Early Identification/Intervention: Is There “Hope” for At-Risk Students?

1. Early Identification/Intervention: Is There “Hope” for At-Risk Students? Allison D. Martin & Kevin L. Rand

2. Snyder’s (1994) Hope Theory A model of human motivation which posits that human behavior is guided by 3 cognitions: Goals: mental targets that anchor behavior Pathways Thinking: perceived ability to generate routes to a goal: “Waypower” Agency Thinking: perceived ability to motivate oneself to use pathways: “Willpower”

3. Snyder’s (1994) Hope Theory Emotions: information feedback about goal pursuit Negative emotions = blocked goal Positive emotions = progress or accomplishment Compare to Optimism (Scheier & Carver, 1985)

4. Measuring Hope • Adult Hope Scale (AHS; Snyder et al., 1991) • 4 Pathways Items • “I can think of many ways to get out of a jam.” • “There are lots of ways around any problem.” • 4 Agency Items • “I energetically pursue my goals.” • “I meet the goals I set for myself.” • Total score mean ≈ 48 • No gender or race/ethnic differences

5. Research on Hope • Higher hope → better goal success • Feldman, Rand, Kahle-Wrobleski, 2009 • Higher hope → greater pain tolerance • Snyder, Berg, et al., 2005 • Higher hope → better mental health • Snyder et al., 1991 • Higher hope → better recovery from illness & injury • Barnum et al., 1998; Elliott et al., 1991 • Higher hope → better athletic performance • Curry et al., 1997

6. Research on Hope in Higher Education • Higher hope → more engaged & less distressed coping with academic stressors • Alexander & Onwuegbuzie, 2007; Chang, 1998 • Higher hope → more positive affect & less test anxiety • Onwuegbuzie, 1998; Snyder, 1999 • Higher hope → academic success beyond intelligence • Curry, Snyder, et al., 1997; Rand, 2009 • What about legal education?

7. Results(* p < .05) LSAT Score .13 .38* Undergraduate GPA Law School GPA .25* .78 -.07 .21* .39* Life Satisfaction Hope .38* .56 Optimism

8. “At Risk” Law Students: Early Identification & Intervention • Identification: measuring levels of hope in entering law students may help to identify “at-risk” students • Intervention: employing strategies to engender hope may help “at-risk” students

9. Five Strategies for Engendering Hope • Optimizing Student Goals • Increasing Student Autonomy • Modeling the Learning Process • Helping Students Understand Evaluation as Feedback • Modeling Agency

10. Optimizing Student Goals • Concrete vs. abstract goals • “Work on my outline for 3 hours on Saturday” v. “Ace the Torts exam” • Approach vs. avoidance goals • “Work to understand the case” v. “work so that I don’t embarrass myself during Socratic dialogue” • Learning v. performance goals • “I want to learn intentional torts” v. “I want an A in Torts”

11. Increasing Student Autonomy • Hope correlates with perceptions of control • Strategies: • Let students make choices (classes, exam type, day “on call,” etc.) • Remind students that they have chosen this path

12. Modeling Learning Process • Low-hope students try to meet a goal all at once • Strategies: • Break long-range goals into smaller subgoals • Emphasize planning and preparation • “Think aloud” strategy (Schwartz, 2001) • Help them see preferred and alternate routes to goals

13. Evaluation as Feedback • High-hope students use grades as feedback about their strategies (pathways) • Strategies: • Provide formative assessment • Offer respectful, constructive feedback • Depersonalize grades

14. Modeling Agency • High-hope students have a “can do” attitude • Strategies: • Encourage healthy student habits (within reason) • Model constructive self-talk • Share stories of success and meaning • Teach/mentor with enthusiasm

15. Thank you! • Allison D. Martin • Clinical Professor of Law, IU McKinney School of Law, martinad@iupui.edu • Kevin L. Rand • Associate Professor of Psychology, IUPUI, klrand@iupui.edu