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

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”

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)

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

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

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?

Results (* p <.05).38* Undergraduate GPA Law School GPA Hope Optimism Life Satisfaction.25* LSAT Score *.56.38* *

“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

Five Strategies for Engendering Hope 1.Optimizing Student Goals 2.Increasing Student Autonomy 3.Modeling the Learning Process 4.Helping Students Understand Evaluation as Feedback 5.Modeling Agency

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”

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

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

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

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

Thank you!  Allison D. Martin  Clinical Professor of Law, IU McKinney School of Law,  Kevin L. Rand  Associate Professor of Psychology, IUPUI,