1 / 22

USING MOTIVATIONAL INTERVIEWING TO IMPROVE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE WITH AT-RISK STUDENTS

USING MOTIVATIONAL INTERVIEWING TO IMPROVE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE WITH AT-RISK STUDENTS. Dawn DeBiase, LICSW Assistant Dean, College of Arts and Sciences Fairfield University ddebiase1@fairfield.edu 203.254.4000 x2227. Pre-Workshop Exercise.

dennis
Download Presentation

USING MOTIVATIONAL INTERVIEWING TO IMPROVE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE WITH AT-RISK STUDENTS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. USING MOTIVATIONAL INTERVIEWING TO IMPROVE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE WITH AT-RISK STUDENTS Dawn DeBiase, LICSW Assistant Dean, College of Arts and Sciences Fairfield University ddebiase1@fairfield.edu 203.254.4000 x2227 Dawn DeBiase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

  2. Pre-Workshop Exercise The statements below are those that a student may make during a 1:1 meeting. Please write down the very next thing you would say to the student. (No right or wrong answers ~ Be spontaneous!) • “8 a.m.? That English class is way too early. Can’t wake up for that one….” • “It’s ridiculous that I ‘have to’ meet with you to talk about my grades.” Dawn DeBiase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

  3. References/Resources • William Miller, Ph.D. & Stephen Rollnick, Ph.D. (Motivational Interviewing, 2002, 2nd ed.) • James Prochaska, Ph.D. & Carlo DiClemente, Ph.D. • Carl Rogers, Ph.D. • Kathleen Sciacca, M.A. • Bill Matulich, Ph. D. • David Rosengren, Ph.D. • Thomas Gordon, Ph.D. Dawn DeBiase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

  4. WHAT IS MOTIVATIONAL INTERVIEWING (M.I.)? Motivational Interviewing is a collaborative, person-centeredform of guiding to elicitandstrengthenmotivationforchange. Miller and Rollnick, 2009 Dawn DeBiase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

  5. “SPIRIT” of M.I.(Miller and Rollnick, 2002) MOTIVATIONAL INTERVIEWING • Collaboration • Evocation • Autonomy TRADITIONAL ADDICTION TX • Confrontation • Education • Authority Dawn DeBiase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

  6. BREADTH/SCOPE OF M.I. Empirical support for M.I. across problem behaviors • Addictions/Drugs/Gambling • Mental Health • Wellness/Health (i.e.: smoking cessation) • Corrections/Mandated Clients Dawn DeBiase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

  7. BREADTH/SCOPE OF M.I. • So……why not use Motivational Interviewing with “non-clinical” populations (i.e.: College Students on Academic Probation)? • Guess # published journal articles citing research? • “M.I., Academic Self-Efficacy, and Probationary Students” (R. Pettay & J. Hughey, Kansas State U., Oct. 2010, NACADA) Dawn DeBiase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

  8. THEORETICAL PRINCIPLES 1. Reactance(Brehm & Brehm, 1981) Perception of loss of personal freedom predictably increases attractiveness and frequency of “problem” behavior 2.“Righting Reflex” (Miller & Rollnick, 2002) “Helping” professionals are inclined to “set things right” Paradoxical Result = Student retains behavior Dawn DeBiase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

  9. Transtheoretical Model(Prochaska & DiClemente) Dawn DeBiase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

  10. BEHAVIOR CHANGE STAGES /CHARACTERISTICS Dawn DeBiase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

  11. FOUR M.I. PRINCIPLES • EXPRESS EMPATHY • DEVELOP DISCREPANCY • ROLL WITH RESISTANCE • SUPPORT SELF-EFFICACY Dawn DeBiase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

  12. 1. EXPRESS EMPATHY Research Supports: • Empathic counseling style correlates with client success • Confrontational style correlates with client drop out and poorer outcomes Empathy Conveying acceptance of “where student is at” Empathy Sympathy/Overidentification Dawn DeBiase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

  13. 1. EXPRESS EMPATHY • Reflective Listening = Operational Definition • We want to clarify and amplify student’s own experience and meaning, without imposing ourown opinions/thoughts (Rogers’ "Accurate Empathy”) • Doesn’t mean we agree with student!  • We are simply indicating that the student has been heard and understood ~ That’s all! Dawn DeBiase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

  14. REFLECTIVE LISTENING • Reflections are statements (not questions) • Inflection turns downward (not upward, as in asking a question) • Uses “you” as a lead-in: • “What I hear you saying is…..” • “It sounds like you’re…….” • “You’re …………” Dawn DeBiase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

  15. LEVELS OF REFLECTION SIMPLE REFLECTION: Repeating/Rephrasing Student: “I hate Calculus.” Advisor: “You hate Calculus.”“Math isn’t your thing.” COMPLEX REFLECTION: Goes beyond actual words; Infers meaning; Tests hypotheses Student: “20 hours/study a week? No way!” Advisor: “You think that this much study isn’t necessary for you. You can do well with less time.” Dawn DeBiase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

  16. 2. DEVELOP DISCREPANCY • Usually a disconnect between student’s goals/values (i.e. graduation, getting a job, staying in school) and behavior (i.e. skipping class, procrastination) • Our job is to present reality in a way that invites our students to examine “both sides” of a situation • Our students (not us) should present argument for change Dawn DeBiase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

  17. 3. ROLL WITH RESISTANCE • Acknowledge (even respect) student’s ambivalence (feeling two ways) or outright reluctance to change • Arguments are counterproductive • Resistance is a signal to change strategies • “skidding on ice” analogy • Student is primary resource in finding answers and proposing solutions Dawn DeBiase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

  18. 4. SUPPORT SELF-EFFICACY • Self-Efficacy = Student’s belief in his/her ability to succeed • Research suggests counselor’s expectations and beliefs powerfully influence client outcome • Student needs to want, and believe in, the possibility of change • “If you wish, I can help you.” Dawn DeBiase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

  19. CORRELATIONAL RESEARCH STUDY(2010-2011 Academic Year) • Academic Probation = 32 students Sophomores < 1.9 cumulative GPA Juniors/Seniors < 2.0 cumulative GPA • Outreach = 2 e-mails, 1 cell phone call • 66% response rate (21 students) Average # meetings = 2 • Intervention = 1)Academic Self-Assessment 2) M.I. Consistent (varied) Dawn DeBiase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

  20. RESEARCH STUDY “PARTICIPANTS” (21) “NON PARTICIPANTS” (11) Off A.P. = 28% Continued A.P. = 36% Dismissal = 36% Total =100% • Off A.P. = 52% • Continued A.P. = 24% • Dismissal = 24% Total =100% Dawn DeBiase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

  21. RESEARCH STUDY • Among 21 participating students, significant correlation (r = .368, p < .05) between: • # of meetings (between 1-6) • Resolution(Off A.P., Cont. A.P., Dismissal) • More frequent meetings associated with better academic outcomes • Individualized attention increases likelihood of academic improvement • Why did student return for subsequent meetings? Dawn DeBiase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

  22. TRY THESE! • Use a Reflection (“You” statement) Simple = Repeat/Rephrase (Great with angry student!) Complex = Guess at meaning/feeling; Hypothesis-test • Explore Ambivalence Make a “Decisional Balance” sheet Have student weigh pros (“good things”) vs. cons (“not so good things) of making a change vs. status quo (not changing) • Ask An Evocative Question (Elicit “Change Talk”) “What concerns you about _______?” “What do you think will happen if you don’t change?” “How would you like for things to be different?” Dawn DeBiase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

More Related