See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310102750

Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost

motivation and engagement

Book · November 2016

CITATION READS

1 1,024

1 author:

Andrew J Martin
UNSW Sydney
349 PUBLICATIONS 5,760 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

What is the role of the motivation milieu, self-motivation and engagement in students' academic
achievement? View project

Middle Years Transition, Engagement & Achievement in Mathemat View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrew J Martin on 13 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI)

to boost motivation and engagement
Andrew J. Martin
School of Education,
University of New South Wales, Australia

ISSN: 0263-5895
ISBN: 978-1-85433-744-3
Acknowledgments
Thanks are extended to John Sweller, Slava Kalyuga, Paul Ginns, Paul
Evans, and Rebecca Collie for their comments as this review developed.

Further information
Requests about this investigation can be made to Andrew J. Martin, School
of Education, University of New South Wales, NSW 2052, AUSTRALIA.
Email: andrew.martin@unsw.edu.au

To cite this monograph

Martin, A.J. (2016). Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation
and engagement. Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society.

First published in Great Britain 2016 by the British Psychological Society.

Copyright © The British Psychological Society. All rights reserved.
ISSN: 0263-5895 ISBN: 978-1-85433-744-3

Produced by the Psychology of Education Section of the British Psychological Society.

 Executive Summary

Executive Summary
The escalation in academic demands through (4) Appropriate provision of instructional
school underscores the need to approach feedback; and
instruction in ways that appropriately
manages the burden on learners where (5) Independent practice, supported
possible and feasible. autonomy, and guided discovery learning.

Cognitive psychology has been informative in Although numerous frameworks have

identifying instructional approaches that are recognized the roles of explicit or discovery
directly aimed at managing the cognitive load approaches, LRI is distinct in that its
on students to better help them learn and emphasis is on reducing or managing the
achieve. cognitive burden on students as they learn and
that this can comprise both explicit and
Load reduction instruction (LRI) is an discovery approaches.
umbrella term referring to instructional
approaches that seek to reduce and/or manage LRI is thus termed, framed, and developed
cognitive load in order to optimize students’ deliberately to indicate why we engage its
learning and achievement. various instructional elements - namely, to
deliver instruction and instructional support
LRI encompasses explicit and direct so as to appropriately reduce or manage the
instruction. At the appropriate point in cognitive burden on the learner.
learning, LRI also involves less structured
approaches such as guided discovery-, Essentially, LRI helps build the content of
problem-, and inquiry-based learning. long-term memory and develops a level of
fluency and automaticity that frees up
A major tenet of LRI is that students are at working memory to apply to a given task or
first novices with respect to academic skill problem.
and subject matter and that a structured and
somewhat directional approach to instruction Importantly, fluency and automaticity also
that reduces cognitive load is important for have implications for students’ motivation
learning and achievement in the early stages and engagement.
of learning.
However, relatively little attention has been
Then, as core skill, knowledge, fluency and given to the role of LRI in students’ academic
automaticity develop, LRI emphasizes the motivation and engagement. The present
centrality of guided discovery-, problem-, and review thus considers the relationship
inquiry-based learning. between motivation, engagement, and LRI.

LRI is based on five principles at key points The Motivation and Engagement Wheel is the
in the learning process: framework used to explore LRI and its
motivation and engagement links. The
(1) Reducing the difficulty of a task Motivation and Engagement Wheel comprises
during initial learning; four overarching dimensions of motivation
and engagement, each comprising specific
(2) Instructional support and scaffolding motivation and engagement factors:
through the task;
• Positive Motivation: self-efficacy,
(3) Ample structured practice; valuing, mastery orientation;

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 Executive Summary
• Positive Engagement: planning and Taken together, it is important to recognize
monitoring behavior, task the motivating and engaging properties of
management, persistence; clear, structured and well guided instruction,
• Negative Motivation: anxiety, failure and the implications this has for students’
avoidance (fear of failure), uncertain learning and achievement outcomes. Load
(low) control; Reduction Instruction (LRI) is proposed
• Negative Engagement: self- herein as an effective pedagogical means of
handicapping, disengagement. supporting students’ motivation, engagement,
learning, and achievement at school - and
The review examines each of these motivation beyond.
and engagement factors and explores the
extent to which specific approaches and
strategies under LRI can address them. In so
doing, the review complements the large body
of work into LRI and its achievement effects
with closer consideration of its potential
yields for students’ motivation and
engagement.

In addressing these issues, the review is

organized into five parts.

Part 1. Load Reduction Instruction: (i)

definition and description of LRI, (ii) a
review of human cognitive architecture as
relevant to LRI, (iii) consideration of fluency
and automaticity, (iv) a summary of LRI
effects on achievement, (v) consideration of
LRI for diverse learners and subject areas, and
(vi) identification of specific load reduction
instructional elements.

Part 2. Motivation and Engagement: (vii)

definition and description of motivation and
engagement and (viii) a motivation and
engagement framework for considering LRI.

Part 3. Load Reduction Instruction,

Motivation, and Engagement: (ix) LRI
approaches for specific motivation and
engagement dimensions.

Part 4. Load Reduction Instruction and the

Broader Process of Learning: (x) the role of
guided discovery learning and (xi)
understanding the optimal learning sequence.

Part 5. Looking Forward: (xii) Opportunities

for future research in LRI, explicit instruction,
motivation, and engagement.

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

Foreword
Hazel Francis

T
HE VERNON-WALL LECTURES have intelligence. His work on personality and its
been highlights of the annual conferences measurement was influenced from the start
of the Psychology of Education Section of by the then ongoing work of Gordon Allport
the British Psychological Society (BPS) for in America, whilst that on intelligence devel-
more than 30 years. The current Section oped in relation to that of Cyril Burt and
committee believes that in future the member- Charles Spearman in London, work which
ship would welcome a foreword to each focused on attempts to measure human intel-
published lecture with information about the ligence and skills and to explore their struc-
origin of the series and the lives of the two men ture through statistical analysis (notably
it honours. I am happy to have been invited to factor analysis) of such data. By 1938 Vernon
help since I was personally involved in estab- had held a variety of academic positions on
lishing the series, both men were known both sides of the Atlantic before being
personally to me, and both preceded me in the appointed to the Chair in Psychology at
University of London Chair in Educational Glasgow University, a position he held until
Psychology, held at the Institute of Education. 1947 and from which he advised the Admi-
To account for the origin I go back to ralty and the War Office on the training and
1980 when the Section was simply named the selection of recruits during World War Two.
Education Section of the BPS. As its In 1949 he was appointed to the Chair in
committee chair I was present at a BPS Educational Psychology at London, a position
Council meeting when it was reported that from which he published major works on the
the BPS held royalties from publications by nature and assessment of personality and
Philip Vernon and William Wall and was intelligence. There can hardly have been a
seeking advice on how best to deploy the psychology graduate in the country who did
funds. Given the nature of their contribu- not know of his work and appreciate the
tions to psychology, and the regard in which distinction he made between theoretical
they were held, I suggested the Education intelligence (ability influenced by heredity
Section be consulted, with the result that and environment) and measured intelligence
Council agreed to fund an annual lecture to as descriptive of tested performance on
be named after the two men and to be given various criteria. Having established an inter-
at the Section annual conference and there- national reputation in the field of educa-
after published. But what, may be asked, was tional psychology he retired from London in
the nature of the work being appreciated in 1968 to a Chair in Educational Psychology in
this recognition? It was certainly not the Calgary where he continued to work and
same for both. publish until 1978. In 1979 he published a
When Philip Vernon began his degree major work entitled Intelligence – Heredity and
studies at Cambridge in 1927 he was already Environment drawing together major issues in
acquainted with psychology (his father was a the highly controversial field to which he had
well-known industrial psychologist) and was made such an outstanding contribution.
interested in work on mental development. In addition to his university appoint-
His Master’s and doctoral studies there set ments Philip Vernon was active in the work of
him on a life course as a noted research figure the BPS. He edited the British Journal of
in the fields of human personality, skill and Educational Psychology and was welcomed at

2 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 Foreword

conferences where his presence was much Director of the National Foundation for
appreciated, not least for his quiet openness Educational Research where he facilitated a
and friendly helpfulness. I last heard from number of projects including the National
him in 1985 when we enjoyed an exchange of Child Development Study. The international
letters and he made very apt comments on interest prevailed, however, and in 1968 he
the problems of measurement of complex moved to the London University Institute of
educational skills. Education where, as Dean, he was able to
William Wall, generally known as Bill, work with staff involved in international
pursued educational problems of a different development and in the education and
sort. Like Vernon he was born before World training of staff and students from overseas
War One and began his career in the depres- centres. He maintained such work, particu-
sion years of the 1930s, but (ever an impres- larly with reference to adolescent develop-
sive amateur artist) he first trained as an ment and education, when he was appointed
architect. Lack of employment prospects led to the Chair in Educational Psychology in
him to take a degree in English and to 1972 and later, from 1978, when he retired to
become a secondary school teacher. World work for the Bernard van Leer Foundation.
War Two service brought him into contact I came to know Bill personally when I
with illiterate recruits whose plight so moved moved to the London Chair. He was helpful
him that he felt committed to working to and kind and, true to character, he had me
improve educational provision for adoles- working on a publication for van Leer and
cents. To arm himself for this cause he UNESCO before I had laid the foundations in
pursued a psychology degree at University London for continuing my own work. Bill was
College, London, followed by a doctorate not so much a research psychologist himself
from the University of Birmingham where he as a man with a mission to use research to
had taken a teaching post. After a brief encourage and develop services, particularly
period on the staff of the university his partic- for educationally needy adolescents.
ular motivation and his excellent French As might be imagined, the extensive
took him to a post in Paris with UNESCO to publications of the two men reflect their
work on child development and education. different, but hugely important, contribu-
Here he met the desperate need for tions to psychology and education. I believe
educational development in the post-war the Section made a very good decision to
world. He made numerous international honour the value of psychological enquiry in
contacts and advised on projects in several the context of educational needs when it
countries including the UK, where the BPS drew these two men together in establishing
involved him in assisting local authorities to the Vernon-Wall Lectures.
develop educational psychology services. In
1956 his appreciation of the need for psycho- Hazel Francis
logical research in educational development Professor Emerita in Educational Psychology,
lay behind his appointment to the post of University of London.

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture 3

Can educators reduce students’ cognitive
load and boost motivation and
engagement?
Integrating explicit instruction and
discovery learning through Load
Reduction Instruction (LRI)
Andrew J. Martin
Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) is an umbrella term referring to instructional approaches that seek to reduce
cognitive load in order to optimise students’ learning and achievement. LRI typically encompasses explicit and
direct instruction, and under particular conditions can also encompass less structured approaches such as
guided discovery-, problem-, and inquiry-based learning. Theory and research support the role of LRI in
students’ academic learning and achievement. Relatively less attention has been given to the role of LRI in
students’ academic motivation and engagement. This review examines key dimensions of motivation and
engagement and explores the extent to which specific approaches and strategies under LRI may promote them.
A major tenet of the review is that students are at first novices with respect to academic skill and subject matter
and that a structured and somewhat directional approach to instruction that reduces cognitive load is impor-
tant for achievement, motivation, and engagement in the early stages of learning. LRI helps build the content
of long-term memory and develops a level of fluency and automaticity that frees up working memory to apply
to a given task or problem. As discussed, this fluency and automaticity has implications for students’ moti-
vation and engagement. Importantly, as core skill, knowledge and automaticity further develop, LRI empha-
sises the centrality of guided discovery-, problem-, and inquiry-based learning. Introduced at the appropriate
point in the learning process, these scaffolded exploratory approaches can also be a means to manage cogni-
tive load, generate autonomous learning, and provide a further basis for students’ motivation and engage-
ment. The review concludes by showing how these instructional practices that unambiguously emphasise the
role of the teacher are in fact predominantly student-centered and student-salient. Taken together, it is consid-
ered important to recognise the motivating and engaging properties of clear, structured and well guided
instruction, and the implications this has for students’ learning and achievement outcomes.

INTRODUCTION Henderson, Hope, Husband & Lindsay, 2003).

School is academically demanding and This progressive escalation in challenge places
becomes more so as students move from increased cognitive demands on students.
elementary school to middle school to high At the same time, there are well-docu-
school. Across these stages of schooling (and mented declines in motivation and engage-
year levels within them), there is an escalation ment as students move from elementary to
in homework, frequency and difficulty of and through high school. For example,
assessment, content to be covered, Eccles and colleagues (Eccles & Midgley,
subject difficulty, and competing deadlines 1989; Eccles, Midgley, Wigfield, Buchanan,
(Anderman, 2013; Anderman & Mueller, 2010; Reuman, Flanagan & Mac Iver, 1993; Eccles
Graham & Hill, 2003; Hanewald, 2013; & Roesser, 2009; Wang & Eccles, 2012; see
Kvaslund, 2000; Martin, 2015; Martin, Way, also Booth & Gerard, 2014; Gillen-O’Neel &
Bobis & Anderson, 2015; Zeedyk, Gallacher, Fuligni, 2013) have identified significant

4 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement

declines in academic expectancy and valuing educational landscape. Indeed, from a cogni-
between elementary and high school. Once tive psychological perspective, motivation
in high school, Martin (2007, 2009) has and engagement are recognised as important
shown that both motivation and engagement factors in more complex learning (e.g. Van
decline as students move from early high Merrienboer & Sweller, 2005) and factors
school to middle high school and that this that can increase the cognitive resources
follows from higher levels of motivation and devoted to a task (e.g. Paas, Renkl & Sweller,
engagement in elementary school. Eccles 2003).
and Midgley (1989) proposed that motiva- The present review considers the rela-
tion and engagement decline across the tran- tionship between motivation, engagement,
sition from elementary to middle/high and LRI. It examines key dimensions of moti-
school because the developmental needs of vation and engagement and explores the
adolescents do not fit with the change of extent to which specific approaches and
context and demands in high school – and strategies under LRI can address them. In so
nor do instructional approaches adequately doing, it seeks to complement the large body
meet the needs of the developing learner. of work into LRI and its achievement effects
The escalation in demands through with closer consideration of its potential
school brings into consideration the need to yields for students’ motivation and engage-
approach instruction in ways that appropri- ment. Figure 1 presents an overview of the
ately manage the burden on learners where themes and processes addressed herein.
possible and feasible. Cognitive psychology In addressing these issues, the review is
has been informative in identifying instruc- organised into five parts.
tional approaches that are directly geared to
managing the cognitive load on students to Part 1. Load Reduction Instruction: (i) defi-
better help them learn and achieve. This nition and description of LRI, (ii) a review of
article considers numerous instructional human cognitive architecture as relevant to
approaches that explicitly or implicitly LRI, (iii) consideration of fluency and auto-
appropriately manage the cognitive burden maticity, (iv) a summary of LRI effects on
on students as they learn. achievement, (v) consideration of LRI for
‘Load Reduction Instruction’ (LRI) is diverse learners and subject areas, and (vi)
introduced here as an umbrella term that identification of specific Load Reduction
encompasses instructional models such as Instructional elements.
direct instruction and explicit instruction – Part 2. Motivation and Engagement: (vii)
as well as some less structured approaches definition and description of motivation and
to instruction (e.g. guided discovery engagement and (viii) a motivation and
learning) – that seek to optimally manage the engagement framework for considering LRI.
cognitive burden on students in order to Part 3. Load Reduction Instruction, Motiva-
enhance their learning and achievement. tion, and Engagement: (ix) LRI approaches
To date, the bulk of research into LRI for specific motivation and engagement
approaches has focused on their effects for dimensions.
learning and achievement. As discussed in Part 4. Load Reduction Instruction and the
this review, findings support the role of LRI Broader Process of Learning: (x) the role of
in generating learning and achievement guided discovery learning and (xi) under-
gains. Although learning and achievement standing the optimal learning sequence.
are desirable ends in themselves, there are Part 5. Looking Forward: (xii) Opportunities
other factors that are considered desirable for future research in LRI, explicit instruc-
academic ends. Motivation and engagement tion, motivation, and engagement.
are two such factors salient on the psycho-

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture 5

Andrew J. Martin

Load Reduction Instruction (LRI)

Instruction that appropriately reduces or
manages the cognitive load on the student in
the learning process.

Key elements
(1) Reducing the difficulty of a task during initial learning
(2) Instructional support and scaffolding through the task
(3) Ample structured practice
(4) Appropriate provision of instructional feedback
(5) Independent practice and guided autonomy.

Major instructional approaches

Explicit instruction and guided discovery learning.

Specific instructional strategies

Pre-training; Modelling important processes; Showcasing; Segmenting; Preliminary
(and spaced) reviews; Reducing split-attention; Integrating; Information integration
sequencing; Harnessing different modalities; Avoiding redundancy; Increasing
coherence; Signalling; Organising information thematically; Allowing appropriate
instructional time; Checking for understanding; Worked examples; Providing
templates; Prompting; Personalising; Deliberate practice; Mental practice; Guided
practice; Feedback; Feedforward; Independent practice; Guided discovery learning.

Academic outcomes
Learning, achievement, motivation, engagement.

Figure 1: Organising themes and processes for this review.

6 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement

PART 1: LOAD REDUCTION yields experienced through LRI. LRI thus

INSTRUCTION recognises that explicit and constructivist
Load Reduction Instruction (and Guided learning and teaching are inextricably inter-
Discovery Learning) twined such that the effectiveness of one is
Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) is defined reliant on the effectiveness of the other.
here as a mode of teacher-led instruction Although other frameworks have recog-
that involves the following at key points in nised the roles of both explicit and
the learning process: discovery approaches (e.g. ‘balanced instruc-
(1) Reducing the difficulty of a task during tion’, ‘gradual release of responsibility’,
initial learning ‘enhanced discovery learning’, ‘differenti-
(2) Instructional support and scaffolding ated instruction’ etc; e.g. Alfieri, Brooks,
through the task Aldrich & Tenenbaum, 2011; Fisher & Frey,
(3) Ample structured practice 2008; Marzano, 2011; Maynes, Julien-Schultz
(4) Appropriate provision of instructional & Dunn, 2010; Pearson & Gallagher, 1983;
feedback, and Pressley & Allington, 2014; Tomlinson,
(5) Independent practice and guided 2001), LRI is distinct in that its emphasis is
autonomy (e.g. Adams & Engelmann, on reducing or managing the cognitive
1996; Cromley & Byrnes, 2012; Fisher & burden on students as they learn. LRI is thus
Frey, 2008; Magliaro, Lockee & Burton, termed, framed, and developed deliberately
2005; Martin, 2013, 2015; Rosenshine, to indicate why we engage its various instruc-
1986, 2008, 2009; Stein, Carnine & Dixon, tional elements – namely, to deliver instruc-
1998; Wood, Bruner & Ross, 1976). tion and instructional support so as to
A major tenet of LRI is that learners are at appropriately reduce and manage the cogni-
first novices with respect to academic skill tive burden on the learner.
and subject matter, that a structured and
systemic approach to instruction is important The cognitive architecture of the human
in the early stages of learning, and that there mind: Working and long-term memory
is an appropriate time for guided discovery When developing instructional approaches
and exploratory approaches as novices for students, it is important to understand
become more developed in their learning the cognitive parameters relevant to
(Liem & Martin, 2013; see also Kalyuga, learning. The architecture of the human
Ayres, Chandler & Sweller, 2003). mind – and its memory systems – is one of the
Indeed, guided discovery learning can be core foundations underpinning the rationale
another means by which to manage cognitive for LRI approaches. This has implications for
load for the student in the learning process. the development and delivery of LRI – as well
Accordingly, attention will also be given to as the ordering and balancing of explicit
the role of guided discovery learning as a instruction and guided discovery learning.
part of LRI. As discussed below, following Working and long-term memory are
sufficient explicit input, guided practice and primary mechanisms for learning (Kirschner,
demonstration of independent learning, Sweller & Clark, 2006; Sweller, 2012; Winne &
there is an important place for guided Nesbit, 2010). Working memory refers to the
discovery learning, including with regards to conscious component of cognition respon-
motivation and engagement (Liem & Martin, sible for receiving and processing informa-
2013; Martin, 2013). Once learners progress tion, performing tasks, solving problems,
beyond novice status and have sufficiently etc. – particularly new information, new tasks,
automated core skills and knowledge, they and novel problems. Learning is believed to
are ready to engage in meaningful discovery occur when information is successfully moved
and exploratory learning that have motiva- from working memory and stored in long-
tional properties beyond the motivational term memory (Kirschner et al., 2006; Sweller,

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture 7

Andrew J. Martin

2012; Winne & Nesbit, 2010). Figure 2 shows elements (or even as low as four elements plus
the process, with stimuli received by the or minus one element). Further, this can be
sensory register (e.g. sound, sight, touch etc.) lost within about 30 seconds unless rehearsed
sent to working memory, information in (Baddeley, 1994). Clearly, a vast body of
working memory is encoded and sent to long- instructional material comprises information
term memory, and information in long-term that exceeds seven (or so) elements or
memory is retrieved to working memory to be requires the student to be able to retain
applied as necessary. extended or complex concepts in conscious
If working memory is overly burdened or working memory for more than 30 seconds.
overloaded then there is a heightened risk This reality has led to research and theory into
that instructional content is not understood, instructional approaches that aim to accom-
information is misinterpreted or confused, modate the boundary conditions inherent in
information is not effectively encoded in long- learners’ working memory systems.
term memory, and learning is markedly Fortunately, long-term memory does not
slowed down (Rosenshine, 1986, 2009; Tobias, have the same limitations as working memory.
1982). Given this, there is a need to deliver Long-term memory has vast capacity. Thus, if
instruction, present instructional material, information can be effectively and accurately
and organise learning tasks that do not overly stored in long-term memory and if working
or unnecessarily burden students’ working memory can efficiently access this long-term
memory (Kirschner et al., 2006). memory, successful learning can take place.
It is also the case that working memory is Given this, there is a clear necessity to deliver
limited. Indeed, because a major function of instruction and develop instructional material
working memory in the classroom is to that optimally assists the processing of informa-
process novel, unfamiliar information that tion to long-term memory from working
comes from others (via listening, observing, or memory, the processing of information from
reading), working memory limits are highly long-term memory to working memory, and a
relevant at many points of the learning working memory that is freed from unnecessary
process. This presents a substantial challenge burden or load (Martin, 2015; Paas et al., 2003;
to teachers as effective instruction relies on Sweller, 2003, 2004; Winne & Nesbit, 2010).
them navigating this limited conscious aspect From a cognitive load perspective, learning
of the cognitive structure (working memory) thus very much relies on building long-term
when teaching new material and presenting memory and effectively managing working
novel subject matter (Sweller, Ayres & memory to facilitate this (Kirschner et al.,
Kalyuga, 2011; Winne & Nesbit, 2010). It has 2006; Sweller, 2012; Winne & Nesbit, 2010).
!
been speculated that information stored in According to Kirschner and colleagues: ‘Any
!working memory has a capacity of about seven instructional theory that ignores the limits of
!
!
!Information and
sensory input

Sensory register Encoding

e.g., sight, sound, Working memory Long-term memory
touch
(15-30 seconds) Retrieval (1 second - lifetime)
(1-3 seconds)

Information and
sensory input

Figure 2: Process of sensory, working, and long-term memory.

8 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement

working memory when dealing with novel increase the information held in long-term
information or ignores the disappearance of memory and this is achieved through instruc-
those limits when dealing with familiar infor- tion that optimises the capacity of working
mation is unlikely to be effective’ (2006, p.77). memory and long-term memory to process
Indeed, cognitive load theorists suggest new information efficiently.
three goals for designing learning: reduce Automaticity also demarcates the student
extraneous cognitive load, manage essential who struggles academically from the student
cognitive processing, and foster generative who does not (Martin, 2015). There are
processing (Mayer, 2004; Mayer & Moreno, some students for whom working memory
2010; Moreno & Mayer, 2010). In all cases, it is (or related executive functions) is impaired.
recognised that cognitive capacity is limited These students are more likely to be cogni-
and so it is important to reduce load on tively overloaded than students without such
learners in order to facilitate the learning impairments. Especially for these academi-
process. Notably, when dealing with familiar, cally at-risk students, it is important
organised information held in long-term that teachers implement instructional
memory, there are no known capacity or dura- approaches that reduce the burden on
tion limits on working memory. Thus, working memory.
students are transformed when information is Accommodating the boundary condi-
transferred to long-term memory and this tions of human cognitive architecture as rele-
explains why education is transformative vant to learning thus relies on the teacher to
(Sweller, 2012). structure learning material and learning
activities in a way that reduces ambiguity,
Fluency and automaticity enhances clarity, builds in sequencing, and
According to Rosenshine (1986, 2009), harnesses scaffolds. In so doing, the teacher
fluency and automaticity are vital means of manages the learning and instruction
reducing the burden on working memory. process in a way that optimises learner and
This occurs when information is effectively learning efficiency. Notably, recent develop-
stored in long-term memory and is accessed ments in cognitive psychology that have been
by working memory fluently and seemingly applied to educational processes provide
automatically. This frees up working guidance on how material can be organised
memory that can then be used to process and presented to learners to free up working
new information to long-term memory, to memory, optimise long-term memory, and
apply one’s learning, or for higher order enhance the processing of information from
thinking and guided discovery learning long-term to working memory – and in so
(Rosenshine, 1986, 2009). That is, as long- doing, realise the aims of instruction
term memory builds and automaticity intended to reduce the cognitive burden on
develops, the learner is ready for greater students (Winne & Nesbit, 2010). However,
discovery, exploration, and inquiry as discussed below, as fluency and auto-
approaches to instruction. The pedagogical maticity develop, the cognitive load inherent
approach traversing this process is herein in instruction may be upwardly adjusted (e.g.
referred to as LRI. via independent and guided discovery
Indeed, it is claimed that it is this auto- learning) to match the developing expertise
maticity that demarcates novice learners of the learner.
from expert learners. Expert learners derive
and build their skill by drawing on the exten- Load Reduction Instruction and
sive information stored in long-term memory evidence: Learning and achievement
and quickly selecting and applying it to solve In numerous empirical studies, meta-analyses
new problems (Kirschner et al., 2006). and reviews, the achievement-related merits
Accordingly, the aim of education is to of LRI approaches are evident (Cromley &

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture 9

Andrew J. Martin

Byrnes, 2009; Lee & Anderson, 2013; Liem & working memory and long-term memory to
Martin, 2013; Mayer, 2004). Across numerous effectively process instructional material (see
subject domains and skill sets to be learned, Alfieri et al., 2011; Kirschner et al., 2006).
LRI is positively associated with learning
and/or achievement (e.g. see Cooper & An examination of evidence across a
Sweller, 1987; Klahr & Nigam, 2004; Matlen range of students
& Klahr, 2010; Strand-Cary & Klahr, 2008; In assessing the feasibility of any instructional
Sweller & Cooper, 1985). approach, it is important to examine its effec-
In early work, Adams and Engelmann tiveness across different types of learners. For
(1996) examined the effectiveness of major example, if LRI is to be implemented in the
educational approaches (including those classroom, it is important to show that its
aligned with LRI) on numerous educational effects are positive across the range of students
outcomes. Findings showed that explicit that typically reside in that classroom. Indeed,
instruction, for example, yielded consistently this range comprises (inter alia) students of
positive effects on basic skills (e.g. word high, average and low ability, students with
recognition, spelling, math computation) specific learning disabilities (e.g. dyslexia) or
and cognitive skills (e.g. reading comprehen- executive function deficits (e.g. ADHD), and
sion, math problem solving). Positive effects students at-risk on the basis of such factors as
were also observed for motivational factors socio-economic status (Martin, 2015).
and affective outcomes (e.g. self-concept,
attributions to success). Low and high performers
In a meta-analysis by Haas (2005), the Adams and Engelmann (1996) argue that low
most effective method of teaching algebra and high performers are not qualitatively
was deemed to be explicit instruction. Its different. There are relatively few mistakes
effectiveness was attributed to the focus on among low performers that high performers
appropriate pacing and both guided and are not at risk of making. Instead, variation
independent practice. Borman and seems to be in the degree and amount of a
colleagues (2003) conducted a meta-analysis particular instructional approach that is
of numerous school reform programs. They appropriate for low and high performers:
found that explicit instruction evinced the ‘Work with students of different abilities
strongest systematic evidence of effective- reveals that higher performers require less
ness. In a meta-analysis across 304 explicit repetition, fewer examples, and often less
(direct) instruction studies, Hattie (2009) reinforcement than lower performers. Lower
ranked explicit instruction 26th out of 138 performers may have concept and skill defi-
effects on achievement, placing it ‘among ciencies that the higher performers of the
the most successful outcomes’ (p.205). same age do not have, and these deficiencies
Meta-analysis by Alfieri and colleagues require time to remedy’ (Adams & Engel-
(2011) showed that the specific techniques mann, 1996, p.28; see also Tarver, 1998; Tarver
emphasised under LRI-oriented frameworks & Jung, 1995; Vitale & Romance, 1992).
moderated the effects on achievement. For Accordingly, if a complex skill (e.g.
example, worked examples yielded the reading) is able to be taught to lower
strongest results, followed by feedback, direct performers, the main difference from high
teaching, and explanations. When reviewing performers is that it tends to be easier and
the range of meta-analyses conducted over faster to teach to higher performers (Adams
the past two decades, Liem and Martin & Engelmann, 1996): ‘Given that both the
(2013) concluded that LRI approaches that higher performer and the lower performer
allow teachers to be ‘activators’ of student do not know a particular skill, however, and
learning (Hattie, 2009) are well placed to given that both start about the same level of
alleviate cognitive demands and assist naiveté, both would have to learn the same

10 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement

information, operations, or processes’ education students (Forness, 2001; Forness,

(p.29). Hence the main instructional varia- Kavale, Blum & Lloyd, 1997). In a meta-
tion would be the pace of the presentation of analysis by Swanson and Sachse-Lee (2000),
information, the relative weight given to the substantial variance in academic outcomes for
core steps in explicit instruction, and the students with learning disabilities was related
speed at which they would be moved onto to instructional strategies involving drill-repeti-
guided discovery and independent learning. tion-practice-review procedures as well as
appropriate segmentation of material. They
Academically at-risk students concluded, ‘regardless of the practical or
Students who are academically at-risk will be theoretical orientation of a study, treatments
particularly challenged – and potentially that included the aforementioned instruction
disadvantaged – with the escalation of components yielded high effect sizes’ (p.129;
curriculum and the cognitive load this places see also McMullen & Madelaine, 2014; Rupley,
on them (Martin, 2015). In the ‘regular’ Blair & Nichols, 2009).
classroom, for example, cognitive demands Similarly, in a review of meta-analyses of
will be especially salient for students with students in special education services by
executive function disorders (i.e. disorders Forness (2001), only four meta-analyses met
such as impairments to working memory, the criterion for large achievement-related
planning, organisation) such as attention- effect sizes, one of which related to
deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as explicit/direct instruction. In other meta-
well as for students with specific learning analyses of students with learning disabilities
disabilities such as dyslexia, dyscalculia and and LRI-oriented practice, Swanson et al.
the like. Further, because these types of disor- (1996) and Swanson and Hoskyn (1998)
ders are co-morbid with other disorders, it is found large effect sizes for achievement, as did
not uncommon that at-risk students will Hattie (2009) for special education students.
experience more than one cognitive diffi- With regards to ‘core’ skills such as
culty (Cantwell & Baker, 1991; Tabassam & literacy and numeracy, LRI has been effec-
Grainger, 2002). For example, estimates tive for academically at-risk students. In the
suggest that approximately one-third of area of literacy for students with learning
students with specific learning disabilities disabilities, Jitendra and colleagues (2004)
also have ADHD (Hallahan, 1989; Robins, found significant gains maintained over
1992). Carmichael and colleagues (1997) time and Mastropieri and colleagues (1996)
found ADHD in around half of students diag- found large effect sizes for reading compre-
nosed with a specific learning disability. hension. Similar positive results were found
McKinney and colleagues (1993) found co- for at-risk students and reading achieve-
occurrence over 60 per cent. If the effects of ment (Carlson & Francis, 2003; see also
LRI (or any form of instruction for that Kamps, Abbott, Greenwood, Wills,
matter) are not positive for such at-risk Veerkamp & Kaufman, 2008). For mathe-
students, then there is a danger that an unan- matics achievement and learning disabled
ticipated consequence of its implementation students, Kroesbergen and Van Luit (2003)
is to create and/or widen achievement gaps. and Gersten and colleagues (2009) derived
In relation to at-risk students, it has been moderate to large effect sizes for load
claimed that they can have difficulty under- reduction techniques. In reviewing such
standing or identifying many of the subtleties findings, Purdie and Ellis (2005) concluded
of instructional material and the ‘hidden struc- the results: ‘clearly demonstrate that
ture’ of learning (Ewing, 2011). By making all teaching approaches based on direct
elements of learning explicit, less is hidden. instruction and strategy instruction produce
Consistent with this, LRI-oriented practices positive effects for students with learning
have been found to be effective for special difficulties’ (p.21; see also Farkota, 2003).

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture 11

Andrew J. Martin

Low socio-economic status tive rationale for its effectiveness, and

Socioeconomic status is another dimension supportive evidence for diverse learners and
through which students can be placed at subject areas. As with any instructional
academic risk (Sirin, 2005). In terms of approach, it is the component elements of
diverse socio-demographic groups, LRI LRI that drive its specific and concrete oper-
approaches have shown efficacy for students ationalisation. These core elements are what
low in socio-economic status and those who address the limits of working memory, opti-
are geographically marginalised. For mise storage in long-term memory, and
example, Stockard (2010) showed that enhance processing between the two.
explicit instruction is effective in helping low Across many decades of research, span-
socio-economic students overcome the late ning cognitive and educational psychology,
elementary school slump typical of many there emerges some commonality in the key
students not exposed to enriched contexts. or especially effective elements of instruction
Stockard (2011) also showed that reading that can reduce the burden on students’
among rural students is significantly working memory. As noted above, these
enhanced through LRI approaches, with elements are intended to facilitate the
their reading scores above national average processing of information as relevant to the
following explicit instruction. functions of working and long-term memory –
and thereby reduce cognitive load. As relevant
An examination of evidence across a to the present review, they are also a means by
range of subject areas which to assess the role of LRI in fostering
The effectiveness of LRI must also be student motivation and engagement.
demonstrated across a range of subjects It will be recalled that LRI involves the
taught in the typical educational context, following at some point in the learning and
including the so-called ‘concrete’ subjects achievement process:
such as mathematics and the less ‘struc- (1) Reducing the difficulty of a task during
tured’ subjects such as English. To the extent initial learning
that LRI can be demonstrated to be effective (2) Instructional support and scaffolding
across this range of subjects, its educational through the task
validity can be further established. With (3) Ample structured practice
respect to LRI-oriented practice, explicit (4) Appropriate provision of instructional
instruction has been found to be effective feedback, and
for learning and achievement in subjects (5) Independent practice and guided
such as reading as well as in subjects such as autonomy.
mathematics (Hattie, 2009). In a review of These represent a useful organising frame-
mathematics programs, Przychodzin-Havis work for considering key elements of LRI.
and colleagues (2004) found results Here, these elements are briefly introduced.
favoured explicit instruction in the majority In a section to follow, they are described in
of studies reviewed. In a subsequent publica- detail, including how they may assist
tion (2005) on reading, they also identified academic motivation and engagement.
the effectiveness of explicit instruction
across most studies. In a review of reading (1) Reducing the difficulty of a task during
mastery, findings favoured LRI approaches initial learning
(Schieffer, Marchand-Martella, Martella, Pre-training
Simonsen & Waldron-Soler, 2002). ■ Teacher provides early instruction on
the core elements of a task (e.g.
Load Reduction Instructional elements identifying name, definition, location,
Thus far, the review has focused broadly on function of topics or components) to
LRI as an approach to pedagogy, the cogni- assist subsequent learning

12 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement

Modelling important processes Avoiding redundancy and increasing

■ Teacher demonstrates how to coherence
complete a task; can also involve ■ Where possible, teacher presents
‘think-aloud’ strategies as the teacher information once (avoiding
conducts a task redundancy) and organises material
Showcasing so that extraneous or overly elaborate
■ Teacher shares examples of good material that may be tangential to
practices and good work to provide essential learning is reduced or
clarity on what constitutes good work removed (increasing coherence)
and how to do it Signalling
Segmenting ■ Teacher provides cues to help the
■ Teacher breaks a task into ‘bite-size’ learner locate and focus on the
components (or ‘chunks’) and essential material in a lesson or
encourages students to see the activity (e.g. teacher asks students to
completion of each component as a watch out for a particular event or
success character in a plot)
Preliminary (and spaced) reviews Organising information thematically
■ Teacher and students review prior ■ Teacher identifies a major/main
learning at the outset of a new task or theme in a task or learning activity
lesson; teacher reviews at regular and explicitly connects instruction to
(spaced) intervals (e.g. review prior this theme
week’s learning at the start of each week) Allowing appropriate instructional time
(2) Instructional support and scaffolding ■ Teacher schedules tasks and lessons to
through the task ensure sufficient instructional time
Reducing split-attention occurs in a task, in a lesson, and across
■ Two or more stimuli are integrated the day
where feasible to reduce splitting Checking for understanding
students’ attention across disparate ■ Teacher employs checking strategies
stimuli (e.g. integrate the equation for such as frequently posing questions
finding an angle into the angle itself and asking students to summarise
on a given diagram) major points or repeat explanations
Integrating Worked examples
■ Teacher integrates the focus of a ■ New material is presented to learners
learning task with a meaningful with completed samples of work that
problem (e.g. integrate instruction on show how a particular problem can be
punctuation into a student’s own essay) solved or task is to be completed
Information integration sequencing Providing Templates
■ Teacher integrates two successive ■ Materials are provided to learners that
pieces of instructional material into are formatted or structured to help
the one instructional element (e.g. the learner stay on track or that list
integrate the narration of how the important features to include or
lightening is formed with an address in a task
animation of that process) Prompting
Harnessing different modalities ■ Learners are strategically prompted to
■ Teacher presents different pieces of persist with and complete less
information (or stimuli) in a different structured tasks such as those found
modality (e.g. present an image with a in comprehension and writing tasks
narrative in order to reduce the burden (e.g. students are asked to identify the
on visual and auditory processers) ‘what’, ‘who’, ‘why’, and ‘when’ in a

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture 13

Andrew J. Martin

stimulus passage; this helps them (5) Independent practice and guided
extract specific information or autonomy
articulate an answer or response) Independent practice
Personalising ■ When skills and knowledge become
■ Teacher adjusts wording and/or automated and fluent, the learner is
administration of a task to involve the encouraged to attempt similar
learner in a more personalised and problem tasks independently
individually-relevant way (e.g. Use Guided discovery learning
instructions such as ‘Your goal in this ■ When the learner has engaged in
task is to …’ rather than ‘The goal for successful independent practice,
this task is to …’) he/she is encouraged to undertake
(3) Ample structured practice new tasks, move in new directions, or
Deliberate practice apply learning to ‘real-world’
■ Teacher ensures rehearsal that is problems that further enrich
relevant to a specific skill, usually also learning.
involving feedback, and conducted by
the student on his/her own (For research and reviews supporting identi-
Mental practice fication of these elements, see for example:
■ Learners imagine or mentally Adams & Engelmann, 1996; Atkinson, Derry,
rehearse a concept or procedure (e.g. Renkl & Wortham , 2000; Cromley & Byrnes,
the student studies an example, then 2012; DeRuvo, 2009; Farkota, 2003; Ginns,
turns away and rehearses the example Martin & Marsh, 2013; Hattie, 2009, 2012;
in his/her mind) Hunter, 1984; Lee & Anderson, 2013; Liem &
Guided practice Martin, 2013; Martin, 2013, 2015; Marzano,
■ Learners are systematically guided 2003, 2011; Mayer & Moreno, 2010;
through the steps of learning or Nandagopal & Ericsson, 2012; Nuthall, 1999;
problem solving (e.g. prompting Purdie & Ellis, 2005; Renkle, 2014; Renkl &
responses through a task or providing Atkinson, 2010; Rosenshine, 1986, 1995,
part of a solution for a student to 2009; Schute, 2008; Sweller, 2012; van Gog,
complete) Ericsson, Rikers & Paas, 2005; Van Merriën-
(4) Appropriate provision of instructional boer & Sweller , 2005; Wiliam, 2011).
feedback The present review draws on each of these
Feedback key elements of LRI-oriented approaches and
■ Concrete and specific information is considers how each one may impact students’
provided on the correctness of an motivation and engagement. In doing so, the
answer or the quality of application aim is to extend the large body of work into
Feedforward LRI that has focused on its achievement
■ Concrete and specific information is effects to also consider it in terms of its moti-
provided on how the answer or quality vation and engagement yields. To the extent
of the application can be improved in that plausible connections can be made, LRI
future schoolwork may be considered an instructional approach
that not only has learning and achievement
benefits, but also benefits for students’
academic motivation and engagement.

14 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement

PART 2: MOTIVATION AND that the diversity of motivation and engage-

ENGAGEMENT ment theories and factors has left educa-
It is evident that LRI approaches have tional psychology overly fragmented.
achievement-related merit for a wide range Accordingly, there have been calls for more
of students, including for academically at- cohesive and integrative approaches to moti-
risk students. It is also evident that LRI can vation and engagement theorising and
be effective for achievement across diverse research (e.g. Bong, 1996; Murphy &
curricular domains. Relatively less attention Alexander 2000; Pintrich 2003; Reeve, 2015;
has been directed to LRI and academic Reschly & Christenson, 2012).
motivation and engagement. The limited One recent integrative effort has led to
body of research has suggested positive the development of a multidimensional
connections between the two (e.g. for model of motivation and engagement,
research and reviews see Adams & Engel- referred to as the Motivation and Engage-
mann, 1996; Bessellieu, Kozloff & Rice, ment Wheel (Martin, 2007, 2009) – shown
2001; Farkota, 2003; Reeves, 2010; Tarver, in Figure 3. Although the Wheel is the focus
1998; Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005). in this review, there are other examples of
However, when motivation and engagement multidimensional motivation and engage-
are addressed in LRI research, they tend to ment frameworks and instrumentation such
be considered as part of a range of outcome as that reflected in the Patterns of Adaptive
variables (i.e. not the focus of the research Learning Survey (PALS) by Midgley and
study), and typically they are positioned as colleagues (1997), the Motivated Strategies
somewhat secondary to achievement. It is for Learning Questionnaire by Pintrich,
also the case that motivation and engage- Smith, Garcia, and McKeachie (1991), the
ment research has incorporated LRI Student Engagement Instrument (SEI) by
perspectives. However, this work tends to Appleton, Christenson, Kim, and Reschly
represent LRI as part of a range of peda- (2006), and the Inventory of School Motiva-
gogical approaches (e.g. Bost & Riccomini, tion (ISM) by McInerney, Yeung, and McIn-
2006; Cromley & Byrnes, 2012; Guthrie & erney (2000).
Davis, 2003; Wigfield, Guthrie, Perencevich,
Taboada, Klauda, McRae & Barbosa, 2008; The Motivation and Engagement Wheel
Wigfield, Guthrie, Tonks & Perencevich, There are three primary concepts underpin-
2004); that is, LRI is not often the main ning the Wheel. The first is that motivation
focus in motivation and engagement and engagement factors can be demarcated
research. There is thus a need to purpose- into ‘internal’ (or intrapsychic) and
fully focus on motivation and engagement ‘external’ (or behavioural) factors. The
factors and formally assess the extent to second is that these factors can be demar-
which LRI approaches might address them. cated into adaptive and maladaptive dimen-
sions. The third is that there are seminal
Multidimensional motivation and motivation theories important to represent.
engagement With regards to the ‘internal’ and
Motivation and engagement are defined ‘external’ dimensions of motivation and
here as students’ inclination, interest, engagement, recent reviews of motivation
energy, drive, and effort to learn, work effec- and engagement have identified this as a
tively, and achieve to potential (Liem & common theme through the literature (see
Martin, 2012; Martin 2007, 2009; Pintrich, Martin, 2012b; Martin, Ginns & Papworth,
2000, 2003; Reschly & Christenson, 2012; 2016 for reviews). Reeve (2012) has noted
Schunk & Miller 2002; Schunk, Pintrich & that motivation comprises ‘private, unob-
Meece, 2008). Concerns have been raised servable, psychological, neural, and biolog-

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture 15

 Andrew J. Martin

Adaptive Valuing
Adaptive
Motivation Persistence Engagement
Mastery
orientation Planning

Task
Self- management
efficacy

Anxiety
Disengagement

Failure
avoidance
Maladaptive Self- Maladaptive
Engagement handicapping Uncertain Motivation
control
Figure 3: The Motivation and Engagement Wheel. Reproduced with permission from !
A.J. Martin and Lifelong Achievement Group (www.lifelongachievement.com).
!
ical’ factors whereas engagement comprises ! into ‘internal’ and ‘external’ (or observable)
‘publicly observable behaviour’ (p.151). forms. Accordingly, the Wheel is demarcated
! ! !
Cleary and Zimmerman ! !
(2012) identified ! into motivation (primarily
! ! cognitive; but! also ! !
! engagement as ! comprising
! observable !
emotional) that represents the ‘internal’ and
(behavioural) and internal (cognitive and
affective) factors. Ainley (2012) posits moti-
!
engagement (behavioural) that represents
the ‘external’.
vation as an inner psychological factor and In relation to adaptive and maladaptive
engagement as a factor reflecting involve- dimensions of motivation and engagement,
ment in a task or activity. Anderman and it is the case that, for the most part, a good
Patrick (2012) demarcate engagement into deal of motivation and engagement research
its emotional, cognitive and behavioural and theory emphasises positive constructs
terms (also see Fredicks et al., 2004 for a and positive constructions. However, it has
detailed review). Schunk and Mullen (2012) been suggested that a dual approach to moti-
describe motivation as an internal force that vating and engaging students is required:
energises engagement. Voelkl (2012) identi- enhance adaptive motivation and engage-
fies affective and behavioural factors in the ment and reduce maladaptive motivation
literature and reports motivation as aligning and engagement (Martin, 2012b; Martin,
with the former and engagement aligning Anderson, Bobis, Way & Vellar, 2012).
with the latter. Taken together, these authors Accordingly, Martin and colleagues (2012)
suggest in one way or another that motiva- recommended that the study of motivation
tion and engagement can be demarcated and engagement requires attention to both

16 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement

adaptive and maladaptive dimensions. Their reflect the internal/external and

research operationalised persistence at adaptive/maladaptive tenets of motivation
school in terms of the joint forces of and engagement. The lower order factors
‘switching on’ (engagement) and ‘switching reflect multidimensional psycho-educational
off’ (disengagement). They found that theorizing suggested by Pintrich (2003). The
although the two are significantly correlated four higher order factors are adaptive cogni-
(negatively), they also each accounted for tion, sometimes referred to as adaptive moti-
unique variance in the academic process. vation (lower-order factors: self-efficacy,
Accordingly, the Wheel comprises both adap- valuing, mastery orientation); adaptive behav-
tive and maladaptive dimensions of motiva- iour, sometimes referred to as adaptive
tion and engagement. engagement (lower-order factors: planning
With regards to seminal psycho-educa- and monitoring behaviour, task management,
tional theory, Pintrich (2003) identified key persistence); maladaptive cognition, some-
substantive issues critical to address as moti- times referred to as maladaptive motivation
vational science develops. He emphasised (lower-order factors: anxiety, failure avoid-
the importance of considering and concep- ance, uncertain control); and maladaptive
tualising motivation in terms of seminal theo- behaviour, sometimes referred to as maladap-
rising relevant to: self-efficacy (and related tive engagement (lower-order factors: self-
expectancies), valuing, goal orientation, self- handicapping, disengagement). Each of
determination, self-regulation, attributions, these factors is briefly defined (following
control, need achievement, and self-worth. Martin, 2007, 2009, 2010) as follows:
In line with this, there are numerous theories Adaptive motivation:
and conceptual frameworks describing and ■ Self-efficacy is students’ belief and
explaining academic motivation and engage- confidence in their ability to
ment, including self-efficacy and agency understand or to do well in
perspectives (Bandura, 1997, 2001) that schoolwork, to meet challenges they
suggest inclusion of a self-efficacy factor; face, and to perform to the best of
expectancy-value theory (Wigfield & Eccles, their ability.
2000) suggesting a valuing factor; goal theory ■ Valuing is how much students believe
(Elliot, 2005) suggesting approach (mastery what they learn at school is useful,
orientation) and avoidance (failure avoid- relevant, meaningful, and important.
ance) goal factors; self-determination theory ■ Mastery orientation refers to students’
(Deci & Ryan, 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2000) interest in and focus on learning,
suggesting core psychological needs such as developing new skills, improving,
competence (self-efficacy); self-regulatory understanding, and doing a good job
theories (Zimmerman, 2002) suggesting for its own sake and not just for
planning, task management, and persistence rewards or the marks they will get for
factors; attribution and related control theo- their efforts.
ries (Connell, 1985; Weiner, 2010) Adaptive engagement:
suggesting a control (or, conversely, uncer- ■ Persistence refers to how much students
tain control) factor; and need achievement keep trying to work out an answer or
and self-worth motivation theories to understand a problem, even if that
(Covington, 1992, 1998, 2000) suggesting problem is difficult or challenging.
anxiety, self-handicapping and disengage- ■ Planning (and monitoring) refers to how
ment factors. much students plan assignments,
Accordingly, as Figure 3 demonstrates, the homework and study and, how much
Wheel is organised into higher-order and they actively keep track of their
lower-order factors. The higher order factors progress as they do this work.

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture 17

Andrew J. Martin

■ Task management refers to how The Motivation and Engagement Scale

students use their study or homework The conceptually-oriented Motivation and
time, organise a study or homework Engagement Wheel (Martin, 2007, 2009) is
timetable, choose and arrange where accompanied by multidimensional measure-
they study or do homework, and ment instrumentation – the Motivation and
increasingly, how they manage their Engagement Scale (MES; Martin, 2016) – that
digital world (e.g. self-regulation and is used to assess each of the eleven factors.
impulse control with regards to There are four items per factor, yielding 44
mobile technology while doing items for the MES, each rated on a 1 (Strongly
schoolwork). Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree) scale. The
Maladaptive motivation: MES (and select subscales within it) has
■ Anxiety has two parts: feeling nervous demonstrated sound factor structure, high
and worrying. Feeling nervous is the factor loadings, reliable factors, invariance as a
uneasy or sick feeling students get when function of age and gender, and external
they think about or do their validity with other educational and personality
schoolwork, assignments, or tests. factors and processes (e.g. Bodkin-Andrews,
Worrying refers to fearful thoughts Denson & Bansel, 2013; Bugler, McGeown &
about schoolwork, assignments, or tests. St Clair-Thompson, 2015; Edgar, 2015; Ginns,
■ Uncertain control reflects students’ Martin, Liem & Papworth, 2014; Liem &
uncertain or low sense of control, Martin, 2012; Martin, 2007, 2009; Martin,
typically when they are unsure how to Anderson, Bobis, Way & Vellar, 2012; Martin,
do well or how to avoid doing poorly. Papworth, Ginns & Liem, 2014; Martin, Yu,
■ Failure avoidance refers to a motivation Papworth, Ginns & Collie, 2015; Nagab-
to do one’s schoolwork in order to hushan, 2012; Plenty & Heubeck, 2011, 2013;
avoid doing poorly, to avoid being Tinker & Elphinstone, 2014; Wurf & Croft-
seen to do poorly, or to avoid the Piggin, 2015; Yeung, Barker, Tracy & Mooney,
negative consequences of poor 2013). The MES has also been validated in
performance. other countries such as China, the US,
Maladaptive engagement: Canada, Jamaica, and the UK (Martin & Hau,
■ Self-handicapping refers to behaviours 2010; Martin, Martin, & Evans, 2016; Martin,
that reduce students’ prospects of Yu & Hau, 2014; Yin & Wang, 2015).
success at school (e.g. waste time,
procrastinate, do little or no study,
misbehave in class) in order to
establish an alibi or excuse in case they
do not perform well.
■ Disengagement refers to thoughts and
feelings of giving up, trying less each
week, detachment from school and
schoolwork, feelings of helplessness,
and little or no involvement in class or
school activities.

18 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement

PART 3: LOAD REDUCTION their competence (Beck, 1976, 1995;

INSTRUCTION, MOTIVATION, Meichenbaum, 1974; Wigfield & Tonks,
AND ENGAGEMENT 2002), developing skills in effective goal-
Having identified key facets of multidimen- setting (Locke & Latham, 2002), and
sional motivation and engagement (via the breaking work into manageable and doable
Wheel) and the key elements of LRI (via the ‘chunks’ (Martin, 2007). Such approaches
LRI framework 1. Reducing task difficulty … are aimed at addressing cognition and/or
5. Independent practice), it is possible to optimizing opportunities for success that
conduct a nuanced analysis of how the two are provide a basis for enhancing one’s self-effi-
connected. The approach adopted here is to cacy (McInerney, 2000). With regards to key
consider each of the 11 parts of the Motivation elements of LRI, four are particularly well-
and Engagement Wheel and identify which of suited to promote these processes and
the key LRI elements are likely to promote outcomes: pre-training, segmenting and
them. Essentially, then, the aim is to identify organising information, conducting prelimi-
how the motivation and engagement nary and spaced reviews, and modelling.
elements in the first column (Column A) of
Table 1 are associated with the LRI elements Pre-training
in the second column (Column B) of Table 1. Self-efficacy builds as learning and compe-
Importantly, in considering the links tence develop (Bandura, 2001; McInerney,
between motivation, engagement and LRI, 2000; Schunk & Miller, 2002). Learning and
it is emphasised that these links are indica- competence are facilitated via access to a
tive and suggestive, not prescriptive or sufficient amount of prior knowledge (Mayer
definitive. Importantly also, in addition to & Moreno, 2010). For example, if teaching
the links proposed here, there are other students how a motor works, there may be
plausible links between LRI elements and some pre-training on the main parts of a
different parts of the Wheel (e.g. guided motor (name, location, function of part/s)
discovery learning might also be connected that will assist subsequent learning and
to mastery orientation). The point of this competence (referred to as the ‘pre-training
review is to identify channels of aligned principle’; Mayer & Moreno, 2010, or
relevance between key elements of LRI and depending on how and when information is
major motivation and engagement factors. presented, the ‘isolated elements effect’;
As noted later in this review, empirical Pollock, Chandler & Sweller, 2002). Pre-
work is needed to ascertain which specific training develops prior knowledge (stored in
LRI strategies might explain most variance long-term memory) which occupies fewer
in distinct motivation and engagement working memory resources, leaving more
factors. Findings from these empirical working memory to acquire new knowledge
investigations will further illuminate, add as the motor (for example) is explained more
to, and potentially qualify some of the links fully. Taken together, pre-training helps
suggested herein. maximise the information held in students’
long-term memory, helps organise informa-
Self-efficacy tion that makes it easier to understand, and
The promotion of self-efficacy involves strengthens connections between working
restructuring learning so as to maximise memory and long-term memory (Rosen-
opportunities for success (such as through shine, 1995). Pre-training thus enhances
individualizing tasks where possible; McIn- memory systems that underpin learning and
erney, 2000; Schunk & Miller, 2002), competence, and by implication, helps lay a
addressing and enhancing students’ (often- foundation for a sense of efficacy relevant to
times negative) beliefs about themselves and this learning and understanding.

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture 19

Andrew J. Martin

Table 1: The Motivation and Engagement Wheel and Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) elements.

A. Motivation and Engagement B. Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) elements

Wheel factors
Adaptive motivation (1) Reducing the difficulty of a task during initial
■ Self-efficacy learning
■ Valuing ■ Pre-training; Modelling important processes; Show-
■ Mastery orientation casing; Segmenting; Preliminary (and spaced) reviews

Adaptive engagement (2) Instructional support and scaffolding through the

■ Planning and monitoring behaviour task
■ Task management ■ Reducing split-attention; Integrating; Information
■ Persistence integration sequencing; Harnessing different modali-
ties; Avoiding redundancy; Increasing coherence;
Maladaptive motivation Signalling; Organising information thematically;
■ Anxiety Allowing appropriate instructional time; Checking for
■ Failure avoidance understanding; Worked examples; Providing templates;
■ Uncertain control Prompting; Personalising

Maladaptive engagement (3) Ample structured practice

■ Self-handicapping ■ Deliberate practice; Mental practice; Guided practice
■ Disengagement
(4) Appropriate provision of instructional feedback
■ Feedback; Feedforward

(5) Independent practice and guided autonomy

■ Independent practice; Guided discovery learning

Pre-training may particularly benefit stronger beginning to the learning process

novice or at-risk learners. Here, the teacher and potentially surer footing from a self-effi-
may provide additional instruction to some cacy perspective.
students prior to embarking on new units of
learning. This further ensures that essential Segmenting information
terms and basic skills required for a unit of Martin (2003, 2005, 2010) has identified the
work are known by these students. The importance of competence as a basis for
teacher takes some additional time to building self-efficacy and ‘chunking’ as one
develop this important prior knowledge to effective strategy to achieve this. Chunking
better ensure it is stored in long-term involves: (a) breaking a task into more
memory to help working memory process manageable ‘chunks’ and (b) seeing the
new incoming information (Mayer & completion of each chunk as a success. The
Moreno, 2010) and to ensure the connection first element helps students see the task as
between new information and prior knowl- doable and the second element builds
edge is clearer. In sum, then, novices and competence and efficacy into the process of
academically at-risk students can have diffi- completing the task (Martin, 2003, 2005,
culty in the early phases of learning (Martin, 2010). This aligns closely with ‘segmenting’
2015) and this is likely to impede their sense in the explicit instruction literature.
of efficacy throughout the learning process Segmenting is a way to deal with information
(Martin, 2012a). Pre-training enables a that is complex, multi-part, or substantial.

20 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement

Here the teacher breaks larger units into spaced intervals to reinforce learning that
more achievable segments and systematically will have occurred prior to the previous
presents this information as the learner lesson or lessons. For example, Rosenshine
grasps the previous segment (referred to as (1986, 2009) advises weekly and monthly
the ‘segmenting principle’; Mayer & review. In earlier advice, Good and Grouws
Moreno, 2010; Rosenshine, 1995). (1979) suggested teachers review the
Interestingly, in multimedia scenarios, previous week’s work every Monday and the
learning effectiveness is further enhanced previous month’s work every fourth Monday.
when the pacing from one segment to It is also important to recognise that the
another is under the learner’s control (i.e. value of review depends heavily on the
self-paced; Mayer & Moreno, 2010). This quality of the instructional processes that
signals the importance of the learner’s self- have occurred before it (Stein et al., 1997).
determination through the process. That is, students will require high quality
Segmenting can also be adapted to indi- prior knowledge and a meaningful skill-set
vidual students by adjusting the size and that the spaced review is designed to rein-
number of information segments presented. force. Spacing is also considered a form of
Thus, for expert learners, fewer and larger ‘desirable difficulty’ (Bjork, 1994) in that it
segments may be feasible whereas for novice stretches a student beyond immediate repeti-
learners, more and smaller segments may be tion (that is less difficult) to a more
desirable. In the above-mentioned multi- demanding act of review at a later time
media example (where the pace from one (more difficult; see also Bjork & Allen, 1970;
segment to another is in the learner’s Cepeda, Pashler, Vul, Wixted & Rohrer,
control), the expert learner can move at a 2006). For example, it may be relatively easy
brisker pace while novice learners can move to recall or reproduce algebraic knowledge
at a slower pace. immediately following work on algebra prob-
lems. However, recalling or reproducing
Preliminary and spaced reviews algebraic knowledge one or more weeks later
Reviewing prior learning and instruction requires more effortful and demanding
helps students activate prior knowledge and cognitive application and processing.
understand the subject matter, building
competence, and thus improving or Modelling
sustaining their sense of efficacy (Marzano, Bandura (1997, 2001) makes clear the yields
1998). Review thus forms a mechanism that of students observing efficacious behaviour
not only reinforces the prior knowledge by relevant/significant others to assist the
itself, but also affirms to the learner that development of their own efficacy. Modelling
he/she has the requisite knowledge and skill, relevant behaviours and processes by teachers
thus promoting self-efficacy. Review can be is thus a means for developing students’ effi-
very important at the outset of a lesson in cacy. Thus, for example, teachers might
order to reacquaint learners with prior demonstrate in a passage of text how they
knowledge or material covered in a previous would use procedural prompts to summarise
lesson (Hattie, 2009, 2012). According to key and relevant information in that text
Rosenshine (1986, 2009), teachers adopting (Hunter, 1984; Rosenshine, 1995). Another
LRI approaches will commence a lesson with modelling strategy is for the teacher to
about five minutes reviewing relevant prior engage in ‘think aloud’ exercises. This allows
knowledge. This might include reviewing the novice (student) to observe how an
mathematics formulas or workings, reading expert (teacher) thinks through a process
sight words, revisiting chemical equations, that is otherwise hidden from the student
and so on (see also Hunter, 1984). (Rosenshine, 1995; see also Biggs & Telfer,
Review also has relevance at appropriately 1987). The novice is then better able to repro-

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture 21

Andrew J. Martin

duce that function and thereby build efficacy learning material or task (Martin, 2003,
following from this sense of competence. 2010). For example, punctuation is often
Modelling can be adapted in the class- taught in isolation from students’ editing of
room to make the most of the opportunities their own essays and assessment tasks. In such
a typical classroom composition may offer. cases, an opportunity to build a sense of rele-
For example, in addition to the teacher vance with regards to punctuation is lost.
engaging in think-aloud exercises to provide Integration might involve students being
insight into how an expert thinks through a presented with an explicit punctuation check
mathematics problem (for example), there list (e.g. capitalise the start of a sentence, end
may be opportunities for more advanced questions with a question mark etc.) that they
learners to also provide think aloud exam- work through after they have written an
ples as they work alongside novice learners essay. Thus, there is structured and scaf-
(Rosenshine, 1995). Or, more developed folded support for punctuation built into the
learners may demonstrate to novices how student’s own essay writing activity that
they read a comprehension passage using increases the perceived relevance and
procedural prompts (such as ‘who’, ‘what’, personal meaning associated with the punc-
‘when’, ‘why’) to comprehend or summarise tuation activity.
it. In each case, modelling is used to build Notably, integration is the reverse of some
efficacy in the novice learner. As described approaches to pre-training and segmenting
below, worked examples (Sweller, 2012) can described above, especially with regards to
play a similar role in modelling a problem the ‘isolated elements effect’ (Pollock et al.,
solving procedure. 2002). Whether elements should be isolated
or integrated depends on available working
Valuing (school and schoolwork) memory resources that in turn depend on
Central to students’ valuing (of school and levels of knowledge (Sweller, 2012) – further
schoolwork) is their view that school is rele- underscoring the importance of pre-training
vant, useful, meaningful, connected to their if and when needed. Notwithstanding this, as
lives now and/or in the future. Students’ a general principle, integration of informa-
valuing of academic subject matter, tasks, and tion, materials, and/or activities allows
activities also relies on the perceived personal students to better appreciate important
relevance, importance and utility of that connections in learning and thus the value of
material (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Valuing is the relevant information, materials, and
further developed through connections activities for other parts of their learning.
students can make between prior and current
learning and also between learning and Organising information thematically
larger issues that have broader importance Pre-training and integration are focused on
and relevance (Martin, 2010). Three connections among specific elements of
elements of LRI have potential to promote subject matter. Thus, they are focused on
these processes and yields: integrating, organ- relatively ‘local’ and proximal connections.
ising segments, and personalising. Valuing of school and subject matter is also
achieved by connecting to ‘big ideas’ and
Integrating more general or indeed, global issues. By
Integrating stimuli is one strategy that can be connecting school to broader issues and
used to promote connections between phenomena outside of school, school is more
different facets of the learning task. The meaningfully located in a broader scheme,
more connections students can see among again enhancing its perceived relevance
tasks and subject matter, the greater their (Martin, 2010). This can involve instruction
sense of relevance with regards to the via identification of and guidance using a

22 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement

‘big idea’ (Stein et al., 1998). Personalising

In history, for example, by using a Personal relevance is central to learners’
‘problem-solution’ theme many historical valuing of subject matter (and subjects and
events can be taught for better under- school more broadly; Martin, 2010; McIn-
standing, learning, and relevance. Helping erney, 2000). Material and information can
students understand the causes underlying be presented in a way that better draws the
historical events such as war can be assisted learner into the activity and fosters personal
through unifying segmented information meaning and connection with that material
under a ‘problem (multiple possible causes: and information. The ‘personalisation prin-
e.g. economic, religious, human rights) – ciple’ holds that learners receiving informa-
solution (multiple solutions: e.g. war, tion in a more personalised way will learn
migrating, tolerating, innovating)’ frame- more than those receiving information in a
work (Stein et al., 1998). Another application more detached, objective, and unnecessarily-
in history involves the ‘problem-solution- formal way. Thus, instructions such as, ‘Your
effect” theme that ‘people and governments goal in this task is to …’ leads to more mean-
are reacting to problems, that the causes of ingful learning than instructions such as,
those problems are small in number; and ‘The goal for this task is to …’. Recent meta-
there are a few common solutions to those analysis supports this principle (Ginns,
problems’ (Kinder & Bursuck, 1992, p.29). Martin & Marsh, 2013), finding that person-
Kinder and Bursuck then analyse World War alisation of subject matter and tasks is associ-
I and World War II to highlight this theme. ated with perceived friendliness, effective
Graphic organisers such as concept maps can cognitive processing, and significant reten-
also be helpful to link to big themes and tion and transfer. Similarly, experimental
ideas that more meaningfully connect studies have also shown the positive impact
academic subject matter to the broader on learning and motivation through inclu-
world. These display segments in a way that sion of personally-relevant facts into instruc-
make clear the link between the instructional tion (Cordova & Lepper, 1996; Ku & Sullivan,
material and a ‘big idea’ central to the 2002; Walkington, 2013).
course, topic, or task (Rosenshine, 1995).
In each of these examples, there is a ‘big Mastery orientation
idea’ that is a basis for effectively organising Mastery orientation is very much concerned
instructional material (also helpful for with students’ focus on the task at hand,
working and long-term memory storage and focus on learning and understanding, and
processing; Mayer & Moreno, 2010) and the effort required in the process (Midgley,
making explicit connections between Kaplan, Middleton & Maehr, 1998). Relative
academic subject matter and these broader to performance orientation (that is focused
and potentially universal themes. These on reward, competition, external and
connections improve students’ valuing of comparative standards), mastery orientation
school and schoolwork (McInerney, 2000). As reflects more an intrinsic approach and
with integration, thematic organisation is the orientation with a focus on and immersion
reverse of some approaches to pre-training in the inherent properties of tasks and
described above, especially with regards to learning (Anderman & Wolters, 2006; Elliot,
the ‘isolated elements effect’ (Pollock et al., 2005; Linnenbrink-Garcia, Tyson & Patall,
2002). Again, whether elements should be 2008; Maehr & Zusho, 2009). Relative to
isolated or positioned under a ‘big idea’ will performance goals, mastery goals tend to be
depend on available working memory associated with greater learning and engage-
resources (Sweller, 2012) – again emphasising ment outcomes (Martin & Elliot, 2016; Yu &
the importance of pre-training and Martin, 2014). Notwithstanding this, the
segmenting if and when needed. effects of each orientation may differ

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture 23

Andrew J. Martin

according to where a student is at in the these ways, it is suggested that signalling is

learning process. For example, performance fostering mastery orientation as well.
orientation may be adaptive for surface
learning of facts and content, whereas Independent practice
mastery orientation may be superior for A major aim of explicit, structured, and
deeper and inferential learning (e.g. supported instruction is to develop some
Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2008). In any level of fluency and automaticity in learning.
case, the literature generally supports the When fluency and automaticity are devel-
merits of mastery over performance orienta- oped, knowledge and skills have been
tion in the learning process (Elliot, 2005; committed to long-term memory and the
Maehr & Zusho, 2009; but see Senko & learner can access and produce this material
Miles, 2008). To the extent that this is the relatively rapidly and with relative ease. It is
case, the use of signalling, independent at this stage the learner is now ready for more
practice, deliberate practice, and guided independent application.
discovery learning are suggested as LRI In the early stages of independent prac-
elements that may align with or promote tice, this process is confined to the material,
students’ mastery orientation. tasks, and activities that have been the focus of
LRI (Rosenshine, 1986, 2009). For example, if
Signalling students are learning about the components
Often learning material is complex and of a paragraph in an essay (e.g. comprising a
cannot be structured in a way to minimise or good opening sentence, relevant specific
avoid cognitive load. In such cases, other detail and evidence and argument, and a
instructional devices can be used. Signalling summative or linking sentence to close the
is one such device that involves providing paragraph), this is the focus of independent
cues to help the learner locate and focus on practice. It is also important for the teacher to
the essential material in a lesson or activity move around the classroom to monitor
(referred to as the ‘signalling principle’; students’ independent practice (Hunter,
Mayer & Moreno, 2010; see also De Koning, 1984). Rosenshine (1986) suggests that if
Tabbers, Rikers & Paas, 2009). For example, contact with the student is necessary during
the teacher may ask the students to watch out this stage, it should be kept brief, averaging no
for a particular event or character in a plot, more than 30 seconds for each interaction.
the teacher may place an emphasis on partic- Again, the emphasis is on independence.
ular words in the instructional process, head- From a cognitive perspective, this rein-
ings may be used to orient the learner to an forces fluency and automaticity. Notably,
important idea, highlighters may be used to from a motivation perspective, independent
orient the learner to key words and concepts, practice also promotes an autonomy
or advance organisers may be developed that supportive learning environment. In the
make clear at the outset what major concepts educational context, autonomy support
or activities are to be addressed (Mayer & refers to climates and instruction that
Moreno, 2010). promote students’ volition, autonomy, and
Each practice is aimed at reducing cogni- intrinsic motivation (Collie, Shapka, Perry &
tive load by eliminating the need for the Martin, 2015; Deci & Ryan, 2012; Ryan &
learner to search for relevant or essential Deci, 2000). These are elements aligned with
material. Importantly, from a motivation or contributing to students’ mastery orienta-
perspective, signalling also makes explicit the tion given the emphasis of mastery on indi-
task-relevant information and demands, the vidual and personal motivation (Martin &
importance of focusing on task elements, Elliot, 2016). Notably, however, the
and emphasising task and learning concerns autonomy-promotive elements of inde-
(as distinct from performance concerns). In pendent practice are likely to hold only to

24 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement

the extent that they foster a mastery orienta- automaticity, and fluency to which he/she
tion. If students are asked to independently aspires. This ‘requires full concentration and
practice without a good reason or rationale, is effortful to maintain for extended periods.
or when the practice is mindless, they may Students do not engage in deliberate prac-
fail to make the connection between effort tice because it is inherently enjoyable, but
and outcome (violating a critical concept because it helps them improve their
under mastery orientation; e.g. Elliot, 2005), performance’ (Van Gog et al., 2005, p.75).
and they may not personally endorse the When the relevant skills are mastered, the
activity (violating their autonomy, also a student is better able to engage in solitary
critical concept under mastery orientation practice of activities, setting their own goals
and intrinsic motivation; Collie et al., 2015; and practice routines, and learning how to
Deci & Ryan, 2012). pace and self-manage through this process.
Further, deliberate practice helps to foster a
Deliberate practice mastery orientation by reminding students
Deliberate practice refers to rehearsal rele- that their practice efforts are linked to their
vant to a specific skill that is correctable. It performance outcomes. When practice is
usually involves repetition and feedback and deliberate, mastery orientation is empha-
at critical points it is conducted by the sized because students set practice aims and
student on his/her own (Nandagopal & Eric- make the connection between their efforts
sson, 2012; Purdie & Ellis, 2005). Skills are and outcomes by monitoring their progress
often practiced under close supervision of a towards practice goals.
teacher and activities are well-defined, goal-
directed and involve substantial feedback Guided discovery learning
(Nandagopal & Ericsson, 2012). According Liem and Martin (2013) suggest that after
to Hattie (2012), ‘deliberate practice sufficient direct input and guided, inde-
requires concentration, and someone (either pendent, and deliberate practice, there is
the student, or a teacher, or a coach) moni- then a place for guided discovery learning.
toring and providing feedback during the That is, having moved students through the
practice’ (p.110). Deliberate practice is independent and deliberate practice phase
different from mindless drill. Mindless drill and being satisfied that they have mastered
might involve students writing many the material and its attendant processes, the
complete essays in order to finesse their teacher then transitions students into a
essay’s introduction or other specific aspects guided discovery learning phase. Now that
of the essay. Doing so does not expose them learners have progressed beyond novice
to enough targeted practice needed to status, they possess the sufficient skills and
master the introduction itself. Deliberate concepts to engage in more open-ended
practice would involve specific rehearsal with discovery approaches. Proponents of explicit
appropriate constructive feedback on the approaches to instruction thus recognise that
introduction alone (see also Ericsson, 2014; guided discovery has a vital place in the
Ericsson & Pool, 2016). learning process (e.g. Mayer, 2004). For
According to Nuthall (1999), students example, having mastered one paragraph
need about four exposures to content (no during independent learning, students may
more than two days apart) to sufficiently inte- now be asked to write two linked paragraphs
grate it into their knowledge structure (see integrating the various skills or processes
also Marzano, 2003). It is evident, then, that learnt during guided and independent prac-
deliberate practice is not necessarily a tice. Or, it may involve the application of
comfortable process. Inevitably, it creates one’s learning to ‘real-world’ problems (e.g.
dissonance between where a learner Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen & Drijvers, 2014)
currently sits and a level of performance, with appropriate support as needed.

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture 25

Andrew J. Martin

Guided discovery learning also entails a capacity to organise material, pace their
modest elevation in task challenge and learning appropriately, identify and attend to
brings into consideration concepts such as the steps involved in learning, self-monitor
‘desirable difficulty’ (Bjork, 1994) that and appropriately adjust as required (Martin,
suggests appropriate points in the learning 2007, 2009, 2010). Mental practice, guided
process where more difficult tasks lead to practice, and worked examples are proposed
greater learning than continued presenta- as elements of LRI that have potential to
tion of easy tasks. Indeed, this notion of grad- enhance students’ planning, monitoring,
uated challenge is consistent with findings in and task management.
other lines of educational research. For
example, research into personal best (PB) or Mental practice
growth goals has articulated the role of Related to deliberate practice is the process
setting personally challenging targets (Elliot, of ‘mental practice’ (sometimes referred to
Murayama, Kobeisy & Lichtendfeld, 2014; as the ‘imagination effect’; Sweller, 2012).
Elliot, Murayama & Pekrun, 2011; Martin & Here, learners are asked to imagine or
Elliot, 2016; Martin & Liem, 2010; Yu & mentally rehearse a concept or procedure.
Martin, 2014). Findings suggest that students The mental rehearsal occurs in working
who set personally challenging goals evince memory and this assists in the transfer of
adaptive patterns of motivation, engage- information to long-term memory by
ment, and achievement (Martin & Elliot, constructing and automating schemata
2016; Martin & Liem, 2010; Yu & Martin, (Sweller, 2012). Research asking students to
2014). The ‘Goldilocks effect’ is also aligned study a worked example and then to turn
with this notion of optimal difficulty and away and rehearse the example in their mind
challenge. This refers to individuals’ prefer- found these students performed better than
ence to attend to tasks and activities that are the students who studied worked examples
neither too easy nor too difficult (Kagan, but were not asked to further mentally
1990). Guided discovery learning is well consider the concept (Sweller, 2012).
suited to this principle. The ‘planning and monitoring’ compo-
From a motivation perspective, inde- nent of the Wheel relies on the learner’s
pendent practice lays a foundation for capacity to mentally represent the various
autonomy support, intrinsic motivation, and demands before him/her. This mental repre-
hence, mastery orientation. Guided sentation might involve the components of a
discovery learning provides another opportu- particular task or the key parts of a schedule
nity to immerse students in the intrinsic and of activities (Martin, 2010). Further, the
inherent properties of the task, thereby extent to which learners are able to monitor
further developing their mastery orientation. their progress will very much depend on how
Moreover, the very clear emphasis on well this representation is stored in long-term
discovery rather than performance further memory. Mental practice may be an ideal
distances students from a performance means of helping learners better mentally
orientation and more closely locates them in represent what they are required to do and
mastery-oriented terrain. the steps involved in doing it – all key to plan-
ning and monitoring from a motivation and
Planning (and monitoring) and task engagement perspective.
management
Planning and task management are very Worked examples
much concerned with students’ self-regu- Worked examples involve presenting new
lated learning skills (Zimmerman, 2002). material to learners with completed samples
These functions, residing under the self- of work that show how a particular problem
regulatory umbrella, rely on students’ can be solved or how a task can be completed.

26 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement

Teachers would ask students to study the worked example (Renkl & Atkinson,
numerous worked examples showing how 2010; Rosenshine, 1986, 2009). This has
different types of problems can be solved. been referred to as ‘self-explanation’ or the
Research shows that worked examples help ‘reflection principle’ which helps learners
learners acquire schemas that they can then connect new learning with prior knowledge in
apply to solve problems quickly and effi- long-term memory (Moreno & Mayer, 2010).
ciently (Atkinson et al., 2000; Renkle, 2014; Not only are worked examples effective in
Renkl & Atkinson, 2010; Rosenshine, 1986, enhancing long-term memory and easing the
1995, 2009; Sweller, 2012). Worked examples load on working memory as new information
might include fully worked mathematics solu- or tasks are learned, they are also effective in
tions, sample essays, and completed science promoting planning, monitoring, and task
practicum reports. In their review of instruc- management. Specifically, worked examples
tional methods, Lee and Anderson (2012) explicitly identify the components of a task
were struck by the power of providing exam- that the learner will need to plan for in their
ples of problem solutions to assist learning. own task completion, emphasise the
Indeed, they went so far as to suggest that elements that are important to monitor in
discovery-based approaches are effective to order to stay on task, and provide a clearer
the extent that they are example-based. sense of what components and processes are
As learning develops, the student is involved in order to effectively manage the
presented with partially completed worked task demands.
examples to solve (referred to as the
“problem completion effect”; Sweller, 2012). Guided practice
Ultimately, the worked examples are fully A related process is guided practice (Hunter,
faded and learners are ready for completely 1984). Here students are systematically
unworked tasks and problem solving (Mayer guided through the steps of learning or
& Moreno, 2010; Sweller, 2012) that may be problem solution. This can involve
ideal for guided discovery opportunities. prompting responses through a task,
It is also the case that more developed providing part of a solution for a student to
learners (experts) do not need such substan- complete, or being readily available for ques-
tial exposure to worked examples. They may tions and guidance at each step (Rosenshine,
study just one worked example before 1986, 2009). Importantly, it seems that
proceeding to a partially worked example, or teachers should strive to ensure a reasonably
to a fully unworked problem itself (Sweller, high success rate during this process, with the
2012). The ‘guidance fading effect’ (or optimal success rate on assigned tasks or activ-
‘guided activity principle’) is apparent when ities approximately 75-80 per cent during
the effectiveness of worked examples slowly guided practice. Thus, the teacher’s task is to
fades, requiring learners to complete more combine success with reasonable challenge
of the problem task themselves to extend (Rosenshine, 1986, 2009). In so doing, the
learning (Moreno & Mayer, 2010; Renkl & student moves through learning material at a
Atkinson, 2010; Sweller, 2012). reasonable pace, experiences efficacy as
Research has also identified the effective- he/she progresses, but makes sufficient
ness of teachers eliciting students’ self-expla- errors to enable corrective feedback and new
nations of what they are doing or why they learning (Martin, 2007). As with worked
have selected a particular response as they examples, guided practice makes explicit the
engage in partially completed examples. components of a task to be performed or
Asking for self-explanations during partially learning to be achieved. Knowing these
completed worked examples takes advan- components is important for a student’s
tage of the reduced cognitive load capacity to plan what he/she is to accomplish
(and freed cognitive capacity) created by through the task, monitor and pace through

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture 27

Andrew J. Martin

the task, and manage the process to comple- record quick responses to teacher questions
tion – again, all critical foundations for plan- on small white boards for the teacher to
ning, monitoring, and task management. know if he/she can proceed or if some re-
teaching is required (DeRuvo, 2009). Simi-
Persistence larly, the ‘traffic light’ formative assessment
Persistence refers to students’ continued signalling method is another widely advo-
efforts in the face of large tasks, task diffi- cated and implemented technique (Black,
culty, initial error or misunderstanding, or Harrison & Lee, 2004). Here, students
uncertainty as to the requirements or steps in present a red card to indicate ‘I don’t under-
a task (Martin, 2007, 2010; Miller, Greene, stand’ or ‘I need help’, a yellow card to indi-
Montalvo, Ravindran & Nichols, 1996). LRI cate ‘I think I understand’ or ‘I may need a
strategies that teachers might implement to bit of help’, and a green card to indicate ‘I
enhance and sustain students’ persistence understand’. DeRuvo (2009) suggests that to
include: checking for understanding, using keep a brisk pace, it may also be appropriate
templates, and using procedural prompts. to allow brief or abbreviated answers as the
These are aimed at keeping students effica- aim is often to simply check for under-
ciously involved in the process (e.g. by standing, not require students to articulate
ensuring they understand), and ensuring full responses.
they have a clear understanding of task Adams and Engelmann (1996) have
requirements and what is required to persist provided guidelines on acceptable levels of
through them. accuracy that can be a basis for checking that
students have sufficiently understood. They
Checking for understanding suggest teachers check that students are at
According to Hattie (2009, 2012), effective least 70 per cent correct on core information
teachers tend to see assessment as an oppor- and knowledge from the preceding lesson
tunity for feedback to them about the effec- and nearly 100 per cent correct on core
tiveness of their pedagogy. Similarly, information and knowledge presented in
Rosenshine (1986, 2009; see also Hunter, that lesson. However, these guidelines may
1984) reports that effective teachers dedicate vary depending on the student and the
ample time to checking for student under- subject matter. Others have suggested more
standing and engage in checking strategies frequent intra-lesson assessment to check for
that are qualitatively superior to other student understanding. Black and colleagues
teachers. For example, they will frequently (2004; see also Black & Wiliam, 2004), for
pose questions, ask students to summarise example, found substantial gains from intra-
major points, repeat explanations and direc- lesson formative assessment and feedback in
tions, and ask students’ opinions on subject mathematics and science. ‘Rapid formative
matter as it is taught. These teachers tend not assessment’ (Wiliam, 2011) has also been
to ask non-specific questions (such as ‘Are suggested three to five times each week (see
there any questions’ or ‘Who doesn’t under- also Hattie, 2012).
stand?’) and tend not to call on volunteers to Collectively, these efforts are aimed at
check for student learning. Instead, they will ensuring students remain on task, are
ask questions to individual students and in touch with the run of the lesson and under-
these questions are appropriately tailored stand what is being taught, thereby
(by difficulty or substance) to each student to enhancing engagement and connection
more authentically gauge understanding through the task or lesson and reducing the
(Rosenshine, 1986, 2009). potential inclination to give up, lose track, or
Some have suggested using simple tools switch off. Accordingly, persistence through a
to check student understanding as the lesson task and through a lesson is promoted. These
proceeds. For example, students might efforts may also foster the belief that persist-

28 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement

ence leads to results. This belief may be an help students extract specific information
important regulatory mechanism that guides from text and provide prompts they can use
students to persist, indeed, suggesting some- to articulate an answer or response. This too
thing of a ‘persistence self-concept’ or ‘persis- is aimed at facilitating effort and persistence
tence schema’ that may further promote in the face of blockages that can arise in the
perseverance through a task or lesson. course of learning and task completion.

Templates Anxiety, failure avoidance, and

Sometimes persistence is a problem for self-handicapping
students when they get stuck or lost midway Anxiety is associated with reduced or limited
through a task. In such cases, it may be useful working memory span (Ashcraft & Kirk,
to provide templates for students to check 2001; Eysenck & Calvo, 1992). It has been
their own progress. For example, students suggested that intrusive thoughts, distrac-
can have difficulty editing their own work and tions, frustration, and negative emotional
may abandon efforts to do so (Collie, Martin /affective experiences may act as a source of
& Scott-Curwood, 2015). Templates are mate- extraneous cognitive load and tap the limited
rials formatted or structured to help the capacity of working memory (referred to as
learner stay on track or that list the important the ‘processing efficiency theory’; Eysenck &
features of an essay or report to include. This Calvo, 1992; see also Fraser, Huffman, Ma,
may be a checklist that asks the student to Sobczak, McIlwrick, Wright & McLaughlin,
check that each sentence begins with a capital 2014; Kalyuga, 2011). Further, it has been
letter, all sentences end with a punctuation suggested that anxiety operates much like a
mark, proper nouns are capitalised etc. (Stein dual task setting, comprising a preoccupa-
et al., 1998). The student checks off each tion with one’s fears as well as a resource-
element as it is completed and this checklist demanding secondary task (Ashcraft &
may also be submitted with the essay or report Krause, 2007). Thus, alongside anxiety is the
for assessment. A similar strategy has been issue of fear of failure (or, failure avoidance
suggested by Van Merriënboer (1992) using concerns) that may pervade a task, poten-
‘process worksheets’ that lists the steps tially further burdening working memory.
involved in completing tasks or solving prob- Researchers have also identified that
lems. As students work through the process, anxiety and fear of failure underpin
they check off each step as it is achieved. students’ tendency to self-handicap. Self-
Some teachers may write abbreviated instruc- handicapping refers to self-defeating behav-
tions in bullet-form on the board for students iour (e.g. procrastination, wasting time,
to refer to as they progress (DeRuvo, 2009). investing little or no effort) that can provide
In each case, there is a mechanism in place to a self-worth protecting excuse or alibi in the
assist a student through a task to completion. event of poor performance (Baumeister &
In so doing, the teacher has promoted a Scher, 1988; Covington, 1992, 1998, 2000;
student’s persistence. Martin, Marsh & Debus, 2001a, 2001b, 2003;
Martin, Marsh, Williamson & Debus, 2003;
Prompts Midgley, Arunkumar & Urdan, 1996; Rhode-
Procedural prompts have been suggested by walt & Davison, 1986; Thompson, 1994). It
Rosenshine (1995; see also Purdie & Ellis, has been established that poor performance
2005) as a cognitive strategy that helps risks a threat to one’s self-worth, particularly
learners to persist with and complete less if that poor performance is seen as due to a
structured tasks such as those found in lack of ability (Covington, 2000). Thus, when
comprehension and writing activities. The a student is anxious or fearful that he/she
most common procedural prompts are words may fail a task, the student may strategically
such as ‘what’, ‘who’, ‘why’, and ‘when’ that manoeuvre so that the poor performance is

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture 29

Andrew J. Martin

seen as due to a lack of effort (not so threat- because the learner must hold information
ening to self-worth) rather than a lack of in working memory from one part of the
ability (threatening to self-worth). learning space to understand the material in
Motivation researchers have identified the other part of the learning space. This
educational intervention strategies and splits the attention capacity, is inefficient,
approaches to alleviate anxiety, fear of and increases cognitive load (Sweller, 2012)
failure, and self-handicapping (e.g. that may elevate anxiety. It is therefore
Covington, 1992, 2000; Martin, 2007, 2010; important for material to be integrated wher-
McInerney, 2000; McInerney, Marsh & McIn- ever possible – not only to reduce cognitive
erney, 1999; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990). load for learning, but also to reduce anxiety
However, the connection between anxiety, and fear processes.
fear of failure, self-handicapping and For example, the mathematics teacher
working memory suggests LRI approaches might integrate the equation for finding an
(that reduce load on working memory) may angle into the angle itself. Or, the science
also play a part in addressing these maladap- teacher may integrate a physics equation into
tive factors. Alongside the numerous strate- a problem statement (Sweller, 2012). Struc-
gies described above that are aimed at easing turing learning material and processes
working memory or improving processing mindful of split attention effects (and
between working and long-term memory, modality effects, see below) is particularly
reducing split attention in a task as well as critical to novices and students of lower
integrating information sequencing are ability (Sweller, 2012). When students are
other approaches to reduce the burden on beginning to learn new concepts, working
working memory. In so doing, the teacher memory comes under most strain and thus
may also assist in reducing anxiety, fear of instructional design should place emphasis
failure, and the consequent motive to self- on strategies that reduce load on working
handicap. Or, it may be that even if a student memory (Sweller, 2012).
does experience the negative impact of
anxiety on working memory, effective uses of Information integration sequencing
LRI will reduce this impact. Just as material presented at different places in
the learning space can split attention and over-
Reducing split-attention load working memory, material presented at
LRI very much rests on learning material that different points in time can also burden
is carefully structured by the teacher. When working memory (referred to as the ‘temporal
material is poorly structured, there can contiguity effect’; Mayer & Moreno, 2010). For
be excessive load on working memory, example, in a multimedia exercise demon-
thereby impeding learning – and potentially strating lightning, if the first part of the instruc-
increasing anxiety and fear of failure that tion provides a narration of how lightening is
may sow the seeds of self-handicapping formed and this is then followed by an anima-
(Covington, 2000; Thompson, 1994). The tion of that process, this requires the learner to
‘split attention effect’ represents one way hold one piece of information (the narration)
material can be poorly structured. Here, in working memory to then integrate with the
information to solve a problem is presented next piece of information (the animation).
in more than one area of the learning space Integrating narration and animation into the
(Ginns, 2006; Mayer & Moreno, 2010; one piece of information removes this exces-
Sweller, 2012). For example, a diagram is sive load. This would involve providing narra-
presented at the top of a page or screen and tion to accompany each part of the animation
explanatory material required to interpret as it is presented. In this case, information inte-
the diagram is presented elsewhere on the gration sequencing would help reduce load on
page or screen. Working memory is strained working memory. To the extent it reduces such

30 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement

load, it also has potential to reduce anxiety and a sample notes page that shows what informa-
fear that may develop as the learner struggles tion has been recorded and how to record it
to manage the excessive cognitive demands. quickly and accurately. The teacher then pres-
ents the five-minute instruction again, but
Uncertain control more slowly as students study the notes
Uncertain control reflects a student’s uncer- recorded on the page.
tainty as to how to perform a task, uncertainty During this instruction, students might
as to whether his/her efforts will lead to also be taught how to use symbols and short-
success, a lack of perceived autonomy, and a hand for common words such as ‘and’,
potential sense of helplessness that may arise ‘since/because’, ‘change’, ‘therefore’,
as a result of this uncertainty and lack of ‘between’, ‘increase/decrease’, and the like.
autonomy (Abramson, Seligman & Teasdale, Indeed, a table of these might also be
1978; Connell, 1985; Martin, 2007, 2010; provided and exercises assigned for the
Skinner, 1996; Weiner, 1985). Motivational student to practice and memorise these in
intervention aimed at promoting a sense of order to automate them in long-term
control involves encouraging students to see memory. Here, students’ sense of control is
the connection between their effort and built by showing them how to perform the
strategy (both controllable elements of their core academic task of note-taking and
schoolwork) and academic outcomes. Devel- automating this for future application. As
opments in self-determination theory (SDT) students’ academic lives are increasingly
have also identified the important role of digital and technological, similar such
structure in autonomy-supportive environ- approaches may be adapted to showcase how
ments (e.g. Reeve, Deci & Ryan, 2004; to type effective class notes on their laptops
Sierens, Vansteenkiste, Goossens, Soenens & or tablets in class.
Dochy, 2009). A sense of control can be Indeed, this somewhat structured
further enhanced by providing feedback in approach is not inconsistent with suggestions
effective and consistent ways. This often under SDT that have identified the impor-
involves task-based feedback on students’ tance of assistive structure in promoting
work that is clear about how they can improve autonomy-supportive environments that in
(Craven, Marsh & Debus, 1991; Martin et al., turn promote students’ sense of autonomy
2001b). Numerous LRI approaches are also (Reeve et al., 2004; Sierens et al., 2009), one
effective in providing a greater sense of how indicant of perceived control (Skinner,
to accomplish tasks, being autonomy- 1996). In fact, Sierens et al. found that the
supportive, and providing feedback that is interaction between structure and autonomy
aimed at enhancing clarity and performance. support (high structure, high autonomy
Two approaches discussed here are show- support) leads to enhanced engagement,
casing and feedback (and feedforward). suggesting an important synergy between
structure, motivation, and engagement.
Showcasing Showcasing can also involve students
LRI is geared to taking the mystery out of what closely studying samples of good work. For
good work is and how to do it. There are many example, teachers may provide all students
opportunities for teachers to showcase exam- with a copy of an excellent (anonymised)
ples of good practices and good work that can science practicum report from the previous
provide clarity to students and enhance their year. The teacher then dedicates a lesson to
sense of control through a task. DeRuvo unpacking each section of the report, identi-
(2009), for example, suggests explicit instruc- fying why and how the report is an excellent
tion on teaching students how to take notes in work sample. The teacher might then
class. This might involve giving five-minute present a partially worked example of a
instruction on a concept and then distributing science report and ask students to complete

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture 31

Andrew J. Martin

this worked example to practice key compo- feedback process.

nents. Here, a sense of control is built by Schute (2008) conducted a wide-ranging
showcasing good work, identifying key review of feedback, deriving the following
elements of good work, and having students recommendations from analysis of theory
engage in practice that helps automate the and research: focus feedback on the task, not
skills involved. the learner; provide elaborated feedback in
order to enhance learning; present elabo-
Feedback and feedforward rated feedback in manageable segments;
In one way or another, feedback represents a ensure feedback is clear and specific; provide
major part of LRI-oriented models. It is also feedback that is as simple as possible, but no
established as a major means by which simpler (the latter will be based on learner
students’ sense of control can be developed. needs and instructional constraints); deliver
This is because feedback provides diagnostic feedback that is unbiased, objective, and
information on what students have done, ideally in written form or via computer; and,
makes clear what elements are to be retained promote a motivation to attain mastery via
going forward, and what needs to be the feedback. In all cases, the objective is to
improved in subsequent tasks (Martin, 2010). create greater task-related clarity about the
Outcomes are further optimised when the learner’s performance in one task (thus,
provision of feedback is matched by the feedback) and provide greater clarity about
learner’s willingness and capacity to receive how to perform the next task (thus, feedfor-
and act on the feedback (Algiraigri, 2014). ward). In so doing, learners develop a height-
In addition, following the positive link ened sense of control.
between structure and students’ sense of In Schute’s (2008) review, guidance was
autonomy (an indicant of perceived control; also provided on how to administer feedback
Skinner, 1996) described above, Sierens et al. for different types of learners. For high
(2007) have suggested that feedback is achievers: delayed feedback, facilitative (not
another means by which students’ autonomy directive) feedback, or verification feedback
can be promoted: teachers building appro- (i.e. whether they are on track) may be
priate structure into their lessons tend to do appropriate. For low achievers: immediate
so via competence-relevant feedback and feedback, specific feedback, directive or
feedback that communicates a confidence in corrective feedback, scaffolded (supporting)
students’ capacity to achieve on subsequent feedback, and elaborated feedback (i.e. why
learning tasks and activities (Connell, 1990; they are correct) are more appropriate.
Reeve et al., 2004). Indeed, given this future- Rosenshine (1986, 2009) also suggested
oriented dimension to feedback, the term how feedback can be useful for differentia-
‘feed-forward’ has been suggested (e.g. Basso tion in the classroom. If a student is correct
& Belardinelli, 2006; Dowrick, Kim-Rupnow and confident, the teacher can respond ‘very
& Power, 2006; Dowrick, Tallman & Connor, good’ and move on to maintain the
2005). momentum of practice and the development
Moreno and Mayer (2010) report that of automaticity. If the student is correct but
feedback providing: (a) information on the hesitant, or has a history of difficulty, the
correctness of an answer and (b) information teacher may confirm the answer is correct
on how performance can be improved leads but then also provide process feedback that
to better performance and motivation. Kulik explains how or why the answer is correct.
and Kulik (1979) found that immediate feed- For students who have made an error or
back is ideal and that doing further study and continually struggle, the teacher might not
assessment if performance does not reach a only provide feedback, but also simplify the
pre-determined criterion is also ideal in the question, provide hints and prompts, or

32 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement

reteach the material. excessive load risks the learner struggling to

In sum, these feedback (and feedfor- keep up and disengaging from the task
ward) efforts and suggestions can provide (indeed, the split-attention effect may also
students with important diagnostic informa- excessively burden the learner in such ways).
tion about what they have done, make salient Rather than overloading the visual processor
what knowledge and skills are to be retained with, say, an image and text, some of the
going forward, and what needs to be information can be offloaded onto the audi-
improved in subsequent tasks (Martin, tory processor as audible narrative (Mayer &
2010). In so doing, they provide clarity and Moreno, 2010; Sweller, 2012). Thus, where
direction to students that are important for there is diverse material available, the
promoting perceived control. educator might present different pieces of
material in a different modality such as an
Disengagement image with a narrative that learners can listen
Disengagement is complex and can arise for to (referred to as the ‘modality effect’; Ginns,
many reasons (Finn & Zimmer, 2013). It may 2005; Penney, 1989). Importantly, however,
be that the student lacks particular skills in a the information across modes must be
domain such as literacy or numeracy, or self- different – simply repeating the same infor-
regulation skills such as study and organisa- mation in written and narrated form is ineffi-
tional skills (Covington, 1992, 2000). In some cient and redundant. It is also apparent that
cases there are motivational problems such as any verbal or narrated information must be
low self-efficacy (Bandura, 2001), low valuing concise so as not to overload the auditory
of the domain or tasks within it (Wigfield & processor (Sweller, 2012).
Eccles, 2000), or uncertain control leading to In an adaptation of the modality effect,
helplessness (Abramson et al., 1978; Weiner, Moreno and Mayer (2010) identified the
1985). From a cognitive psychology perspec- ‘multimedia principle’ as one with particular
tive, it may be a function of the instruction or yield for novice learners. For learners with
task itself that over-burdens some learners’ low prior knowledge, presenting material in
cognitive capacity or renders the instructional dual modes (e.g. text and illustrations or
material uninteresting and repetitious, narration and animation) can result in more
leading to abandonment of effort (Sweller, meaningful learning. Because novices do not
2012). Approaches under the LRI umbrella have prior knowledge to guide processing of
can be a means of addressing many of these new information, they may be assisted by
factors that can underpin disengagement. additional modality to help structure infor-
Here the discussion centres on using mation in working memory (Moreno &
different modalities, avoiding redundancy, Mayer, 2010). On the other hand, experts
increasing coherence, and providing appro- tend not to need this additional modality.
priate instructional time.
Avoiding redundancy and increasing
Using different modalities coherence
Learners can be cognitively exhausted As noted above, it is important that material
through having to attend to information in a is not presented in a way that renders some
way that burdens a particular processor. For of it redundant. Presenting the same infor-
example, if too much information is mation twice requires the learner to recon-
presented visually (e.g. via text, call-out cile the two incoming sources of information
boxes, a diagram, a table etc.), the visual and this adds to the processing required by
processor reaches capacity and so the learner working memory (Mayer & Moreno, 2010). It
must direct increasing energy to maintain it also runs the risk of rendering the instruc-
(Mayer & Moreno, 2010; Sweller, 2012). This tional material uninteresting and repetitious,

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture 33

Andrew J. Martin

thereby increasing the risk of disengagement However, these added elements may be extra-
from the task. neous to the essential learning required and
For example, if there is a self-evident thus run the risk of burdening and
diagram presented, there is not a need for an exhausting the working memory that is
explanatory text alongside it. In this case, the required for the central learning (Mayer &
text is redundant and interferes with cogni- Moreno, 2010). This is because information
tive capacity (referred to as the ‘redundancy that is essential and should be presented
effect’; Mayer & Moreno, 2010; Sweller, explicitly to novices, becomes redundant for
2012). Thus, in a diagram on blood circula- more knowledgeable learners – and thus
tion in the heart, lungs and body, there can reduced and then excluded. As relevant to
be arrows indicating the passage of blood – motivation and engagement, emphasizing
but not also statements below the diagram and presenting the essential information to
providing the same information about blood learners identifies the key components of
flow. The diagram is intelligible without the what is to be learned or accomplished and
statements below it. reduces the risk of rendering the instruc-
It is important to also distinguish between tional material uninteresting and repetitious,
redundancy (which is ineffective) from thereby reducing the risk of disengagement
rehearsal and repetition (which are effec- from the task.
tive). Redundancy involves presenting the A necessary first step in establishing
same and unnecessary material simultane- coherence is for the teacher to clearly differ-
ously (which overloads working memory). entiate the content and skills students
Rehearsal involves presenting the same or must master from the content and skills
similar material successively (which does not not so necessary to master. This involves
overload working memory; Sweller, 2012). establishing a hierarchy of essential content
Notwithstanding this, for some learners and skill (Marzano, 2003). Instructional
redundancy may be appropriate. For approaches then revolve around this essen-
example, non-English speaking background tial material, giving careful thought to what
students may benefit from the same material added elements may distract or burden the
presented via text and narration. Obviously learner. Thus, there are clear cognitive yields
also, students with disabilities particular to through optimizing coherence.
the modality will also benefit from redun-
dancy; hearing impaired students, for Allowing appropriate instructional time
example, require that the same information Estimates of how much instructional time
is visually presented (Mayer & Moreno, students receive in class vary, with some as low
2010). In fact, more generally, Mayer and as 21 per cent of class time and some as high
Johnson (2008) have also provided evidence as 69 per cent (Marzano, 2003 for a review).
that a small amount of redundancy in multi- Using the lower bound, approximately 1–2
media learning can support learning. hours is devoted to instruction each day.
It is also important to organise material so Using the upper estimate, students receive
that extraneous or overly elaborate material approximately 3–4 hours instruction per day.
that may be tangential to essential learning is This is a substantial difference in instruc-
reduced or removed (Marzano, 2003; Purdie tional time and, according to Marzano (2003)
& Ellis, 2005). Presenting only the essential plays a major role in whether students get
information to allow the full capacity of close to covering the full standards-driven
working memory to process it is referred to curriculum. To the extent that some students
as the ‘coherence principle’ (Mayer & do not cover the curriculum, their relative
Moreno, 2010). Sometimes in efforts to make performance is likely to decline and this
things interesting for learners, teachers may elevates the risk of disengagement
present sound effects or video break-outs. (Covington, 2000; Finn, 1989).

34 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement

LRI recognises there is a need for suffi- receive appropriate time and direction from
cient instructional time in a given task, unit, the expert (the teacher) as they move from
or topic. Effective teachers tend to generate novice status to become more developed
more instructional time that is spent learners. This helps students keep up with
providing additional explanations, assigning curriculum demands and subject matter as
more examples, and checking for under- it is taught, thereby reducing the potential
standing more frequently and deeply for disengagement.
(Evertson, Anderson, Anderson & Brophy,
1980). This also means sufficient time to Synthesis and implementation of
develop fluency and automaticity before motivation, engagement, and LRI
moving on to independent practice and elements
guided discovery learning. In contrast, less The preceding discussion has been aimed at
effective teachers tend to have less instruc- addressing motivation and engagement
tional time, provide shorter presentations, factors salient in the literature and identi-
explanations and examples, and have less fying well recognised elements of LRI
time to develop fluency and automaticity approaches that align with or are conducive
before moving students on to independent to the development of these factors. This
practice (Rosenshine, 1986, 2009). A lack of being the case, Table 2a, Table 2b, and
appropriate instructional time and prepara- Figure 4 now synthesise what was presented
tion increases the risk of disengagement in Table 1 and the subsequent analysis of
from the task or unit. motivation, engagement, and LRI.
There are two ways that instructional time Although Table 2a, Table 2b, and Figure 4
can be increased. The first is in terms of how are organised factor by factor and approach
much instructional time occurs in a lesson by approach, this organisation is not
and across the day. This requires the school intended to be prescriptive; rather, it is
leadership to closely consider how the school indicative of what type of LRI approaches
day is organised and the scheduling of lesson might be considered for different motivation
time and order. It also requires teachers to and engagement dimensions. Thus, for
minimise disruptions within the lesson in example, some LRI elements identified as
order to optimise actual instructional time. relevant to addressing uncertain control (e.g.
The second is in terms of specific teacher-led showcasing and feedback/feedforward) may
instructional moments. For example, in deter- also be effective in promoting students’
mining appropriate teacher-led instructional persistence and self-efficacy.
time, it has been suggested that teachers Also, the range of motivation and engage-
present for about 8–10 minutes before any ment factors and the range of LRI approaches
practice activity (Rosenshine, 1986, 2009). in Table 2a, Table 2b, and Figure 4 are not
Others have suggested the age-to-minute rule: intended to be exhaustive or definitive.
here, for example, a teacher would present for Indeed, other motivation and engagement
no more than 11 minutes for 11-year-olds or frameworks and operationalizations (e.g. via
15 minutes for 15-year-olds (Martin, 2010). PALS by Midgley et al., 1997; the MSLQ by
There would then be an appropriately timed Pintrich et al., 1991; the SEI by Appleton et al.,
and guided application for students to 2006; the ISM by McInerney et al., 2000) will
complete, at which point they would return to emphasise some different factors. In addition,
the teacher for further instructional input. diverse branches of cognitive and instructional
Taken together, across lesson scheduling psychology (e.g. Adams & Engelmann, 1996;
and specific teacher-led instructional Mayer & Moreno, 2010; Sweller, 2012) will
moments, it is important that students have emphasise different aspects of instruction that
greater access to curriculum material, have require distinct approaches to accommodating
more time to cover this material, and working and long-term memory.

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture 35

Andrew J. Martin

Table 2a: Potential integration of Adaptive Motivation and Engagement Wheel Factors
with Indicative Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) elements.

Adaptive Motivation and Adaptive Engagement

(and indicative LRI elements)

Self-efficacy
■ Pre-training
■ Segmenting information
■ Preliminary and spaced reviews
■ Modelling important processes

Valuing
■ Integrating
■ Organising information thematically
■ Personalising

Mastery orientation
■ Signalling
■ Independent practice
■ Deliberate practice
■ Guided discovery learning

Planning (and monitoring) and task management

■ Mental practice
■ Worked examples
■ Guided practice

Persistence
■ Checking for understanding
■ Providing templates
■ Prompting

Table 2b: Potential integration of Maladaptive Motivation and Engagement Wheel Factors
with indicative Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) elements.

Maladaptive Motivation and Maladaptive Engagement

(and indicative LRI elements)

Anxiety, failure avoidance, and self-handicapping

■ Reducing split-attention
■ Information integration sequencing

Uncertain control
■ Showcasing
■ Feedback and feedforward

Disengagement
■ Using different modalities
■ Avoiding redundancy and increasing coherence
■ Allowing appropriate instructional time

36 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 ■ Integrating ■ Checking for understanding
■ Organising information thematically ■ Providing templates
■ Personalising ■ Prompting

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

Signalling Adaptive Adaptive ■ Mental practice
Valuing Persistence
■ Independent practice Engagement
Motivation ■ Worked examples
■ Deliberate practice Mastery ■ Guided practice
■ Guided discovery learning orientation Planning

■ Mental practice
Task
Self- management ■ Worked examples
■ Pre-training efficacy
■ Guided practice
■ Segmenting information
■ Preliminary and spaced reviews

■ Modelling processes
■ Reducing split attention
Anxiety
■ Information integration
Disengagement and sequencing
■ Using different modalities
■ Avoiding redundancy and Failure
increasing coherence avoidance ■ Reducing split attention
■ Allowing appropriate
Maladaptive Self- Maladaptive ■ Information integration
Engagement handicapping Uncertain Motivation
instructional time control and sequencing

!
■ Reducing split attention
■ Showcasing
■ Information integration ! ■ Feedback and feedforward
and sequencing !
' ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
Figure 4: The Motivation and Engagement Wheel and potential integration with indicative Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) elements.
! !
Wheel is reproduced with permission from A.J. Martin and Lifelong Achievement Group (www.lifelongachievement.com)
!

37
Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement
Andrew J. Martin

Marzano (2003) also makes the impor- sional judgement on how to distribute the
tant point that not all elements of an instruc- elements across a learning unit. Hence,
tional taxonomy must be in the one lesson. counter to criticisms that LRI approaches
Accordingly, it is not the intention that all reduce teachers to mechanical practices that
LRI elements of Table 2a, Table 2b, and constrain their professional input, this
Figure 4 are implemented in the one lesson. distributed approach to explicit taxonomies
Marzano suggests spreading a given instruc- relies on the teacher to engage in profes-
tional taxonomy or framework across a sional decision-making as to what is imple-
learning unit (not across one lesson). He mented and when to implement it.
suggests Bloom’s (1956, 1976) learning units According to Rosenshine (1986, 2009),
as one way to consider this approach. Based LRI-oriented frameworks can be readily
on Bloom’s analysis, students encounter adapted in the comprehensive classroom.
about 150 separate learning units in a year For the novice learner, LRI might be applied
(about 7 hours each), which would translate in small steps with more frequent practice
into about 20–30 learning units per year in and more guidance and support from the
each major course. LRI taxonomies (e.g. teacher. For the expert learner, the presenta-
Hunter, 1984; Marzano, 2003; Rosenshine, tion by the teacher can be longer, requiring
1986, 2009) and integrative frameworks such less time in practice, less guidance from the
as in Table 2a, Table 2b, and Figure 4 might teacher, less time spent checking for under-
be applied across one of these units. For standing, and more independent practice
example, in a given learning unit, some away from the teacher. But even for the
lessons (probably the early lessons) will expert learner, when the material is new,
emphasise pre-training, modelling, complex or hierarchically structured, there is
templates, worked examples and deliberate a return to the more explicit LRI elements
practice, while other lessons (probably the (e.g. pre-training, worked examples etc.) as
later lessons) will emphasise independent new learning develops. Similarly, for less able
practice and guided discovery learning. students, Rosenshine (1986, 2009) suggests
Across the span of a whole learning unit in a more review, less presentation, more guided
given school subject, then, the teacher would practice, and more independent practice; for
look to implement a range of LRI elements more able students, he suggests less review,
to support broad and deep learning and a more presentation, less guided practice, and
range of motivation and engagement factors. less independent practice (see also Adams &
This more distributed approach to LRI Engelmann, 1996; DeRuvo, 2009; Hunter,
not only eliminates the pressure on the 1984; Jones & Southern, 2003; Magliaro
teacher to traverse all instructional elements et al., 2005; Marzano, 2003; Stein, Silbert &
in one lesson; it also provides further Carnine, 1997).
opportunity for the teacher to exert profes-

38 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement

PART 4. LOAD REDUCTION when learners are more skilled and knowl-
INSTRUCTION AND THE BROADER edgeable (see also Kalyuga, Chandler,
PROCESS OF LEARNING Tuovinen & Sweller, 2001). This is because
This review is focused on instruction that guided discovery learning (implicitly or
reduces cognitive load on students. As explicitly) recognises the limits of working
detailed thus far, alongside quite explicit memory, the need for accommodating
and directional approaches to instruction, working memory to build up long-term
there are discovery- and inquiry-oriented memory, and the substantial burden that
approaches that can also reduce the cognitive pure discovery places on working memory
burden on students as they learn. Accordingly, (Kirshner et al., 2006; Paas et al., 2003;
guided practice, independent practice, and Sweller, 1988; Winne & Nesbit, 2010).
guided discovery learning were considered. Indeed, naïve emphasis on pure discovery
These approaches are aimed at promoting learning has led to some frustration among
learner independence while managing cogni- researchers: ‘Like some zombie that keeps
tive load appropriately, depending on the returning from its grave, pure discovery
learner’s novice/expert status. Although these continues to have its advocates. However,
approaches were addressed in Part 3, further anyone who takes an evidence-based
consideration is given to them here with a view approach to educational practice must ask
to better understanding their role in the the same question: Where is the evidence
broader process of learning and how they that it works? In spite of calls for free
connect to LRI. discovery in every decade, the supporting
evidence is hard to find’ (Mayer, 2004, p.17).
Guided discovery learning The role of guidance in the discovery
Constructivist approaches to educational process is particularly important because it is
instruction give emphasis to learning a further means by which the instructor can
environments that are rich in discovery reduce the load on working memory (Martin,
and exploratory opportunities, prioritise 2013, 2015). To the extent that this is the
students’ own construction of meaning, and case, guided discovery learning is also a
emphasise students’ exploration and devel- component of LRI. If too much of the process
opment of concepts for themselves (Pressley remains undefined and uncertain, too much
et al., 2003). The teacher’s role tends to be of working memory must then be directed
more as facilitator, responsive to the student to potentially distracting and irrelevant
as he/she autonomously explores issues and processes that have the capacity to lead to
solves problems (Ausubel, 1961; Bruner, misinterpretation, inaccurate conclusions,
1961; Pressley et al., 2003). Indeed, Hattie and inadequate skill development. If the
(2009, 2012) has made the distinction instructor provides some guiding principles,
between teacher as ‘facilitator’ (typically prior information, signposts along the way,
associated with constructivist approaches) and scaffolds and assistance where needed,
and teacher as ‘activator’ (more aligned with there is less burden on working memory.
explicit approaches). Thus, students are not denied the opportu-
Liem and Martin (2013; see also Pressley nity for discovery. Having developed the skills
et al., 2003) emphasised the difference and subject-matter knowledge, these students
between pure discovery learning (predomi- are well positioned to engage in the discovery
nantly unsupported and unassisted inde- process. This inclusion of guided discovery
pendent learning) and guided discovery learning under LRI is now discussed.
learning (predominantly scaffolded,
supported, monitored, assisted independent Load Reduction Instruction and guided
learning). They also note that the effects of discovery learning
guided discovery learning tend to be positive In recent years there has been something of

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture 39

Andrew J. Martin

a tussle between predominantly construc- long-term memory, and automated this skill
tivist (and post-modernist) approaches to and knowledge, there is no longer such a load
instruction and more (post) positivist on working memory. Learners’ working
explicit and direct approaches to instruction. memory can then be used to apply the knowl-
Interpretations of the former have led to edge and skill (that is long-term memory) in
student-centred learning, discovery and potentially new and self-determined ways. This
enquiry-based approaches, with the teacher notion lies at the heart of LRI.
seen more as a facilitator of learning. The Notably, research has confirmed that once
latter (explicit) approach has been charac- learners become expert, they benefit more
terised as more teacher-centred, focused from problem solving approaches than from
on explicit and structured instruction structured and explicit approaches to learning
(including some deliberate practice and (e.g. Kalyuga, 2007; Kalyuga, Ayres, Chandler
drill). For a recent review of this debate, see & Sweller, 2003; Kalyuga et al., 2001). If a
Tobias and Duffy (2009). student knows how to solve a problem, but still
It is suggested that across the learning needs to practice solving such a problem to
process, students’ learning, motivation, and increase automation, it actually increases their
engagement are optimised by the teacher working memory load to read through a
being both activator (through explicit worked example. In this case it is easier to solve
approaches) and facilitator (through guided the problem oneself through practice than
discovery approaches). To see the two roles read the worked example.
(and instructional approaches) as incompat- In addition, for experts and students who
ible and mutually exclusive is to set in place a have mastered basic material, well-known
false dichotomy. The two are compatible limits on working memory fade faster than
when: (a) we consider all the stages of for novices and students who are not on top
learning involved when moving from novice of the academic subject matter. For example,
to expert status and (b) guided discovery is a split attention effects disappear as expertise
means to help manage the cognitive load on and mastery develop (referred to as the
the learner in this process. ‘expert reversal effect’; Kalyuga et al., 2003).
Having developed requisite knowledge and Because these students have acquired suffi-
skills in long-term memory and having cient prior knowledge, fluency and/or auto-
reduced the burden on working memory, maticity, working memory is no longer
learners can then be encouraged to apply the placed under the typical strain experienced
acquired knowledge and skill in independent, by the novice learner. In such cases, more
novel, and creative ways. Liem and Martin complex material can be presented to the
(2013) speculated that some of the low now expert learner. Similarly, expert learners
to moderate effect sizes associated with do not benefit from presenting accompa-
exploratory- and discovery-oriented learning nying information in dual modalities – they
(see their review and Hattie, 2009) may be a are able to learn efficiently through one
result of these learning practices being imple- modality (e.g. just a diagram, or just a narra-
mented too early in the learning process. Liem tion; Sweller, 2012).
and Martin (2013) suggest that after sufficient
direct input, guided practice and independent A proposed process of explicit
demonstration of learning, there is a critical instruction and guided discovery learning
role for guided discovery learning. Taken together, there comes a point in the
Thus, having moved beyond novice status, learning process and learner development
the learner now has the skills and requisite when more complexity, novelty, and inde-
knowledge to engage in discovery-oriented pendence are not only desirable, but essen-
approaches. Or, from a cognitive perspective, tial for further learning (Mayer, 2004). As
having acquired the skill and knowledge in summarised by Liem and Martin, ‘it seems

40 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement

constructivist approaches are better assisted considered necessary and desirable elements
by direct and structured input from the of the LRI process.
teacher that systematically and unambigu-
ously builds the knowledge and skills needed Student-centred instruction, student-
to subsequently engage in meaningful centred exchange, and student-centred
discovery, problem-based, and enquiry-based learning
learning’ (2013, p.368). This process may also be considered in terms
Indeed, this concept is not unfamiliar to of ‘student-centred instruction’, ‘student-
cognitive load researchers who also recog- centred exchange’, and ‘student-centred
nise that there is a need to distinguish learning’. Here the teacher is responsible for
between the optimal learning conditions for the organisation and presentation of instruc-
the novice learner and the conditions that tional material with a clear and present focus
are appropriate for more developed learners on students’ needs, including their cognitive
in complex tasks. For example, Kalyuga needs (student-centred instruction). Guided
and Singh (2015) outlined an approach practice, questioning, worked examples, and
that sought to smooth the typically rigid checking for understanding take place
dichotomisation of explicit and discovery- following the teacher’s initial instruction
oriented approaches. They suggested a more (student-centred exchange). Then, with
flexible approach based on differentiating appropriate monitoring by the teacher (as
specific goals of various learner activities in needed and appropriate), the student is
complex learning. responsible for independent practice,
Figures 5a and 5b illustrate the proposed checking and reviewing his/her own work,
sequence of instruction that optimally draws and engaging in further discovery or explo-
on explicit through to guided inquiry, ration (student-centred learning).
discovery, and exploratory learning. Impor- This aligns with the recent ‘I do’, ‘We do’,
tantly, the effectiveness of each mode relies ‘You do’ approach to instruction (Archer &
heavily on recognition of the novice or expert Hughes, 2011; see DeRuvo, 2009 for a
status of the learner – and by implication, the summary in relation to at-risk students). The
status of their working memory, long-term student-centred instruction corresponds to
memory, and their fluency and automaticity the ‘I do’ phase. The student-centred
at each stage of the learning sequence. exchange corresponds to the ‘We do’ phase.
Figure 5a is a general model of the LRI The student-centred learning corresponds to
process and pertains to most learners the ‘You do’ phase.
(including those lower in ability). These McWilliam (2009) offers related insight
learners require ample time, attention, and into this process, identifying the teacher
resources directed at the explicit instruc- initially as the ‘Sage on the stage’. Then in a
tional stage in order to lay a solid foundation more interactive and creative instructional
for a guided exploratory and discovery phase. phase, the teacher is the ‘Meddler in the
Figure 5b is a high ability/expert model middle’. Learning then progresses to a point
of the LRI process, where relatively less time, where the teacher is the ‘Guide on the side’.
attention, and resources are directed at the Of course, numerous pedagogical frame-
explicit instructional stage as these learners works incorporate similar such processes,
progress more rapidly to a guided with ‘gradual release of responsibility’,
exploratory and discovery phase. Although ‘balanced instruction’, and ‘enhanced
the expert learner does not spend as much discovery learning’ models (e.g. Alfieri et al.,
time as the novice in the explicit phase, time 2011; Fisher & Frey, 2008; Marzano, 2011;
engaged in this phase is nonetheless neces- Maynes et al., 2010; Pearson & Gallagher,
sary for the expert. Thus, for both groups, 1983; Pressley & Allington, 2014) being
explicit instruction and guided discovery are among the more well recognised ones. The

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture 41

Andrew J. Martin

point is that at different stages of the educa- side’). Again, however, the effectiveness of
tional process, teacher and student will play each approach relies heavily on recognition
different roles, moving from (a) student of the novel or expert status of the learner –
instructional salience to (b) more distributed and by implication, the status of their
teacher-student interaction to (c) student working memory, long-term memory, and
learning salience. This pattern of instruction their fluency and automaticity at each stage
and learning plays out at each point students of the learning sequence.
encounter new and/or challenging skill and Figure 6a is a general model of the
content that are to be mastered. Notwith- student-centred instruction, student-centred
standing these alignments with LRI, LRI is exchange, and student-centred learning
distinct in its development around cognitive process. It pertains to most learners
load concepts and the core need to appropri- (including those lower in ability). These
ately reduce or manage the cognitive burden learners require ample time, attention, and
on students to optimise their learning. resources directed at the student-centred
Figures 6a and 6b illustrate the process of instruction (‘I do’) phase in order for the
student-centred instruction (‘I do’; ‘Sage on teacher to get a sense of their understanding
the stage’), student-centred exchange (‘You and learning at the student-centred
do’; ‘Meddler in the middle’), and student- exchange (‘We do’) phase. Once satisfied
centred learning (‘We do’; ‘Guide on the with students’ understanding and learning at

Explicit Exploratory

Direct Discovery

Instructive Inquiry

Relatively more Relatively less

time dedicated time dedicated
to this phase, to this phase,
as appropriate to as appropriate to
learner’s novice learner’s novice
status status
Figure 5a: General LRI process – From explicit to exploratory,
direct to discovery, and instructive to inquiry.

42 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement

this stage, there is an opportunity for considered necessary and desirable elements
student-centred learning (‘You do’). of the learning process.
Figure 6b is a high ability/expert model Importantly also, whereas most students
of the student-centred instruction, student- in the classroom are across the subject matter
centred exchange, and student-centred towards the end of the ‘We do’ phase and are
learning process. Here, relatively less time, ready to move to the ‘You do’ phase of inde-
attention, and resources are directed at the pendent practice, it is also likely that there is
student-centred instruction (‘I do’) phase as a minority of students who require further
these learners progress more rapidly to LRI (Martin, 2015). The ‘You do’ phase – in
student-centred exchange (‘We do’) and which the bulk of the class is engaged in inde-
student-centred learning (‘You do’) phases. pendent practice – is an ideal opportunity for
However, although the expert learner does these students to receive additional and one-
not spend so much time in the ‘I do’ on-one support from the teacher (or on occa-
(student-centred instruction) phase, some sion where appropriate, from expert peers).
time here is nonetheless necessary at key This ‘I do’, ‘We do’, ‘You do’ process is thus
points of learning. Thus, for learners in the further effective because it also allows for
general and high ability/expert models, individualised and one-on-one opportunities
student-centred instruction, student-centred with at-risk students in the class.
exchange, and student-centred learning are

Explicit Exploratory

Direct Discovery

Instructive Inquiry

Relatively less Relatively more

time dedicated time dedicated
to this phase, to this phase,
as appropriate to as appropriate to
learner’s expert learner’s expert
status status
Figure 5b: High Ability/Expert LRI process – From explicit to exploratory,
direct to discovery, and instructive to inquiry.

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture 43

Andrew J. Martin

A cycle of Load Reduction Instruction problem situations (Bandura, 1997). Accord-

and academic motivation and ingly, they tend to achieve more highly
engagement (Schunk & Miller, 2002).
The present review has identified the potential There is thus a reciprocal relationship
for LRI approaches to foster and facilitate between students’ academic motivation and
students’ motivation and engagement. Of engagement on the one hand, and their
course, this connection is not static. Research academic learning and achievement on the
shows there is a cycle that operates such that other hand. These reciprocal effects have
learning (‘skill’) fosters subsequent motivation been demonstrated in various motivation
and engagement (‘will’) (Covington, 1992, literatures (e.g. see Marsh, 2007; Marsh &
1998; Marsh, 2007; Marsh & Martin, 2011; Martin, 2011 for summaries). Indeed, in the
Martin, 2007, 2009, 2010; Pintrich, 2000). For cognitive literature it is recognised that
example, self-efficacy is likely to be enhanced increases in motivation can increase the
(or sustained) through the academic knowl- cognitive resources devoted to a task (Paas et
edge and skill that explicit instruction is shown al., 2003). To the extent that LRI is relevant
to develop. Similarly, self-efficacy is associated to achievement (e.g. Cromley & Byrnes,
with enhanced academic knowledge and 2009; Lee & Anderson, 2013; Liem & Martin,
academic skill (Schunk & Miller, 2002). 2013; Mayer, 2004; Sweller, 2012) and to
Students who are high in self-efficacy generate motivation and engagement (as proposed in
alternative courses of action when at first they this review), it is a further opportunity to
do not succeed, invest greater effort and promote the synergistic and mutually rein-
persistence, and are better at adapting to forcing relationship between achievement
!!

!
+ Opportunity for teacher one-on-one
with at-risk students

3. Student-centred
learning

Guided discovery
(‘You do’; ‘Guide
on the side’)
Relatively more time dedicated
to the ‘I do’ and ‘We do’ phase,
2. Student-centred Interactive, questions, as appropriate to learner’s
exchange short tasks etc. to check novice status
understanding
(‘We do’; ‘Meddler in
the middle’)

Predominantly didactic; delivered to

1. Student-centred accommodate learner needs
instruction (‘I do’; ‘Sage on the stage’)

Figure 6a: General LRI Model: Student-centred instruction (‘I do’; ‘Sage on the stage’);
Student-centred exchange (‘You do’; ‘Meddler in the middle’),
and Student-centred learning (‘We do’; ‘Guide on the side’).

44 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement

and motivation and engagement. defined sequences and components (Snow,

The cycle might also be considered along 1991). Motivation and engagement might be
the lines of an aptitude-treatment interaction considered another lens through which to
(ATI). This concept holds that some instruc- consider ATIs with respect to LRI. LRI (the
tional strategies are more (or less) effective treatment) may be an effective means of
for some individuals more than others, boosting academic outcomes for students low
depending on their ability or other aptitude in motivation and engagement (the apti-
dimensions (Cronbach & Snow, 1977; Snow, tude). Thus, akin to students low in ability,
1991). When instruction is appropriately students low in motivation and engagement
matched to the aptitudes of the learner, may benefit from some key LRI elements. For
optimal learning takes place. One of the most example, along the lines of Table 2a, students
common examples of an ATI involves instruc- low in self-efficacy may benefit from an
tion that differs in structure and complete- emphasis on pre-training, segmented infor-
ness for high and low ability students. High mation, preliminary and spaced reviews, and
ability students can learn with less structure modelling by the teacher. Following from
and less complete instruction (though, even this, enhanced outcomes may reflect opti-
these students require structure and mised conditions that enable the student to
completeness in the early stages of learning; move from novice to developed learner and
Adams & Engelmann, 1996; Rosenshine, thus benefit from the full scope of the
!
1986, 2008, 2009), whereas lower ability learning and instructional process: from
!
students have a greater need to learn under explicit instruction to guided discovery
!
more highly structured instruction with well- learning (see Figures 5 and 6).

Guided discovery
3. Student-centred (‘You do’; ‘Guide
learning on the side’)

Interactive, questions,
short tasks etc. to check
understanding
2. Student-centred (‘We do’; ‘Meddler in Relatively more time
exchange the middle’) dedicated to the ‘We do’ and
‘You do’ phase, as appropriate
to learner’s expert status
Didactic;
accommodate
learner needs
(‘I do’; ‘Sage on
the Stage’)
1. Student-centred
instruction

Figure 6b: High Ability/Expert LRI Model: Student-centred instruction (‘I do’; ‘Sage on
the stage’); Student-centred exchange (‘You do’; ‘Meddler in the middle’),
and student-centred learning (‘We do’; ‘Guide on the side’)

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture 45

Andrew J. Martin

PART 5: OPPORTUNITIES FOR dimensions (Liem & Martin, 2012; Martin,

FUTURE RESEARCH 2007, 2009). It was thus an encompassing
This review has brought together two major framework with which to consider LRI
literatures around cognitive psychology and implications for students’ motivation and
educational psychology. Theory and research engagement. Nevertheless, there are other
with regards to both have led to articulation frameworks and models that would be
of a proposed nexus between Load Reduc- equally beneficial in considering, including
tion Instruction (LRI) and students’ motiva- multidimensional motivation and engage-
tion and engagement. As relatively little ment frameworks reflected in the Patterns of
direct and formal consideration has been Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS) by Midgley
given to this nexus, many of the arguments and colleagues (1997), the Motivated Strate-
and contentions put forward require direct gies for Learning Questionnaire by Pintrich
and formal empirical consideration. There et al. (1991), the Student Engagement
are thus many opportunities for further Instrument (SEI) by Appleton et al. (2006),
research as we seek to gain a more complete and the Inventory of School Motivation
understanding of how LRI and students’ (ISM) by McInerney et al. (2000). Thus,
motivation and engagement connect. research going forward has a range of moti-
As noted in the review, some LRI research vation and engagement frameworks from
has incorporated motivation and engagement which to choose.
factors and considerations and some motiva- These motivation and engagement frame-
tion and engagement research has incorpo- works also typically employ instrumentation
rated LRI factors and considerations. However, that meets recognised measurement stan-
relatively little research has examined the two dards in that their scales tend to be multi-
directly, seeking to map well-established moti- item, reliable, and validated against relevant
vation and engagement factors and theories to external correlates. It is not uncommon for
well-established LRI principles. the cognitive psychology (including cogni-
Following from this, the linking of LRI tive load) research to employ instrumenta-
strategies under distinct motivation and tion that does not meet recognised
engagement factors (Table 2a, Table 2b, measurement standards (e.g. single-item
Figure 4) is indicative and suggestive, not measures are frequently employed). Thus,
prescriptive or definitive. An empirical ques- when bringing LRI and student motivation
tion is thus to ascertain which specific LRI and engagement together, researchers can
strategies might explain most variance in benefit from the long-standing tradition of
distinct motivation and engagement factors. sound measurement that is predominant in
Findings from these investigations will no the motivation and engagement literature.
doubt illuminate and qualify some of the Given much of this discussion has centred
links suggested herein. Findings would also on the learning process and the progression
provide a more specific and concrete basis from novice to developed learner (expert), it
for educational practice and intervention. would be helpful to explore for any shifts in
The motivation and engagement factors motivation and engagement as learning
under focus in this discussion are also indica- improves. This brings into consideration
tive, not prescriptive, definitive, or exhaus- real-time motivation and engagement
tive. The Motivation and Engagement Wheel research through the LRI and learning
was deemed a useful lens through which to process. Preliminary motivation and engage-
consider the present issues because it trav- ment research has been done based on the
erses (a) numerous salient and well-estab- Motivation and Engagement Wheel factors
lished motivation and engagement theories, (Martin, Papworth, Ginns, Malmberg, Collie
(b) cognitive, affective, and behavioural & Calvo, 2015; see also Malmberg, Woolgar &
factors, and (c) adaptive and maladaptive Martin, 2013), but not in relation to LRI and

46 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement

the learning that occurs through a given task acquire naturally (Geary, 2007, 2008a, 2008b;
in real-time. hence, low burden on working memory), we
As noted at the outset of this review, might speculate about its relationship to moti-
school is academically demanding and vation. To the extent that biologically primary
becomes more so as students move from knowledge is unconscious and naturally
elementary to middle to high school (Martin, acquired, is it also inherently and intrinsically
2015). It has been shown that motivation and motivating? To the extent that harnessing
engagement decline over this time (Eccles et biologically primary knowledge reduces the
al., 1993; Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Martin, burden on working memory and can enhance
2009). Thus, there are developmental issues learning (Paas & Sweller, 2012), might it also
as learners progress through the school years. have desirable motivational properties?
We might therefore ask how LRI relates to Further, is it possible that incorporating
motivation and engagement over this time. biologically primary knowledge into learning
Following from answers to this question, what processes and tasks has an additive effect on
adjustments in LRI might need to occur from learning such that it frees up working memory
a developmental perspective? for better learning and is also intrinsically
From an evolutionary psychology motivating for the learner? Extending this
perspective, there is emerging theory and speculation, to the extent that biologically
research formally testing the implications of primary knowledge may be intrinsically moti-
biologically primary and secondary knowl- vating, what are the implications of biologi-
edge for working memory and learning. It cally secondary knowledge for motivation? As
has been suggested that biologically primary noted earlier, there is a known decline in
knowledge (e.g. communicating, moving; motivation and engagement as students move
Geary, 2007, 2008a, 2008b) is not such a from elementary to high school (e.g. Eccles et
burden on working memory (Paas & Sweller, al., 1993; Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Martin,
2012) and thus education that harnesses 2009) and this may in part be attributed to the
biologically primary knowledge may relieve greater emphasis on biologically secondary
some burden on working memory in order knowledge (e.g. mathematics, science, history
for learners to better acquire biologically etc.) in high school. Research into these ideas
secondary knowledge (e.g. mathematics, would be illuminating.
science, history). Some of the most recent Whereas most LRI-related research has
work in this area has examined the role of focused on the role of LRI in promoting
movement (biologically primary knowledge) learning and achievement, the focus of this
and embodied cognition in learning, finding review has been on LRI as relevant to
for example, that tracing material can students’ motivation and engagement. It
enhance the subsequent reproduction (i.e. would be useful to consider the relative
learning) of that material (e.g. Hu, Ginns & salience of LRI and motivation and engage-
Bobis, 2015; Macken & Ginns, 2014). Indeed, ment in promoting achievement. Indeed, it
for students with known executive function would also be useful to understand the
impairments – such as those with ADHD – extent to which the two may work together to
movement in the form of physical activity, produce more optimal learning and achieve-
and allowing some fidgeting or squirming ment outcomes.
while learning has been associated with As suggested at numerous points through
enhanced working memory (e.g. Hartanto, the discussion, implications of cognitive load
Krafft, Iosif & Schweitzer, 2016; Sarver, for academically at-risk learners can be signif-
Rapport, Kofler, Raiker & Friedman, 2015). icant. As Martin (2013, 2015) has indicated,
Given that biologically primary knowledge there is a need for more motivation and
is seen as typically unconscious, effortless and engagement research among academically at-
rapid – and something that we evolve to risk learners. Given the pertinence of LRI to

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture 47

Andrew J. Martin

at-risk learners (e.g. McMullen & Madelaine, appropriately manage the cognitive burden
2014; Rupley et al., 2009; Swanson & Sachse- on students in the learning process. It was
Lee, 2000), a suggested program of motiva- also noted that pure discovery learning is
tion and engagement research among these relatively less likely to lead to formal achieve-
learners might also incorporate LRI consider- ment and learning gains (Kirschner et al.,
ations and what LRI buys such students with 2006; Mayer, 2004). This is because pure
regards to motivation and engagement. discovery learning (that is unsupported,
This review has also emphasised the unassisted, and unguided) increases cogni-
importance of appropriately adjusting LRI to tive load on the learner, impeding his/her
the development and expertise of the learning. Notwithstanding this, although
learner. Just as LRI researchers have identi- pure discovery may not be the optimal means
fied boundary conditions for various LRI to formal achievement-related ends, it has
practices and learning outcomes (e.g. via the been considered as a desirable end in itself
expert-reversal effect or the redundancy and something worthwhile for students to
effect; Kalyuga & Singh, 2015; Mayer & experience at appropriate points in the
Moreno, 2010; Sweller, 2012) so too might we learning process (Bruner, 1961). Hence, this
identify boundary conditions for various LRI review does not discount the possibility that
practices with regards to motivation and pure discovery learning may have motivation
engagement outcomes. There is work sugges- and engagement yields that are not so
tive of the importance of this research. For dependent on the need to reduce cognitive
example, sub-optimally low cognitive load load and working memory demands. Future
conditions can lead to boredom (Jackson, research might seek to juxtapose different
Kleitman & Aidman, 2014). Further work is levels of (un) supported discovery learning
needed here. and their links to multidimensional motiva-
There has been some emphasis on the tion and engagement.
need to appropriately balance ‘student- There is also the issue of what constitutes
centred instruction’ (‘I do’) with ‘student- optimal guidance – as relevant to learner
centred exchange’ (‘We do’) and motivation and engagement – in guided
‘student-centred learning’ (‘You do’) discovery (and similar) phases. Whilst it is
through the instructional process. There is a easy to advise that guidance is important,
need to understand boundary conditions inevitably there will be cognitive load factors
here as well. For example, what are the moti- to consider when deciding what, when, and
vation and engagement implications for too how much guidance to provide – which will
little or too much time and attention to any likely have motivation and engagement
one of these? Conceivably, too much implications for learners. Thus, under-
‘student-centred instruction’ (‘I do’) may standing the motivation and engagement
lead to boredom and possible disengage- implications for different levels of guidance
ment, while movement into ‘student-centred is important.
learning’ (‘You do’) when students are not Following from this, it is important to
quite ready may lead to anxiety. Figures 5 and recognise a line of research suggesting that
6 sought to accommodate this through repre- minimal guidance for novices can be effec-
senting the learning process in ‘general’ and tive for their learning. Research into
‘high ability/expert’ models – but it remains ‘productive failure’ is one such channel of
an empirical question as to the appropriate work. Productive failure involves the design
time, attention, and resources directed to of conditions for learners to persist in gener-
each phase of the learning process for ating and exploring solution methods
different learners. for solving novel, complex problems. The
This review has also emphasised guided process can initially lead to failure but this
discovery learning as a potential means to failure is claimed to provide an inherent effi-

48 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement

cacy that is important for learning – provided instruction (Snow, 1991). It was suggested
it is followed by an appropriate form of that motivation and engagement may be
instructional intervention that assists subse- another lens through which to consider ATIs
quent solutions and methods (e.g. Kapur, with respect to LRI. To what extent might
2008). To the extent that this is the case, LRI (the treatment) be a means of boosting
productive failure research might provide academic outcomes for students low in moti-
direction for tasks or activities where vation and engagement (the aptitude)?
minimal guidance for novices is desirable. Finally, LRI, as defined in this review, is
Thus, the present review emphasises the broadly conceptualised. The review has not
importance of clear guidance and structure engaged in much differentiation between
for novices in most learning conditions; specific LRI approaches and the implications
however, on occasions where relatively little for students’ motivation and engagement.
guidance for novices is intended, productive There is scope for research seeking to distin-
failure research might be helpful to set the guish motivation and engagement effects as a
conditions that optimise learning in these function of, for example, direct and explicit
minimally guided situations. instructional approaches. Both approaches
The discussion also identified potential are grouped under the LRI umbrella but are
aptitude-treatment interactions (ATIs) that distinct in important ways (e.g. see Adams &
may occur in the learning process, with high Engelmann, 1996; Kirschner et al., 2006; Liem
ability students able to learn with less struc- & Martin, 2013; Rosenshine, 1986, 2008,
ture while lower ability students have a 2009); what implications do these distinctions
greater need to learn under structured hold for motivation and engagement?

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture 49

Andrew J. Martin

CONCLUSION
The bulk of research into instructional tech- of its yields for students’ motivation and
niques that directly or indirectly reduce engagement. The review has also considered
cognitive load (i.e. Load Reduction Instruc- the learning process more broadly and high-
tion; LRI) has focused on academic learning lighted the role of guided discovery
and achievement. Findings support the role approaches in the learning sequence to
of LRI in students’ learning and achievement appropriately manage cognitive load and
gains. Less attention has been given to the generate greater autonomy and independent
role of LRI in promoting students’ motiva- learning. Thus, it is emphasised that LRI
tion and engagement. The present review encompasses both explicit instructional
has harnessed motivation and engagement as approaches and guided discovery-oriented
a lens through which to consider LRI. It has learning – and that this has significant impli-
examined key dimensions of motivation and cations for students’ academic motivation
engagement and explored the extent to and engagement. Taken together, educators
which specific approaches and strategies would do well to recognise the motivating
under LRI address them. It thus comple- and engaging properties of clear, structured
ments the large body of work into LRI and its and well guided instruction, and the role this
achievement yields with closer consideration plays in students’ learning and achievement.

50 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement

References
Abramson, L.Y., Seligman, M.E.P. & Teasdale, J. Atkinson, R.K., Derry, S.J., Renkl, A. & Wortham, D.
(1978). Learned helplessness in humans: (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional
Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal principles from the worked examples research.
Psychology, 87, 49–74. doi.org/10.1037/0021- Review of Educational Research, 70, 181–214
843X.87.1.49 doi.org/10.3102/00346543070002181
Adams, G. & Engelmann, S. (1996). Research on Direct Ausubel, D.P. (1961). Learning by discovery:
Instruction: 25 years beyond DISTAR. Seattle, WA: Rationale and mystique. Bulletin of the National
Educational Achievement Systems. Association of Secondary School Principals, 45, 18–58.
Ainley, M.D. (2012). Students’ interest and doi.org/10.1177/019263656104526904
engagement in classroom activities. In Baddeley, A. (1994). The magical number seven: Still
Christenson L, Reschly L & Wylie (eds). Handbook magic after all these years? Psychological Review,
of research on student engagement. New York: 101, 353–356.
Springer. doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.2.353
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P.J., Aldrich, N.J. & Tenenbaum, Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.
H.R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction New York: Freeman & Co.
enhance learning? Journal of Educational Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An
Psychology, 103, 1–18. doi.org/10.1037/a0021017 agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology,
Algiraigri, A.H. (2014). Ten tips for receiving 52, 1–26. doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
feedback effectively in clinical practice. Medical Basso, D. & Belardinelli, M.O. (2006). The role of the
Education Online, 19. feedforward paradigm in cognitive psychology.
doi.org/10.3402/meo.v19.25141 Cognitive Processing, 7, 73–88.
Anderman, E.M. (2013). Middle school transitions. In doi.org/10.1007/s10339-006-0034-1
J. Hattie & E.M. Anderman (Eds). International Baumeister, R.F. & Scher, S.J. (1988). Self-defeating
guide to student achievement. Routledge: New York. behavior patterns among normal individuals:
Anderman, E.M. & Mueller, C.E. (2010). Middle Review and analysis of common self-destructive
school transitions and adolescent development. tendencies. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 3–22.
In J.L. Meece & J.S. Eccles (Eds). Handbook of doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.104.1.3
research on schools, schooling, and human Beck, A.T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional
development. Routledge: New York. disorders. New York: New American Library.
Anderman, E.M. & Patrick, H. (2012). Achievement Beck, A.T. (1995). Cognitive therapy: Basics and beyond.
goal theory, conceptualization of New York: Guilford.
ability/intelligence, and classroom climate. In S. Bessellieu, F.B., Kozloff, M.A. & Rice, J.S. (2001).
L. Christenson, A.L. Reschly & C. Wylie (Eds.). Teachers’ perceptions of direct instruction
Handbook of research on student engagement teaching. Direct Instruction News, 1, 14–17
(pp.173–192). New York, NY: Springer. Biggs, J.B. & Telfer, R. (1987). The process of learning.
doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_8 (2nd ed.) Burwood: Prentice-Hall.
Anderman, E.M. & Wolters C. (2006). Goals, values, Bjork, R.A. (1994). Memory and metamemory
and affects: Influences on student motivation. In considerations in the training of human beings.
P. Alexander & P. Winne. (Eds). Handbook of In J. Metcalfe & A.P. Shimamura (Eds).
educational psychology. New York: Simon & Metacognition: Knowing about knowing.
Schuster/Macmillan. (pp.185–205). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Appleton, J.J., Christenson, S.L., Kim, D. & Reschly, Bjork, R.A. & Allen, T.W. (1970). The spacing effect:
A.L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and Consolidation or differential encoding? Journal of
psychological engagement: Validation of the Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 567–572.
Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of School doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(70)80103-7
Psychology, 44, 427–445. Black, P., Harrison, C. & Lee, C. (2004). Working inside
doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002 the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom.
Archer, A.L. & Hughes, C.A. (2011). Explicit Granada Learning.
instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. Guilford doi.org/10.1177/003172170408600105
Press. Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (2004). The formative purpose:
Ashcraft, M.H. & Kirk, E.P. (2001). The relationships Assessment must first promote learning. Yearbook
among working memory, math anxiety, and of the National Society for the Study of Education, 103,
performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: 20–50.
General, 130, 224–237. doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7984.2004.tb00047.x
doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.224 Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives,
Ashcraft, M.H. & Krause, J.A. (2007). Working Handbook 1: The Cognitive Domain. New York:
memory, math performance, and math anxiety. Longman.
Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 243–248. Bloom, B.S. (1976). Human characteristics and school
doi.org/10.3758/BF03194059 learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture 51

Andrew J. Martin

Bodkin-Andrews, G.H., Denson, N. & Bansel, P. Collie, R.J., Martin, A.J. & Scott-Curwood, J. (in press,
(2013). Teacher racism, academic self-concept, accepted September 2015). Multidimensional
and multiculturation: Investigating adaptive and motivation and engagement for writing:
maladaptive relations with academic Construct validation with a sample of boys.
disengagement and self-sabotage for Indigenous Educational Psychology, 36, 1285–1302.
and Non-Indigenous Australian students. Collie, R.J., Shapka, J.D., Perry, N.E. & Martin, A.J.
Australian Psychologist, 48, 226–237. (2015). Self-determination theory and teachers:
doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-9544.2012.00069.x Examining well-being, motivation, job
Bong, M. (1996). Problems in academic motivation satisfaction, and organizational commitment.
research and advantages and disadvantages of Journal of Educational Psychology.
their solutions. Contemporary Educational doi.org/10.1037/edu0000088
Psychology, 21, 149–165. Connell, J.P. (1985). A new multidimensional
doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996.0013 measure of children's perceptions of control.
Booth, M.Z. & Gerard, J.M. (2014). Adolescents’ Child Development, 56, 1018–1041.
stage-environment fit in middle and high school: doi.org/10.2307/1130113
The relationship between students’ perceptions Cooper, G. & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema
of their schools and themselves. Youth and society, acquisition and rule automation on mathematical
46, 735–755. problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational
Borman, G.D., Hewes, G.M., Overman, L.T. & Brown, Psychology, 79, 347–362.
S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.79.4.347
achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Cordova, D.I. & Lepper, M.R. (1996). Intrinsic
Educational Research, 73, 125–230. motivation and the process of learning:
doi.org/10.3102/00346543073002125 Beneficial effects of contextualization,
Bost, L.W. & Riccomini, P.J. (2006). Effective personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational
instruction: An inconspicuous strategy for Psychology, 88, 715–730.
dropout prevention. Remedial and Special doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.715
Education, 27, 301–311. Covington, M.V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth
doi.org/10.1177/07419325060270050501 perspective on motivation and school reform.
Bruner, J.S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Educational Review, 31, 21–32. doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173582
Bugler, M., McGeown, S.P. & St Clair-Thompson, H. Covington, M.V. (1998). The will to learn: A guide for
(2015). Gender differences in adolescents' academic motivating young people. New York: Cambridge
motivation and classroom behavior. Educational University Press.
Psychology, 35, 541–556.. Covington, M.V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and
Cantwell, D.P. & Baker, L. (1991). Association school achievement: An integrative review.
between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 171–200.
and learning disorder. Journal of Learning doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.171
Disabilities, 24, 88–95. Craven, R.G., Marsh, H.W. & Debus, R.L. (1991).
doi.org/10.1177/002221949102400205 Effects of internally focused feedback and
Carlson, C.D. & Francis, D.J. (2003). Increasing the attributional feedback on the enhancement of
reading achievement of at-risk children through academic self-concept. Journal of Educational
direct instruction: Evaluation of the Rodeo Psychology, 83, 17–26.
Institute for Teacher Excellence (RITE). Journal of doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.17
Education for Students Placed At Risk, 7, 141–166. Cromley, J.G. & Byrnes, J.P. (2012). Instruction and
doi.org/10.1207/S15327671ESPR0702_3 cognition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive
Carmichael, P., Adkins, Gaal, I., Hutchins, P., Levey, Science, 3, 545–553. doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1192
F., McCormack, J., Oberklaid, F., Pearson, C. & Cronbach, L.J. & Snow, R.E. (1977). Aptitudes and
Storm, V. (1997). Attention deficit hyperactivity instructional methods. New York: Irvington.
disorder. National Health and Medical Research De Koning, B.B., Tabbers, H.K., Rikers, R.M. & Paas,
Council, Australia. F. (2009). Towards a framework for attention
Cepeda, N.J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J.T. & cueing in instructional animations: Guidelines
Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal for research and design. Educational Psychology
recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Review, 21, 113–140
Psychological Bulletin, 132, 354–380. doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9098-7
doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354 Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (2012). Motivation,
Cleary, T.J. & Zimmerman, B.J. (2012). A cyclical self- personality, and development within embedded
regulatory account of student engagement: social contexts: An overview of self-determination
Theoretical foundations and applications. In S. theory. In R.M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of
Christenson, A.L. Reschly & Wylie, C. (Eds.), human motivation (pp.85–110). New York, NY:
Handbook of research on student engagement Oxford University Press. doi.org/10.1093/
(pp.237–258). Springer. oxfordhb/9780195399820.013.0006
doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_11

52 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement

DeRuvo, S.L. (2009). Strategies for teaching adolescents Eysenck, M.W. & Calvo, M.G. (1992). Anxiety and
with ADHD: Effective classroom techniques across the performance: The processing efficiency theory.
content areas. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 409–434.
Dowrick, P.W., Kim-Rupnow, W.S. & Power, T.J. doi.org/10.1080/02699939208409696
(2006). Video feedforward for reading. Journal of Farkota, R. (2003). The effects of a 15-minute direct
Special Education, 39, 194–207. instruction intervention in the regular mathematics
doi.org/10.1177/00224669060390040101 class on students’ mathematical self-efficacy and
Dowrick, P.W., Tallman, B.I. & Connor, M.E. (2005). achievement. Doctoral Dissertation. Monash
Constructing better futures via video. Journal of University, Australia.
Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 29, Finn, J.D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of
131–144. doi.org/10.1300/J005v29n01_09 Educational Research, 59, 117–142.
Eccles, J.S. & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment doi.org/10.3102/00346543059002117
fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for Finn, J.D. & Zimmer, K. (2013. Student engagement:
young adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds). What is it? Why does it matter? In S. Christenson,
Research on motivation in education: Goals and Reschly & Wylie (Eds.). Handbook of research on
cognitions (Vol 3, pp.139–186). New York: student engagement (pp.97–131). New York:
Academic Press. Springer.
Eccles, J.S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2008). Better learning through
M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C. & Mac Iver, D. structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release
(1993). Development during adolescence: The of responsibility. Alexandria, VA: Association for
impact of stage-environment fit on young Supervision and Curriculum Development.
adolescents’ experiences in schools and in Forness, S.R. (2001). Special education and related
families. American Psychologist, 48, 90–101. services: What have we learned from meta-
doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.90 analysis? Exceptionality, 9, 185–197.
Eccles, J.S. & Roeser, R.W. (2009). Schools, academic doi.org/10.1207/S15327035EX0904_3
motivation, and stage-environment fit. In R.M. Forness, S.R., Kavale, K.A., Blum, I.M. & Lloyd, J.W.
Lerner & L. Steinber (Eds.) Handbook of Adolescent (1997). Mega-analysis of meta-analyses. Teaching
Psychology (3rd ed.)(pp.404–434). Hoboken, N.J.: Exceptional Children, 29, 4–9.
John Wiley & Sons. Fraser, K., Huffman, J., Ma, I., Sobczak, M., McIlwrick,
Edgar, S. (2015). Identifying the influence of gender J., Wright, B. & McLaughlin, K. (2014). The
on motivation and engagement levels in student emotional and cognitive impact of unexpected
physiotherapists. Medical Teacher, 37, 348–353. simulated patient death: A randomized
doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.948829 controlled trial. CHEST Journal, 145, 958–963.
Elliot, A.J. (2005). A conceptual history of the doi.org/10.1378/chest.13-0987
achievement goal construct. In A.J. Elliot & C.S. Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C. & Paris, A.H. (2004).
Dweck (Eds). Handbook of competence and Student engagement: Potential of the concept,
motivation (pp.52–72). New York: Guildford. state of the evidence. Review of Educational
Elliot, A.J., Murayama, K., Kobeisy, A. & Lichtendfeld, Research, 74,
S. (2014). Potential-based achievement goals. 59–109.doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, Geary, D.C. (2007). Educating the evolved mind:
192–206. doi:10.1111/bjep.12051 Reflections and refinements. In J.S. Carlson &
Elliot, A.J., Murayama, K. & Pekrun, R. (2011). A 3×2 J.R. Levin (Eds). Educating the evolved mind:
achievement goal model. Journal of Educational Conceptual foundations for an evolutionary
Psychology, 103, 632–648. doi:10.1037/a0023952 educational psychology (pp.177–203). Charlotte,
Ericsson, K.A. (2014). The road to excellence: The NC: Information Age Publishing.
acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, Geary, D.C. (2008a). An evolutionarily informed
sports, and games. New York: Psychology Press. education science. Educational Psychologist, 43,
Ericsson, K.A. & Pool, R. (2016). Peak: Secrets from the 179–195. doi.org/10.1080/00461520802392133
new science of expertise. New York: Harcourt. Geary, D.C. (2008b). Whither evolutionary
Evertson, C., Anderson, C., Anderson, L. & Brophy, J. educational psychology? Educational Psychologist,
E. (1980). Relationship between classroom 43, 217–226.
behaviors and student outcomes in junior high doi.org/10.1080/00461520802392240
mathematics and English classes. American Gersten, R., Chard, D., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S.,
Educational Research Journal, 17, 43–60. Morphy, P. & Flojo, J. (2009). A meta-analysis of
doi.org/10.3102/00028312017001043 mathematics instructional interventions for students
Ewing, B. (2011). Direct instruction in mathematics: with learning disabilities. Los Alamitos, CA:
Issues for schools with high Indigenous Instructional Research Group.
enrolments: A literature review. Australian Journal Gillen-O’Neel, C. & Fuligni, A. (2013). A longitudinal
of Teacher Education, 36, 64–91. study of school belonging and academic
doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2011v36n5.5 motivation across high school. Child Development,
84, 678–692.

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture 53

Andrew J. Martin

Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Hu, F.T., Ginns, P. & Bobis, J. (2015). Getting the
Learning and Instruction, 15, 313–331. point: tracing worked examples enhances
doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.001 learning. Learning and Instruction, 35, 85–93.
Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A meta- doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.10.002
analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal Hunter, M. (1984). Knowing, teaching and
contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16, supervising. In P. Hosford (Ed). Using what we
511–525. know about teaching (pp.169–192). Alexandria, VA:
doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.001 ASCD.
Ginns, P., Martin, A.J., Liem, G.A.D. & Papworth, B. Jackson, S.A., Kleitman, S. & Aidman, E. (2014). Low
(2014). Structural and concurrent validity of the cognitive load and reduced arousal impede
International English Big-Five Mini-Markers in an practice effects on executive functioning,
adolescent sample: Exploring analytic metacognitive confidence and decision making.
approaches and implications for personality PloS One, 9, e115689.
assessment. Journal of Research in Personality, 53, doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115689
182–192. doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.10.001 Jitendra A.K., Edwards, L.L., Sacks, G. & Jacobson,
Ginns, P., Martin, A.J. & Marsh, H.W. (2013). L.A. (2004). What research says about vocabulary
Designing instructional in a conversational style: instruction for students with learning disabilities.
A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 25, Exceptional Children, 70, 299–322.
445–472. doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9228-0 doi.org/10.1177/001440290407000303
Good, TL. & Grouws, D.A. (1979). The Missouri Kagan, D.M. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher
Mathematics Effectiveness Project. Journal of cognition: Inferences concerning the Goldilocks
Educational Psychology, 71, 143–155. principle. Review of Educational Research, 60,
doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.71.3.355 419–469.
Graham, C. & Hill, M. (2003). Negotiating the transition Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its
to secondary school. Scottish Council for Research implications for learner-tailored instruction.
in Education. Edinburgh: Scotland. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 509–539.
Guthrie, J.T. & Davis, M.H. (2003). Motivating doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9054-3
struggling readers in middle school through an Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: Implications for
engagement model of classroom practice. affective computing. AAAI Publications, Twenty-
Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 59–85. Fourth International FLAIRS Conference,
doi.org/10.1080/10573560308203 Florida, USA.
Haas, M. (2005). Teaching methods for secondary Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (2003).
algebra: A meta-analysis of findings. NASSP The expertise reversal effect. Educational
Bulletin, 89, 24–46. Psychologist, 38, 23–31.
doi.org/10.1177/019263650508964204 doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4
Hallahan, D.P. (1989). Attention disorders: Specific Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovinen, J. & Sweller, J.
learning disabilities. In T. Husen & Postlethwait (2001). When problem solving is superior to
(Eds.). The international encyclopedia of education: studying worked examples. Journal of Educational
Research and studies (pp.98–99). New York, NY: Psychology, 93, 579–588.
Pergamon. doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.579
Hanewald, R. (2013). Transition between primary Kalyuga, S. & Singh, A-M. (2015). Rethinking the
and secondary school: Why it is important and boundaries of cognitive load theory in complex
how it can be supported. Australian Journal of learning. Educational Psychology Review.
Teacher Education, 38, 62–74. doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9352-0
doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n1.7 Kamps, D., Abbott, M., Greenwood, C., Wills, H.,
Hartanto, T.A., Krafft, C.E., Iosif, A.M. & Schweitzer, Veerkamp, M. & Kaufman, J. (2008). Effects of
J.B. (2016). A trial-by-trial analysis reveals more small group reading instruction and curriculum
intense physical activity is associated with better differences for students most at risk in
cognitive control performance in attention- kindergarten: Two-year results for secondary- and
deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Child tertiary-level interventions. Journal of Learning
Neuropsychology, 22, 618–26. Disabilities, 41, 101–114.
doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2015.1044511 doi.org/10.1177/0022219407313412
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and
meta-analyses relating to achievement. London and Instruction, 26, 379–424.
New York: Routledge. doi.org/10.1080/07370000802212669
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers. London Kinder, D. & Bursuck, W. (1992). The research for a
and New York: Routledge. unified social studies curriculum; Does history
really repeat itself? In D. Carnine & E.J.
Kameenui (Eds). Higher order thinking: Designing
curriculum for mainstream students (pp.23–38).
Austin, TX: Pro-ed.

54 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement

Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J. & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why Magliaro, S.G., Lockee, B.B. & Burton, J.K. (2005).
minimal guidance during instruction does not Direct instruction revisited: A key model for
work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, instructional technology. Educational Technology
discovery, problem-based, experiential, and Research and Development, 53, 41–55.
inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, doi.org/10.1007/BF02504684
41, 75–86. doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 Malmberg, L-E., Woolgar, C. & Martin, A.J. (2013).
Klahr, D. & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of Quality of the Learning Experience
learning paths in early science instruction effects Questionnaire (LEQ) for Personal Digital
of direct instruction and discovery learning. Assistants (PDAs). International Journal of
Psychological Science, 15, 661–667. Quantitative Research in Education, 1, 275–296.
doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00737.x doi.org/10.1504/IJQRE.2013.057689
Kroesbergen, E.H. & Van Luit, J.E.H. (2003). Marsh, H.W. (2007). Self-concept theory, measurement
Mathematics interventions for children with and research into practice: The role of self-concept in
special educational needs. Remedial and Special educational psychology. Leicester, UK: British
Education, 24, 97–114. Psychological Society.
doi.org/10.1177/07419325030240020501 Marsh, H.W. & Martin, A.J. (2011). Academic self-
Ku, H.Y. & Sullivan, H.J. (2002). Student concept and academic achievement: Relations
performance and attitudes using personalized and causal ordering. British Journal of Educational
mathematics instruction. Educational Technology Psychology, 81, 59–77.
Research and Development, 50, 21–34. doi.org/10.1348/000709910X503501
doi.org/10.1007/BF02504959 Martin, A.J. (2003). How to motivate your child for school
Kulik, J. & Kulik, C.L. (1979). College teaching. In P. and beyond. Sydney: Random House/Bantam.
Peterson & H. Walberg, (Eds.). Research on Martin, A.J. (2005). How to help your child fly through
teaching: Concepts, findings and implications life: The 20 big issues. Sydney: Random
(pp.70–93). Berkeley, CA: McCutcheon. House/Bantam.
Kvalsund, R. (2000). The transition from primary to Martin, A.J. (2007). Examining a multidimensional
secondary level in smaller and larger rural model of student motivation and engagement
schools in Norway: Comparing differences in using a construct validation approach. British
context and social meaning. International Journal Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 413–440.
of Educational Research, 33, 401–424. doi.org/10.1348/000709906X118036
doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(00)00025-2 Martin, A.J. (2009). Motivation and engagement
Lee, H.S. & Anderson, J.R. (2013). Student learning: across the academic lifespan: A developmental
What has instruction got to do with it? Annual construct validity study of elementary school,
Review of Psychology, 64, 445–469. high school, and university/college students.
doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143833 Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69,
Liem, G.A. & Martin, A.J. (2012). The Motivation and 794–824. doi.org/10.1177/0013164409332214
Engagement Scale: Theoretical framework, Martin, A.J. (2010). Building classroom success:
psychometric properties, and applied yields. Eliminating academic fear and failure. New York:
Australian Psychologist, 47, 3–13. Continuum.
doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-9544.2011.00049.x Martin, A.J. (2012a). Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Liem, G.A.D. & Martin, A.J. (2013). Direct instruction Disorder (ADHD), perceived competence, and
and academic achievement. In J. Hattie & E. self-worth: Evidence and implications for
Anderman (Eds.). International guide to student students and practitioners. In D. Hollar (Ed.).
achievement. Oxford: Routledge. Handbook on children with special health care needs
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Tyson, D.F. & Patall, E.A. (pp.47–72). New York: Springer.
(2008). When are achievement goal orientations doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2335-5_3
beneficial for academic achievement? A closer Martin, A.J. (2012b). Motivation and engagement:
look at moderating factors. International Review of Conceptual, operational and empirical clarity.
Social Psychology, 21, 19–70. Section Commentary in S. Christenson, A.
Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (2002). Building Reschly & C. Wylie (Eds.). Handbook of research on
practically useful theory of goal setting and task student engagement. New York: Springer.
motivation. American Psychologist, 57, 705–717. doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_14
doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705 Martin, A.J. (2013). From will to skill: The psychology
Macken, L. & Ginns, P. (2014). Pointing and tracing of motivation, instruction and learning in today's
gestures may enhance anatomy and physiology classroom. InPsych – Bulletin of Australian
learning. Medical Teacher, 36, 596–601. Psychological Society, December, 10–12.
doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.899684 Martin, A.J. (2015). Teaching academically at-risk
Maehr, M.L. & Zusho, A. (2009). Achievement goal students in middle school: The roles of explicit
theory: The past, present, and future. In K.R. instruction and guided discovery learning. In S
Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds). Handbook of Groundwater-Smith & N. Mockler (Eds). Big fish,
motivation at school (pp.77–104). New York: little fish: Teaching and learning in the middle years.
Routledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture 55

Andrew J. Martin

Martin, A.J. (2016). The Motivation and Engagement Martin, A.J., Papworth, B., Ginns, P., Malmberg, L-E.,
Scale (16th Edition). Sydney, Australia: Lifelong Collie, R. & Calvo, R.A. (2015). Real-time
Achievement Group. motivation and engagement during a month at
www.lifelongachievement.com school: Every moment of every day for every
Martin, A.J., Anderson, J., Bobis, J., Way, J. & Vellar, R. student matters. Learning and Individual
(2012). Switching on and switching off in Differences, 38, 26–35.
mathematics: An ecological study of future intent doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.01.014
and disengagement amongst middle school Martin, A.J., Way, J., Bobis, J. & Anderson, J. (2015).
students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, Exploring the ups and downs of mathematics
1–18. doi.org/10.1037/a0025988 engagement in the middle years of school. Journal
Martin, A.J. & Elliot, A.J. (2016). The role of personal of Early Adolescence, 35, 199–244.
best (PB) and dichotomous achievement goals in doi.org/10.1177/0272431614529365
students' academic motivation and engagement: Martin, A.J., Yu, K. & Hau, K-T. (2014). Motivation
A longitudinal investigation. Educational and engagement in the 'Asian Century': A
Psychology,36 1285–1302. comparison of Chinese students in Australia,
Martin, A.J., Ginns, P. & Papworth, B. (2016). Hong Kong, and Mainland China. Educational
Motivation and engagement: Same or different? Does it Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental
matter? Submitted for publication. Educational Psychology, 34, 417–439.
Martin, A.J. & Hau, K.-T. (2010). Achievement doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.814199
motivation amongst Chinese and Australian Martin, A.J., Yu, K., Papworth, B., Ginns, P. & Collie,
school students: Assessing differences of kind and R.J. (2015). Motivation and engagement in USA,
differences of degree. International Journal of Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, and China:
Testing, 10, 274–294. Testing a multidimensional framework. Journal of
doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2010.482220 Psychoeducational Assessment, 33, 103–114.
Martin, A.J. & Liem, G.A. (2010). Academic Personal doi.org/10.1177/0734282914546287
Bests (PBs), engagement, and achievement: A Marzano, R.J. (1998). A theory-based meta-analysis of
cross-lagged panel analysis. Learning and research on instruction. McREL, Aurora, Colorado
Individual Differences, 20, 265–270.
Marzano, R.J. (2003). What works in schools.
Martin, A.J. Marsh, H.W. & Debus, R.L. (2001a). A
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
quadripolar need achievement representation of
Marzano, R.J. (2011). Art and science of teaching /
self-handicapping and defensive pessimism.
The perils and promises of discovery learning.
American Educational Research Journal, 38, 583–610.
Educational Leadership, 69, 86–87.
doi.org/10.3102/00028312038003583
Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T.E., Bakken, J.P. &
Martin, A.J. Marsh, H.W. & Debus, R.L. (2001b). Self-
handicapping and defensive pessimism: Whedon, C. (1996). Reading comprehension: A
Exploring a model of predictors and outcomes synthesis of research in learning disabilities.
from a self-protection perspective. Journal of Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities,
Educational Psychology, 93, 87–102. 10B, 201–227.
doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.87 Matlen, B.J. & Klahr, D. (2010, June). Sequential
Martin, A.J. Marsh, H.W. & Debus, R.L. (2003). Self- effects of high and low guidance on children's
handicapping and defensive pessimism: A model early science learning. In Proceedings of the 9th
of self-protection from a longitudinal perspective. International Conference of the Learning Sciences-
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 1–36. Volume 1 (pp.1016–1023). International Society of
doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00008-5 the Learning Sciences.
Martin, A.J., Marsh, H.W., Williamson, A. & Debus, Mayer, R.E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes
R.L. (2003). Self-handicapping, defensive rule against pure discovery learning? The case for
pessimism, and goal orientation: A qualitative guided methods of instruction. American
study of university students. Journal of Educational Psychologist, 59, 14–19.
Psychology, 95, 617–628. doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.617 Mayer, R.E. & Johnson, C.I. (2008). Revising the
Martin, A.J., Martin, T.G. & Evans, P. (2016). redundancy principle in multimedia learning.
Motivation and engagement in Jamaica: Testing a Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 380–386
multidimensional framework among students in doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.380
an emerging regional context. Journal of Mayer, R.E. & Moreno, R. (2010). Techniques that
Psychoeducational Assessment. reduce extraneous cognitive load and manage
doi.org/10.1177/0734282916674424 intrinsic cognitive load during multimedia
Martin, A.J., Papworth, B., Ginns, P. & Liem, G.A.D. learning. (pp.131–152). In J.L. Plass., R. Moreno.
(2014). Boarding school, motivation and & R. Brunken (Eds). Cognitive load theory.
engagement, and psychological well-being: A Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
large-scale investigation. American Educational Maynes, N., Julien-Schultz, L. & Dunn, C. (2010).
Research Journal, 51, 1007–1049. Modeling and the Gradual Release of
doi.org/10.3102/0002831214532164 Responsibility: What Does It Look Like in the
Classroom? Brock Education Journal, 19, 65–77.

56 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement

McInerney, D.M. (2000). Helping kids achieve their best. Nandagopal, K. & Ericsson, K.A. (2012). Enhancing
Sydney: Allen and Unwin. students' performance in traditional education:
Mcinerney, V., Marsh, H. W. & Mcinerney, D. M. Implications from the expert performance
(1999). The designing of the computer anxiety approach and deliberate practice (pp.257-293).
and learning measure (CALM): Validation of In K.R. Harris., S. Graham. & T. Urdan (Eds).
scores on a multidimensional measure of anxiety APA educational psychology handbook. Washington:
and cognitions relating to adult learning of American Psychological Association.
computing skills using structural equation doi.org/10.1037/13273-010
modeling. Educational and Psychological Measurement, Nuthall, G. (1999). The way students learn: Acquiring
59, 451–470. knowledge from an integrated science and social
doi.org/10.1177/00131649921969974 studies unit. The Elementary School Journal, 99,
McInerney, D.M., Yeung, A.S. & McInerney, V. (2000). 303–341 doi.org/10.1086/461928
Cross-cultural validation of the Inventory of Paas, F., Renkl, A. & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load
School Motivation (ISM): Motivation orientations theory and instructional design: Recent
of Navajo and Anglo students. Journal of Applied developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4.
Measurement, 2, 135–153. doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1
McKinney, J.D., Montague, M. & Hocutt, A.M. (1993). Paas, F. & Sweller, J. (2012). An evolutionary upgrade
Educational assessment of students with attention of cognitive load theory: Using the human motor
deficit disorder. Exceptional Children, 60, 125–131. system and collaboration to support the learning
McMullen, F. & Madelaine, A. (2014) Why is there so of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology
much resistance to Direct Instruction? Australian Review, 24, 27–45.
Journal of Learning Difficulties, 19, 137–151 doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9179-2
doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2014.962065 Pearson, P.D. & Gallagher, M. (1983). The instruction
McWilliam, E.L. (2009) Teaching for creativity: From of reading comprehension. Contemporary
sage to guide to meddler. Asia Pacific Journal of Educational Psychology, 8, 317–344.
Education, 29, 281–293. doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(83)90019-X
doi.org/10.1080/02188790903092787 Penney, C.G. (1989). Modality effects and the
Meichenbaum, D. (1974). Cognitive behavior modification. structure of short-term memory. Memory and
Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Cognition, 17, 398–442.
Midgley, C., Arunkumar, R. & Urdan, T. C. (1996). ‘If doi.org/10.3758/BF03202613
I don’t do well tomorrow, there’s a reason’: Pintrich, P.R. (2000). Educational psychology at the
Predictors of adolescents’ use of academic self- millennium: A look back and a look forward.
handicapping strategies. Journal of Educational Educational Psychologist, 35, 221–226.
Psychology, 88, 423–434. doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3504_01
doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.3.423 Pintrich, P.R. (2003). A motivational science
Midgley, C., Maehr, M., Hicks, L., Roesser, R., Urdan, T., perspective on the role of student motivation in
Anderman, E., Kaplan, A., Arunkumar. R. & learning and teaching contexts. Journal of
Middleton, M. (1997). Patterns of Adaptive Learning Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
(PALS). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Miller, R.B., Greene, B.A., Montalvo, G.P., Ravindran, Pintrich, P.R. & DeGroot, E. (1990). Motivational and
B. & Nichols, J.D. (1996). Engagement in self-regulated learning components of classroom
academic work: The role of learning goals, future academic performance. Journal of Educational
consequences, pleasing others, and perceived Psychology, 82, 33–40.
ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
388–422. doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996.0028 Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A.F., Garcia, T. & McKeachie,
Moreno, R. & Mayer, R.E. (2010). Techniques that W.J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated
increase generative processing in multimedia Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann
learning: Open questions for cognitive load Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to
research. (pp.153–177). In J.L. Plass., R. Moreno. Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
& R. Brunken (Eds). Cognitive load theory. Plenty, S. & Heubeck, B.G. (2011). Mathematics
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. motivation and engagement: an independent
Murphy, P.K. & Alexander, P.A. (2000). A motivated evaluation of a complex model with Australian
exploration of motivation terminology. rural high school students. Educational Research
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 3–53. and Evaluation, 17, 283–299.
doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1019 doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2011.622504
Nagabhushan, P. (2012). Academic motivation and Plenty, S. & Heubeck, B.G. (2013). A
engagement: An examination of its factor multidimensional analysis of changes in
structure in senior school years. The European mathematics motivation and engagement during
Journal of Behavioural and Social Sciences, 2, high school. Educational Psychology, 33, 14–30.
260–277. doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2012.740199
doi.org/10.15405/FutureAcademy/ejsbs(2301-
2218).2012.2.11

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture 57

Andrew J. Martin

Pollock, E., Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (2002). Rhodewalt, F. & Davison, J. (1986). Self-handicapping
Assimilating complex information. Learning and and subsequent performance: Role of outcome
Instruction, 12, 61–86. valance and attributional certainty. Basic and
doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00016-0 Applied Social Psychology, 7, 307–322.
Pressley, M. & Allington, R.L. (2014). Reading doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp0704_5
instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. Robins, P. M. (1992). A comparison of behavioral and
New York, NY: Guilford Publications. attentional functioning in children diagnosed as
Pressley, M., Roehrig, A.D., Raphael, L., Dolezal, S., hyperactive or learning disabled. Journal of
Bohn, C., Mohan, L., Wharton-McDonald, R., Abnormal Child Psychology, 20, 65–82.
Bogner, K. & Hogan, K. (2003). Teaching doi.org/10.1007/BF00927117
processes in elementary and secondary Rosenshine, B.V. (1986). Synthesis of research on
education. In W.M. Reynolds & G.E. Miller (Eds). explicit teaching. Educational Leadership, 43, 60-
Handbook of educational psychology. New Jersey: 69.
John Wiley & Sons. Rosenshine, B.V. (1995). Advances in research on
doi.org/10.1002/0471264385.wei0708 instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 88,
Przychodzin-Havis, A. M., Marchand-Martella, N.E., 262–268.
Martella, R.C. & Azim, D. (2004). Direct Instruction doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1995.9941309
mathematics programs: An overview and research Rosenshine, B.V. (2008). Five meanings of direct
summary. Journal of Direct Instruction, 4, 53–84. instruction. Lincoln: IL: Center on Innovation and
Przychodzin-Havis, A.M., Marchand-Martella, N.E., Improvement .
Martella, R.C., Miller, D.A., Warner, L., Leonard, Rosenshine, B.V. (2009). The empirical support for
B. & Chapman, S. (2005). An analysis of direct instruction. In S. Tobias & T.M. Duffy
corrective reading research. Journal of Direct (Eds). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure?
Instruction, 5, 37–65. New York: Routledge.
Purdie, N. & Ellis, L. (2005). A review of the empirical Rupley, W.H., Blair, T.R. & Nichols, W.D. (2009).
evidence identifying effective interventions and teaching Effective reading instruction for struggling
practices for students with learning difficulties in Years readers: The role of direct/explicit teaching.
4, 5, and 6. Melbourne: Australian Council for Reading and Writing Quarterly, 25, 125–138.
Educational Research. doi.org/10.1080/10573560802683523
Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination
perspective on student engagement. In S.L. theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
Christenson, A.L. Reschly & C. Wylie (Eds.). social development, and well-being. American
Handbook of research on student engagement Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
(pp.149–172). New York. NY: Springer. doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_7 Sarver, D.E., Rapport, M.D., Kofler, M.J., Raiker, J.S. &
Reeve, J. (2015). A grand theory of motivation: Why Friedman, L.M. (2015). Hyperactivity in
not? Motivation and Emotion, 40, 31–35. attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD):
doi.org/10.1007/s11031-015-9538-2 Impairing deficit or compensatory behavior?
Reeve, J., Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (2004). Self- Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43,
determination theory: A dialectical framework 1219–1232. doi.org/10.1007/s10802-015-0011-1
for understanding socio-cultural influences on Schieffer, C., Marchand-Martella, N.E., Martella, R.
student motivation. In D. M. McInerney & S. Van C., Simonsen, F.L. & Waldron-Soler, K.M. (2002).
Etten (Eds.). Big theories revisited (pp.31–60). An analysis of the Reading Mastery program:
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Press. Effective components and research review.
Reeves, J. (2010). Teacher learning by script. Journal of Direct Instruction, 2, 87–119.
Language Teaching Research, 14, 241–258. Schunk, D.H. & Miller, S.D. (2002). Self-efficacy and
doi.org/10.1177/1362168810365252 adolescents’ motivation. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan
Renkl, A. (2014). Toward an instructionally oriented (Eds). Academic motivation of adolescents.
theory of example‐based learning. Cognitive Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.
Science, 38, 1–37. doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12086 Schunk, D.H. & Mullen, C.A. (2012). Self-efficacy as
Renkl, A. & Atkinson, R.K. (2010). Learning from an engaged learner. In S. Christenson, A. Reschly
worked-out examples and problem solving. & C. Wylie (Eds.). Handbook of research on student
(pp.91-108). In J.L. Plass., R. Moreno. & R. engagement. New York: Springer.
Brunken (Eds). Cognitive load theory. Cambridge: doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_10
Cambridge University Press. Schunk, D.H., Pintrich, P.R. & Meece, J.L. (2008).
Reschly, A.L. & Christenson, S.L. (2012). Jingle, Motivation in education. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and Pearson Education.
future directions of the engagement construct. In Schute, V.J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback.
S. Christenson, A. Reschly & C. Wylie (Eds.). Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189.
Handbook of research on student engagement. New doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795
York: Springer. doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-
2018-7_1

58 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement

Senko, C. & Miles, K. M. (2008). Pursuing their own Sweller J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem
learning agenda: How mastery-oriented students solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12,
jeopardize their class performance. Contemporary 257–85. doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
Educational Psychology, 33, 561–583. Sweller, J. (2003). Evolution of human cognitive
Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., Soenens, architecture. In Ross, B. (ed.), The psychology of
B. & Dochy, F. (2009). The synergistic learning and motivation, Vol. 43. Academic Press,
relationship of perceived autonomy support and San Diego, pp.215–266.
structure in the prediction of self‐regulated doi.org/10.1016/s0079-7421(03)01015-6
learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional design consequences
79, 57–68. doi.org/10.1348/000709908X304398 of an analogy between evolution by natural
Sirin, S.R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and selection and human cognitive architecture.
academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of Instructional Science, 32, 9–31.
research. Review of Educational Research, 75, doi.org/10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021808.72598.4d
417–453. doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417 Sweller, J. (2012). Human cognitive architecture: Why
Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of some instructional procedures work and others
control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, do not (pp.295–325). In K.R. Harris., S. Graham.
71, 549–570. doi.org/10.1037/0022- & T. Urdan (Eds). APA educational psychology
3514.71.3.549 handbook. Washington: American Psychological
Snow, R.E. (1991). Aptitude-treatment interaction as Association. doi.org/10.1037/13273-011
a framework for research on individual Sweller, J., Ayres, P. & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive
differences in psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting load theory. New York: Springer.
and Clinical Psychology, 59, 205–216. doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4
doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.59.2.205 Sweller, J. & Cooper, G.A. (1985). The use of worked
Stein, M., Carnine, D. & Dixon, R. (1998). Direct examples as a substitute for problem solving in
instruction: Integrating curriculum design and learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2,
effective teaching practice. Intervention in School 59–89. doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0201_3
and Clinic, 33, 227–234. Tabassam, W. & Grainger, J. (2002). Self-concept,
doi.org/10.1177/105345129803300405 attributional style and self-efficacy beliefs of
Stein, M., Silbert, J. & Carnine, D. (1997). Designing students with learning disabilities with and
effective mathematics instruction: A direct instruction without Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.
approach. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle river, NJ: Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 141–151.
Merrill/Prentice Hall. doi.org/10.2307/1511280
Stockard, J. (2010). Promoting reading achievement Tarver, S. (1998). Myths and truths about direct
and countering the "Fourth-Grade Slump": The instruction. Effective School Practices, 17, 18–22.
impact of Direct Instruction on reading Tarver, S. & Jung, J.S. (1995). A comparison of
achievement in fifth grade. Journal of Education for mathematics achievement and mathematics
Students Placed at Risk, 15, 218–240. attitudes of first and second graders instructed
doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2010.495687 with either a discovery-learning mathematics
Stockard, J. (2011). Increasing reading skills in rural curriculum or a Direct Instruction curriculum.
areas: An analysis of three school districts. Journal Effective School Practices, 14, 49–57.
of Research in Rural Education, 26, 1–19. Thompson, T. (1994). Self-worth protection: Review and
Strand-Cary, M. & Klahr, D. (2008). Developing implications for the classroom. Educational Review,
elementary science skills: Instructional 46, 259-274. doi.org/10.1080/0013191940460304
effectiveness and path independence. Cognitive Tinker, S. & Elphinstone, B. (2014). Learning
Development, 23, 488–511. engagement: The importance of meaning,
doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.09.005 belonging and academic momentum. The
Swanson, H.L., Carson, C. & Sachse-Lee, C.M. (1996). International Journal of the First Year in Higher
A selective synthesis of intervention research for Education, 5, 93–105.
students with learning disabilities. School Tobias, S. (1982). When do instructional methods
Psychology Review, 25, 370–391. make a difference? Educational Researcher, 11,
Swanson, H.L. & Hoskyn, M. (1998). A synthesis of 4–10. doi.org/10.2307/1174134
experimental intervention literature for students Tobias, S. & Duffy, T.M. (Eds.). (2009). Constructivist
with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instruction: Success or failure? New York, NY:
treatment outcomes. Review of Educational Routledge.
Research, 68, 271–321. Tomlinson, C.A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction
doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003277 in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Swanson, H.L. & Sachse-Lee, C. (2000). A meta- Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. & Drijvers, P. (2014).
analysis of single-subject-design intervention Realistic Mathematics Education. In S. Lerman
research for students with LD. Journal of Learning (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education
Disabilities, 33, 114–136. (pp.521–525). Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York,
doi.org/10.1177/002221940003300201 London: Springer
doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4978-8_170

35th Vernon-Wall Lecture 59

Andrew J. Martin

Van Gog, T., Ericsson, K.A., Rikers, R.M.J. . & Paas, F. Wigfield, A, Guthrie, J.T., Perencevich, K.C., Taboada,
(2005). Instructional design for advanced A., Klauda, S.L., McRae, A. & Barbosa, P. (2008).
learners: Establishing connections between the Role of reading engagement in mediating effects
theoretical frameworks of cognitive load and of reading comprehension instruction on
deliberate practice. Educational Technology, reading outcomes. Psychol Schs, 45: 432–445.
Research and Development, 53, 73–81. doi: 10.1002/pits.20307
doi.org/10.1007/BF02504799 Wigfield, A, Guthrie, J.T., Tonks, S. & Perencevich,
Van Keer, H. & Verhaeghe, J.P. (2005). Effects of K.C. (2004). Children’s motivation for reading:
explicit reading strategies instruction and peer Domain specificity and instructional influences.
tutoring on second and fifth graders' reading The Journal of Educational Research, 97, 299–310.
comprehension and self-efficacy perceptions. The doi.org/10.3200/JOER.97.6.299-310
Journal of Experimental Education, 73, 291–329. Wigfield, A. & Tonks, S. (2002). Adolescents'
doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.73.4.291-329 expectancies for success and achievement task
Van Merriënboer, J.J. (1992). Training complex values during middle and high school years. In F.
cognitive skills: A four-component instructional Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds). Academic motivation of
design model for technical training. Educational adolescents. Connecticut: Information Age
Technology Research and Development, 40, 23–43. Publishing.
doi.org/10.1007/BF02297047 Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment.
Van Merriënboer, J.J. & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive Bloomington. IN: Solution Tree Press.
load theory and complex learning: Recent Winne, P.H. & Nesbit, J.C. (2010). The psychology of
developments and future directions. Educational academic achievement. Annual Review of
Psychology Review, 17, 147–177. Psychology, 61, 653–678.
doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0 doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100348
Vitale, M.R. & Romance, N.R. (1992). Using Wood, D., Bruner, J.S. & Ross, G. (1976). The role of
videodisk instruction in an elementary science tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child
methods course: Remediating science knowledge Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100
deficiencies and facilitating science teaching doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, Wurf, G. & Croft-Piggin, L. (2015). Predicting the
915–928. doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290903 academic achievement of first-year, pre-service
Voelkl, K.E. (2012). School identification. In S.L. teachers: the role of engagement, motivation,
Christenson, A.L. Reschly & C.Wylie (Eds.). ATAR, and emotional intelligence. Asia-Pacific
Handbook of research on student engagement Journal of Teacher Education, 43, 75–91.
(pp.193–218). New York: Springer. doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2014.932328
doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_9 Yeung, A.S., Barker, K., Tracey, D. & Mooney, M.
Walkington, C.A. (2013). Using adaptive learning (2013). School-wide positive behavior for
technologies to personalize instruction to student learning: Effects of dual focus on boys' and girls'
interests: The impact of relevant contexts on behavior and motivation for learning.
performance and learning outcomes. Journal of International Journal of Educational Research, 62, 1-
Educational Psychology, 105, 932–945. 10. doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.06.002
doi.org/10.1037/a0031882 Yin, H. & Wang, W. (2015). Undergraduate students’
Wang, M.T. & Eccles, J.S. (2012). Adolescent motivation and engagement in China: An
behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement exploratory study. Assessment & Evaluation in
trajectories in school and their differential Higher Education, 41, 601–621.
relations to educational success. Journal of Research Yu, K. & Martin, A.J. (2014). Personal best (PB) and
on Adolescence, 22, 31–39. ‘classic’ achievement goals in the Chinese
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of context: Their role in predicting academic
achievement motivation and emotion. motivation, engagement, and buoyancy.
Psychological Review, 92, 548–573. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of
doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548 Experimental Educational Psychology, 34, 635–658.
Weiner, B. (2010). The development of an doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.895297
attribution-based theory of motivation: A history Zeedyk, M.S., Gallacher, J., Henderson, M., Hope, G.,
of ideas. Educational Psychologist, 45, 38–36. Husband, B. & Lindsay, K. (2003). Negotiating
doi.org/10.1080/00461520903433596 the transition from primary to secondary school
Wigfield, A. & Eccles, J.S. (2000). Expectancy-value perceptions of pupils, parents and teachers.
theory of motivation. Contemporary Educational School Psychology International, 24, 67–79.
Psychology, 25, 68–81. doi.org/10.1177/014303430302400101
doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015 Zimmerman, B.J. (2002). Achieving self-regulation:
The trial and triumph of adolescence. In F.
Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds). Academic motivation of
adolescents. Connecticut: Information Age
Publishing.

60 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

 St Andrews House, 48 Princess Road East, Leicester LE1 7DR, UK
Tel 0116 254 9568 Fax 0116 227 1314 E-mail mail@bps.org.uk www.bps.org.uk

© The British Psychological Society 2016

Incorporated by Royal Charter Registered Charity No 229642

View publication stats