, 1991; Haller & Virkler, 1993; Murray & Keller, 1991). Although teachers do not control students’ out-of-school cir- cumstances, they can nevertheless provide classroom contexts that foster situational engagement, nurture interest, and promote the development of internal motivational resources (Deci, 1995; Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000; Reeve, 1996; Sansone & Morgan, 1992). When teachers support their students’ interests (rather than control their behavior), students are more likely to find value in their schooling and are less likely to formulate dropout intentions (Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts, 1989; Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992; Vallerand, Fortier, & Guay, 1997). Once nurtured and developed in the classroom, motivation can therefore function as a
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 10

A Motivational Model of Rural Students� Intentions to Persist in, Versus Drop Out of, High

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online