Conversations to Enhance Motivation

What is Motivational Interviewing (MI)?

As previously stated, autonomy-supportive teaching and coaching are characterized by empathy, nonjudgment, use of non-controlling language, and encouragement. One powerful approach to cultivating this type of working alliance is known as Motivational Interviewing (MI).

Motivational Interviewing is defined as “a collaborative, goal-oriented style of communication with particular attention to the language of change. It is designed to strengthen personal motivation for and commitment to a specific goal by eliciting and exploring the person’s own reasons for change [emphasis added] within an atmosphere of acceptance and compassion (MINT, 2017).” In other words, this approach is about constructing conversations so that individuals “…talk themselves into change, based on their own values and interests (Miller and Rollnick, 2013).”

When to Use MI?

Motivational Interviewing is particularly useful when any of the following conditions are present (MINT, 2017):

• “Ambivalence is high and people are stuck in mixed feelings about change

• Confidence is low and people doubt their abilities to change

• Desire is low and people are uncertain about whether they want to make a change

• Importance is low and the benefits of change and disadvantages of the current situation are unclear”

Motivational Interviewing acknowledges that many of us often experience uncertainty, ambivalence, a lack of confidence, and low desire. This approach is contrary to the control-oriented, autonomy-hindering conditions commonly found in many modern school settings. The purpose of MI is not to force or trick others into doing what we expect or desire. It is about trusting that individuals want good things for themselves and helping them achieve those outcomes.

Interestingly, behavior change can occur quickly when individuals are given the right social support. MI can be implemented during brief informal conversations or longer, formal coaching sessions: “In fact, the average amount of time MI is used in research projects is 1 to 4 sessions for 15 minutes each (North, 2017, p. 13).”

Principles of MI

The following four principles of MI (Gold & Kokotailo, 2007) characterize what is known as “the spirit of MI”:

OARS

The basic interaction techniques and skills that are used early and often in MI are open questions, affirmations, reflective listening, and summary reflections, known as OARS (Rosengren, 2009):

• Open questions invite students to “tell their story” in their own words without leading them in a specific direction.

• Affirmations are clear and genuine statements and gestures that recognize students’ strengths and acknowledge behaviors contributing to positive change (no matter how big or small).

• Reflective listening involves thinking and speaking reflectively to avoid confusion and breakdowns in communication.

• Summary reflections are special applications of reflective listening for collecting and linking information or transitioning in conversations.

Additional descriptions, recommendations, and examples of these interactions are provided below.

Reflective Listening

As you will recall, empathy is the ability to understand another person’s feelings, perceptions, and thoughts, and to accurately reflect their perspectives back to them.

“…the key to showing empathy is reflective listening, or responding to students more often with statements than with questions”

(North, 2017, p. 18)

According to MI, one important way to demonstrate empathy is through reflective listening, which demonstrates your attention and understanding during conversations. Two kinds of reflective listening are: simple reflections and complex reflections (Miller and Rollnick, 2013, p. 57).

An educator or coach might use the following statements to indicate an understanding of a student’s specific emotion, goal, or value (North, 2013, pp. 47-52):

• “You’re feeling…” 

• “A goal of yours is…” 

• “It’s important to you that…” 

It is important to pause after each reflection. Resist the temptation to immediately follow up with a question or offer advice. Allow the student to respond to, elaborate upon, or correct your reflection.  In fact, when implementing MI, educators should generally respond to students more often with these reflective statements rather than a series of questions.

Paradoxically, brief reflective statements that demonstrate understanding can be a more effective linguistic tool than profuse questioning, which communicates interest but may also indicate a lack of understanding or an attempt to shift control of the conversation back to the questioner.

In general, a 2:1 ratio of reflective statements to questions is recommended (North, 2013, pp. 55-56).

When it is necessary to ask questions (and it often is), educators should generally avoid closed-ended questions (i.e., those that can be answered with “Yes” or “No”) as they fail to illuminate the reasons behind the student’s response. Instead, educators should practice asking good open-ended questions, which encourage the student to engage in deeper reflective thinking and elaboration. Educators can use simple reflections, complex reflections, and open-ended questions to help students consider possible effects of behavior change and goal pursuit from many different angles.

Student Autonomy and Asking for Permission

“We all want to feel as if we are in control of our lives. Adolescents, however, love autonomy. It’s one of the driving goals of their developmental stage… Most adolescents, though, feel like they have to fight for control over their lives…”

(North, 2017, p. 58)

One way to counter a student’s resistance in a coaching conversation is through the use of autonomy-affirming language. By simply asking students what they wish to talk about, if they are willing to talk about a particular topic, or if they are willing to listen to the feedback, educators can signal a strong affirmation of students’ autonomy.

Some other examples of autonomy-affirming language include the following statements (North, 2017, p. 60):

• “It’s totally up to you. It’s your life. In the end, you get to decide.” 

• “If it weren’t up to your parents, your teachers, the principal, or me, and it was just up to you, what would you do?” 

• “I’m not going to tell you what to do or think. I’m here to help you decide what you want for yourself.” 

When determining the level of autonomy we grant students, however, it’s important to consider age, maturity level, and school policies.

Responding to Sustain Talk and Change Talk

In MI, Sustain Talk refers to language that reflects a person’s intention to maintain the status quo (for continuing to behave in a particular way), whereas Change Talk refers to language that reflects a person’s intention, their reasons, desires, willingness, commitment, and action steps, toward change (North, 2017). As a listener, it can be easy to notice and get caught up in a student’s negative sustain talk. Therefore, educators should be especially mindful of a student’s use of any language that signals reasons, desires, willingness, commitment, and steps to make goal-relevant changes in their life.

It’s important to remember that ambivalence is to be expected and change is rarely sudden or consistent (at first). A student is likely to demonstrate both Sustain Talk and Change Talk in the same conversation (or even the same sentence!). However, the goal is to limit Sustain Talk and grow Change Talk.

Educators may ask students to reflect upon their own deeply held (authentic) values and most important goals and have them further consider how their current behavior may or may not reflect those stated values and beliefs.

Educators can also use Change Rulers, or scaling questions (e.g., “On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being not important at all and 10 being the most important thing in the world to you, how important is it to…”), which are based on the idea that change can occur when people believe that change is both important and possible (North, 2017, p. 85). No matter students’ responses (assuming it’s not 1), an educator may ask “Why isn’t it lower?” to elicit the student’s own reasons for change.

As Change Talk emerges, educators should continue to “manifest the evocative spirit of the approach- drawing the solution out of the coachee, rather than jumping in with unasked-for advice,” which helps build students’ confidence and commitment by helping them develop a more concrete plan (who, what, when, and where), including identifying any social support available to them (Anstiss & Passmore, 2012, p. 47).

Finally, the above questions and techniques reflect the belief that most students, like us, want to be well and do good. They want to live with integrity (i.e., experiencing alignment of their authentic values and interests with their external behavior). Motivational Interviewing offers an open, nonjudgmental, non-threatening, and non-controlling conversational style that affirms students’ autonomy, demonstrates belonging, and encourages action.