USING MOTIVATIONAL INTERVIEWING

TO IMPROVE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE WITH

AT-RISK STUDENTS

Dawn DeBiase, LICSWAssistant Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

Fairfield Universityddebiase1@fairfield.edu

203.254.4000 x2227

Dawn DeBiase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

Pre-Workshop ExerciseThe 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!)

1.“8 a.m.? That English class is way too early. Can’t wake up for that one….”

2.“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.

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.

WHAT IS MOTIVATIONAL INTERVIEWING (M.I.)?

Motivational Interviewing is a collaborative, person-centered form of guiding to elicit and strengthen motivation for change.

Miller and Rollnick, 2009

Dawn DeBiase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

“SPIRIT” of M.I.(Miller and Rollnick, 2002)

MOTIVATIONAL

INTERVIEWING

CollaborationEvocationAutonomy

TRADITIONAL

ADDICTION TX

ConfrontationEducationAuthority

Dawn DeBiase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

BREADTH/SCOPE OF M.I.

Empirical support for M.I. across problem

behaviorsAddictions/Drugs/GamblingMental 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.

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.

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.

Transtheoretical Model(Prochaska & DiClemente)

Dawn DeBiase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

BEHAVIOR CHANGE STAGES /CHARACTERISTICS

STAGE CHARACTERISTICS

Pre-Contemplation Student does not intend to change behavior

Contemplation Student may change behavior (Ambivalent)

Preparation Student intends to change in near future

Action Student has incorporated new behavior

Maintenance Student is consistent with behavior/Unlikely to revertDawn DeBiase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

FOUR M.I. PRINCIPLES

1. EXPRESS EMPATHY

2. DEVELOP DISCREPANCY

3. ROLL WITH RESISTANCE

4. SUPPORT SELF-EFFICACY

Dawn DeBiase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

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.

1. EXPRESS EMPATHY

• Reflective Listening = Operational Definition– We want to clarify and amplify student’s own

experience and meaning, without imposing our own 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.

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.

LEVELS OF REFLECTION

SIMPLE REFLECTION: Repeating/RephrasingStudent: “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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

RESEARCH STUDY

“PARTICIPANTS” (21)

• Off A.P. = 52%

• Continued A.P. = 24%

• Dismissal = 24%

Total =100%

“NON PARTICIPANTS” (11)

• Off A.P. = 28%

• Continued A.P. = 36%

• Dismissal = 36%

Total =100%

Dawn DeBiase, 2011. For educational purposes only. Not to be replicated or disseminated without express permission.

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.

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.