Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DOW05375
Motivational Goal Orientations: The Effects of School Climate and Sex Differences
Martin Dowson, Dennis M. McInerney, and Genevieve F. Nelson SELF Research Centre, University of Western Sydney
Abstract
It is widely postulated that school climate and sex may influence students’ motivational orientations. Despite this, relatively little empirical evidence exists to support this postulate. Given this, the present study sought to examine both the individual and interactive effects of school and sex differences on students’ motivational goals. Approximately six-hundred middle school students participated in the study, where the effects of school and sex on three academic and five social goals were examined. Results suggest that school and (to a lesser extent) sex differences, as well the interaction between the two, significantly influence students’ motivational orientations.
It is widely postulated that the psychosocial climate of classrooms and schools, and students’ perceptions of these, may influence students’ motivational orientations towards academic achievement (e.g Covington, 1992; Maehr & Anderman, 1993; Maehr & Midgley, 1996). In fact, it is probably not unreasonable to state that much of the literature on student motivation and classroom/school environments has adopted this postulate for fact. Despite this, there is little empirical evidence that demonstrates the link between the psychosocial climate of the school and/or classroom and the quality (as opposed to the quantity) of students’ motivation (However, see Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan, 1996 for at least one recent exception to this generalisation). The first purpose of the present research, then, was to determine whether a link between schools’ psychosocial climate and students’ motivational orientations could be established on the basis of empirical data rather than theoretical speculation alone.
In addition to the above, the theoretical literature concerning student motivation also speculates that students’ sex may influence their goal orientations, both as a single variable, and as a covariate with the psychosocial climate of the school/classroom. Again, however, little empirical data is available which explores the influence of sex on the quality of students’ motivation, or the relationship between sex and psychosocial climate on students’ motivation. A second purpose of the present research, then, was to determine whether and how sex differences may influence students’ motivational orientations.
Achievement Goal Orientations
Following Dweck (1992), and Urdan and Maehr (1995), this paper uses the terms ‘achievement motivation goals’, ‘motivational goals’, ‘goal orientations’ or simply ‘goals’ to refer to students’ motivational orientations towards achievement, which direct students towards specific achievement outcomes. This definition differs from other conceptualisations, commonly found in the literature (eg. Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992), where goals are equivalent to specific achievement outcomes.
Recent research has focussed on several goal orientations that may be salient to students in achievement situations. A thorough review of these goals is not possible here. However, goals that have been shown to be salient to students in achievement settings include:
(a) mastery goals (Ames & Archer, 1988; Blumenfeld, 1992; Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter, & Elliot, 2000; Renninger, 2000),
(b) performance approach goals (Ames, 1992; Dweck, 1986; Meece, 1994), (c) performance avoidance goals (Elliott & Harackiewicz, 1996; Elliot &
McGregor, 2001; Middleton and Midgley; 1997), and (d) work-avoidance (or work-avoidant) goals (Ainley, 1993; Meece & Holt,
1993; Nicholls, Patashnick, & Nolen, 1985) Moreover, the above goal orientations have been characterised as academic goal
orientations (eg. Dowson & McInerney, 2001; in press(a); Urdan & Maehr, 1995) because they are concerned with the academic reasons (motives, purposes) students’ may espouse for learning in academic achievement situations. Another important class of goals, however, are students’ social goals (Blumenfeld, 1992; Dowson & McInerney, 2001; Urdan & Maehr, 1995). In contrast to their academic goals, students’ social goals are concerned with the social reasons for trying to achieve (or not) in academic situations. This definition of social goals differs from definitions which have been used to examine students’ social reasons for wanting to achieve or not in social situations (eg. Eder, 1985; Lochman, Wayland, & White, 1993; Pietrucha & Erdley, 1996; Wentzel, 1991).
Social goals, of the former type described above, which may be salient to students in achievement situations include:
(a) social solidarity goals, (McInerney, Roche, McInerney, & Marsh, 1997; McInerney, Hinkley, Dowson, & Van Etten, 1998)
(b) social concern and affiliation goals (Dodge, Asher, and Parkhurst, 1989; Dowson & McInerney, in press(a); Urdan & Maehr; 1995; Triandis 1995),
(c) social approval and responsibility goals (Dowson & McInerney, 2001; Maehr, 1984; Van Etten, Freebern & Pressley, 1997), and
(d) social status goals, or future oriented, goals (Brickman & Miller, 2001; McInerney, et al., 1997; Nurmi, Poole, & Seginer, 1995; Nurmi, Poole, & Kalakoski, 1994).
The important point here is not to examine each of these goals in detail. Rather, it is to show that a range of salient academic and social goals exists in achievement situations and, as discussed below, that this range of goals may be influenced by both school climate and sex.
The Influence of School and Classroom Contexts on Students’ Goal Orientations Several recent studies have indicated that differences in the psychological climate of different schools, and different classrooms within those schools, may account for differences in both the motivational goals students adopt, and the ways in which those goals are pursued (Maehr & Anderman, 1993; Maehr & Midgley, 1996; Roeser, et al., 1996). Specifically, it has been recognised that the organisational, cultural, and academic practices of schools as a whole may profoundly influence students’ motivational goal orientations, as well as other aspects of their psychological engagement with schooling and learning (Anderman & Maehr, 1994; Maehr & Midgley, 1991). Examples of such practices include the provision of learning opportunities that are meaningful and interesting (Renninger, 2000; Corno & Rohrkemper, 1985), the provision of opportunities for student choice and decision-making (Ryan, Connell, & Deci, 1985), the promotion of beliefs in competence through effort (Stipek & Kowalski, 1989), increasing students’ opportunities for success (Meece, 1994), rewarding and recognising personal improvement (Ames & Ames, 1991), and reducing emphases on social comparison and competition (Covington, 1992; Mac Iver, 1987).
Similarly, several reviews (e.g. Ames, 1992; Blumenfeld, 1992; Maehr & Midgley, 1991; Meece, 1991) have documented ways in which specific classroom environments may
be implicated in the goals students are encouraged to adopt. Although empirical evidence is still somewhat restricted (see Nolen & Haladyna, 1990 for one recent example), it is, nevertheless, clear that goal theory may direct practitioners to adjust specific components of instruction in order to maximise motivational and academic outcomes. Such instructional components include the types of tasks assigned to students, the methods of assessment used to evaluate students’ task performance, the ways in which students’ work is recognised, and the types of student-teacher and student-student interactions promoted in the classroom (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Maehr & Anderman, 1993; Meece, 1991).
Students’ Perceptions of School and Classroom Practices Of equal importance to the specific nature of school and classroom practices, however, is the way in which any organisational, academic, or cultural practice within a school is interpreted by students (Eccles, Adler, Futterman, Goff, Kaczala, Meece, & Midgely, 1983; Graham and Golan, 1991; Midgley & Urdan, 1996). This is because different students’ may interpret the same practice or structure in very different ways. In a review of the relevant literature, for example, Dickenson (1995) found that students’ positive perceptions of school, particularly their positive perceptions concerning the degree of autonomy they are given in learning situations, enhanced their motivation and learning. Other recent studies (eg. Dowson & Cuneen, 1997, 1998; Dowson & McInerney, 1998) have also found that middle and senior secondary school students’ perceptions of school, particularly their perceptions of the academic support they received at school and their sense of belonging to their school, substantially impacted upon their academic motivation, cognition, and achievement. Also of importance for this study is the finding that students’ perceptions of the various goals being endorsed and promoted by a school may substantially effect their goal orientations across achievement situations and/or within specific achievement situations (Maehr & Anderman; 1993; Maehr & Midgley, 1991, Midgley & Urdan, 1996, 1995).
Sex Differences and Goal Orientations Recent studies have begun to examine relations between students’ sex and their goal orientations (eg. Anderman & Young, 1994; Kaplan & Maehr, 1996; Midgely & Urdan, 1995). Studies have also investigated sex differences in patterns of students’ learning and achievement, and how these may be related to students’ differing motivational orientations (e.g. Bouffard, Boisvert, Vezeau, & Larouche, 1995; Meece & Holt, 1993; Wentzel, 1991). However, despite this research, the literature is not unanimous either that, or how, sex differences may influence students’ motivation, cognition, and achievement. For example, some studies (e.g. Ford, 1992; Meece & Jones, 1996; Midgely, Arunkumar, & Urdan, 1996) have identified no, or only small, sex differences with respect to these variables. Moreover, in the context of the present research, we are aware of no studies which have systematically sought to determine how students’ adherence to certain goals may covary with both their school climate and their sex. This, however, is an explicit focus of the present research.
Purposes Given the above, the central purposes of the present research were to determine whether:
(a) differences in the psychosocial climates of various schools are related to differences in the goal orientations students’ at those schools espouse.
(b) sex differences, either separately or in interaction with school climate differences, may account for differences in students’ goals orientations.
School Settings
As a primary aim of the present research was to determine whether and, if so, how school climate may influence students’ motivational orientations; it is necessary to briefly describe some salient characteristics of each of the schools in the present study.
The research was carried out in three secondary schools, and one combined elementary/secondary school, in the Sydney (Australia) metropolitan region. The schools participating in the study were deliberately selected from various Local Government Areas (LGAs) within the Sydney metropolitan area in order to maximise both the cultural and socioeconomic diversity of the sample. Table 1 records social indicators for each LGA in which schools participating in the research were located. The data (in the form of rankings out of a possible forty Sydney LGAs) were obtained from Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) census data as reported by Farrell (1993). Broadly speaking, Table 1 indicates that the LGAs in which the schools are located are both culturally and socioeconomically diverse. Whilst on some indicators some LGAs display relatively close rankings, overall Table 1 identifies substantial differences between the LGAs on most indicators.
School Descriptions
The social indicators reported in Table 1 provide a context for the descriptions of each school that follow. Each of the these descriptions were generated as part of a related qualitative research program from which the psychological parameters of students’ motivational orientations were discerned (see Dowson & McInerney, in press(a), 2001, 1997(a)). More specifically, these descriptions were generated in a series of twenty-nine conversational interviews with various teaching and administrative staff at each school, and from direct observations made by the researchers over a period of four months. For the purposes of this study, the descriptions that follow focus on particular features of each school that appeared to have most influence on the quality of students’ academic motivation. School One School One is a large, coeducational, public, secondary school located in the Hornsby LGA. The Hornsby LGA has a relatively large, fast growing, and ethnically diverse population. The Hornsby LGA also has (relative to other LGAs in the Sydney metropolitan area) a very high percentage of people with university qualifications and high household incomes. The school itself has approximately eight-hundred and fifty students, and forty teaching, administrative, and ancillary staff. The school is non-selective in its admission procedures. The school teaches the core range subjects required by the Department of Education and Training for NSW secondary schools. However, the school also maintains a curricula specialisation in the creative arts. The creative arts focus of the school means that the school regularly participates in externally organised art displays, eisteddfods, and other public performances. It was reported that these activities promote a cooperative atmosphere within the school. Many of the staff have long term associations with the school and, in general, perceive the school to be a desirable one in which to teach. Staff morale is high, and relationships between staff and students are generally positive. School Two School Two is located in the Baulkham Hills LGA. Baulkham Hills has a relatively large and fast growing population, but one that is more ethnically homogeneous than the Hornsby LGA. Baulkham Hills has a relatively high percentage of residents with university qualifications and high household incomes, and a relatively low percentage (the lowest in this research) of residents with low incomes. This LGA also has a very low percentage of high density dwellings, and many parts of the LGA have a semi-rural atmosphere.
Table 1 Descriptive Data for LGAs of Schools Involved in the Research
Local Government Area and Associated School
Hornsby
(School 1)
Baulkham Hills (School 5)
Willoughby (School 4)
Liverpool (School 6)
Variable (Ranked out of 40 LGAs)
Population 10 12 23 14 Pop. Incr. 7 5 30 9 Born OS 12 17 23 14 Recent Arr. 9 21 22 19 NESB 16 19 24 9 NEA Born 3 10 9 34 SEA Born 13 15 24 10 SE Born 30 24 29 7 ME Born 15 24 16 11 Aboriginal 20 22 31 4 Uni. Qual. 2 8 13 34 Single Par. 12 21 25 11 Low Y 16 25 13 15 High Y 4 6 8 34 Unemploy. 17 21 30 8 HDH 23 36 20 19
Note. Population = rank out of forty Sydney LGAs according to total population Population Incr. = rank out of forty Sydney LGAs according to percentage population
increase over the last five years. Born OS = rank out of forty Sydney LGAs according to percentage of LGA residents
born overseas. Recent Arr. = rank out of forty Sydney LGAs according to percentage of LGA residents
arriving in Australia in the last five years. NESB = rank out of forty Sydney LGAs according to percentage of LGA residents
having Non-English-Speaking-Backgrounds. NEA Born = rank out of forty Sydney LGAs according to percentage of LGA residents
having North-East Asian backgrounds. SEA Born = rank out of forty Sydney LGAs according to percentage of LGA residents
having South-East Asian backgrounds. SE Born = rank out of forty Sydney LGAs according to percentage of LGA residents
having Southern-European backgrounds. ME Born = rank out of forty Sydney LGAs according to percentage of LGA residents
having Middle-Eastern backgrounds. Aboriginal = rank out of forty Sydney LGAs according to percentage of LGA residents
having Aboriginal backgrounds. Uni. Qual. = rank out of forty Sydney LGAs according to percentage of LGA residents
having university qualifications.
Single Par. = rank out of forty Sydney LGAs according to percentage of LGA residents who live in single parent families.
Low Y = rank out of forty Sydney LGAs according to percentage of LGA residents having low (les than A$25,000) household incomes.
High Y = rank out of forty Sydney LGAs according to percentage of LGA residents having high (more than A$70,000) household incomes.
Unemployed = rank out of forty Sydney LGAs according to percentage of LGA residents unemployed.
HDH = rank out of forty Sydney LGAs according to percentage of LGA residents living in high-density housing.
School Two itself is a new (less than ten years old), large, coeducational state school catering for more than one-thousand students from Years Seven to Twelve. Over sixty teachers, administrators, and ancillary personnel staff the school. The school displays an academic competitiveness and social vitality, through which the school hopes to develop an increasing reputation for academic excellence. These features appear to enhance the academic motivation and cognition of students attending the school, as well as its overall social cohesion. The general consensus amongst staff is that the school is a desirable one in which to teach. School Three School Three is located in the Willoughby LGA. This LGA has the smallest and slowest growing population of the LGAs represented in this research. It also has, relatively, the smallest percentage of overseas-born residents, recently arrived residents, and non-English speaking background (NESB) residents. The Willoughby LGA also has a relatively high number of residents reporting high incomes, and a relatively low number of residents reporting personal unemployment. However, the picture of this LGA is not completely homogeneous. A relatively high number of low income earners also live within the LGA. The school itself is a very large, non-selective, Catholic, boys high school which caters for students’ from Year Five (ten and eleven year old students) to Year Twelve. There are several unique features of this school in comparison to other schools participating in the research. First, it is the only private school participating. Second, it is the only non-secular school in the study. Third, it is the only single sex school participating in the research. Finally, it is the only school catering for students in both elementary and secondary grades. These features of the school give it a unique character. The school’s ‘private’ status means that parents typically hold high expectations for their children’s education, and their pastoral care within the school. The school’s Catholic ethos means that there is an intentional, explicit, emphasis on student welfare that is not mirrored to the same extent in other participating schools. The school’s single sex status is reflected in an academic focus on traditionally ‘masculine’ curricula areas such as mathematics and the sciences. There is also a focus, especially in the higher grades, on traditionally higher status male occupations as post-school destinations for students. The extended grade composition of the school means that the elementary-secondary school transition period is, for many students, a much less disruptive process than might otherwise be the case. In particular, decrements in students’ motivation, which are often attributed to issues associated with elementary to secondary school transitions, are not as noticeable in this school as in others in the research.
Finally, the school is over eighty years old (the original premises being built in 1915). The school’s protracted history is emphasised and reflected in its architecture, formal ceremonies, school symbols, and publications. The long tenures of staff at the school, allied with this focus on historical tradition, means that students are encouraged to strive academically for the sake of the school as well as for their own personal success.
School Four School Four is a secondary school located in the Liverpool LGA. The Liverpool LGA has a relatively large and fast growing population. This population is characterised by a high proportion of residents (the highest in this research) having NESB backgrounds. This LGA is also typified by a relatively high percentage of single parent families, a relatively low percentage (the lowest in this research) of high income residents, and a relatively high unemployment rate. The school itself is located very near to the primary urban centre of the LGA. The school has approximately seven-hundred and fifty students and approximately thirty staff. The suburbs in the school’s feeder areas are, predominantly, in the middle third of median household incomes according to Farrell (1993). However, significant numbers of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds attend the school. Teachers at the school, typically, have short tenures at the school (less than four years), and the school is acknowledged to be a ‘tough’ one in which to teach. The academic motivation of students at the school is reported as being low, with many students at the school leaving formal education at the first available secondary school exit point (approximately 16 years of age). Commensurate with the school’s significant NESB enrolment, there is a strong emphasis on the development of basic literacy skills across all curriculum areas. This literacy focus is reflected in the fact that several staff have post graduate or other NESB related qualifications. Also, a major focus of the schools in-service training program is on the development of literacy teaching skills amongst the staff. Despite this emphasis on the provision of practical literacy skills, however, there appears to be only moderate student and parental support for the academic curriculum of the school. The overall picture of School Four is of a school struggling to provide and maintain an academic focus against significant social and other influences which, apparently, mitigate against this aim.
Hypotheses Hypotheses Relating School Descriptions and Possible Effects on Goal Orientations Table 2 summarises the hypothesised effects of the climate of each school described above on students’ goal orientations in each school. These hypotheses are represented in the form of comparative ranks in Table 2. Hence, each school is ranked in relation to the others with respect to the strength with which students at that school were hypothesised to espouse various goals. For example, students at a school (or schools) with a ranking of ‘1’ for a particular goal are hypothesised to hold that goal more strongly than (or, in case of equal rankings, as strongly as) students at other schools in the study with lower ranks. Students at a school (or schools) with a ranking of ‘2’ for a particular goal are hypothesised to hold that goal less strongly than students at a school (or schools) with a ranking of ‘1’, but more strongly than students at a school (or schools) with a ranking of ‘3’, etc. Table 2 also provides a brief rationale statement, drawing on the school descriptions above, for each goal explaining why each school was ranked in the order it was with respect to that goal.
In addition to Table 2, Figure 1 provides a diagrammatic representation of the hypotheses relating to each school. This diagram should enables readers to see more clearly the hypothesised relationships between the schools on each of the motivational goals identified in the study. Hypotheses Relating to Sex and its Interaction with School As indicated above, a second key focus of the present research was the effect of sex on students’ goal orientations. Based on the limited results of previous research, it is difficult to frame specific hypotheses concerning the possible relationship between sex and goal orientation. However, we hypothesise that sex will have a main effect on students’ goal orientations. We also hypothesise (consistent with at least some previous literature eg. Eder,
Table 2 Hypotheses Relating School Descriptions to Students’ Goal Orientations Motivational Goals
School and Hypothesised Ranks
Rationale
S1 S2 S3 S4 Mastery 2 1 2 3 Mastery is hypothesised to be held most strongly
by students at School 2 due to its strong focus on learning, and least strongly by students at School 4 due to its relative difficulties in promoting a focus on learning. The climates of Schools 1 and 3 do not appear to distinguish them from each other in terms of mastery.
S1 S2 S3 S4 Performance 2 1 2 3 Students at School 2 are hypothesised to espouse
performance goals more strongly than students at other schools in the sample due to the emphasis at this school not only on academic learning, but on relative academic achievement as well. The reverse is the case for School 4, where the school appears to struggle to maintain an emphasis on academic achievement, relative or otherwise. The climates of Schools 1 and 3 appear not to distinguish them with respect to performance goals.
S1 S2 S3 S4 Work Avoidance
2 3 2 1 For converse reasons to students’ mastery and performance goals, students at School 4 are hypothesised to be the most work avoidant of all students in the study, while students at School 2 are hypothesised to be least work-avoidant. Schools 1 and 3 again appear to reside between the ‘poles’ of schools 4 and 2.
S1 S2 S3 S4 Social Affiliation
1 3 2 4 The noted positive relationships between staff and students at School 1 are hypothesised to influence students at this school to espouse social affiliation goals more strongly than students at other schools. The emphasis on pastoral care/religious values at School 3 also support an affiliation orientation, but not as strongly as for School 1. The ethos of School 2 is hypothesised to enhance students’ social affiliation orientations, but not to the same extent as for Schools 1 and 3. Students at School 4 are hypothesised to have the weakest social affiliation orientations due to the fragmented nature of the school community.
S1 S2 S3 S4 Social Approval 2 2 1 3 It is hypothesised that students at School 3 will
be most motivated by Social Approval due to the school’s strong emphasis on upholding and reinforcing traditional and religious values. Conversely, students at School 4 would be
expected to be least approval oriented due to the relatively low esteem in which the school is apparently held by students, parents, and, to some extent, teachers. Schools 1 and 2 would fall somewhere between Schools 3 and 4 in their emphasis on approval orientated considerations, and this is reflected in their middle rankings on this goal.
S1 S2 S3 S4 Social Concern 2 3 1 2 The religious and pastoral values of School 3 are
hypothesised to cause students at this school to espouse social concern orientations more strongly than students at all other schools in the study. Despite the difficulties experienced at School 4, the concerned nature of the staff for the welfare of students at this school might be expected to positively influence students’ concern orientations at this school, but not to the same extent as for school 3. This, situation would also apply to school 1. School 2 would appear to be the least concern oriented of the schools in this research, hence its lower ranking on this goal.
S1 S2 S3 S4 Social Responsibility
4 1 2 3 It is hypothesised that students at School 2 would be most responsibility oriented, due to the emphasis this school places on students contributing to the success of the school, especially as a ‘new venture’. This situation would also be true at School 3, but to a lesser extent due to the school’s already established reputation. School 4 also encourages a responsibility orientation, but largely for student discipline reasons. Nevertheless, it is hypothesised that this emphasis would influence students motivation, albeit to a lesser extent than Schools 2 and 3. Students at School 1 are hypothesised to espouse Social Responsibility less than students at other schools because there appears to be no particular emphasis on this goal at this school.
S1 S2 S3 S4 Social Status 2 1 2 3 School 2 appears to have the strongest focus on
‘upward mobility’ of all the schools in the study. Hence, its students would be expected to hold most strongly to social status orientations. Both Schools 1 and 3 are quite status oriented, but apparently not as strongly as School 2. School 4 appears to emphasise status considerations most weakly of all schools, hence its lowest ranking on this goal.
4
Scho
ol
Ran
k O
rder
3 1 2
Mas
tery
Pe
rfor
m
Wor
k A
void
A
ffili
ate
App
rove
C
once
rn
Res
pons
St
atus
Scho
ol 2
Scho
ol 1
Scho
ol 3
Scho
ol 4
Figu
re 1
. Hyp
othe
sise
d ra
nk o
rder
s of s
choo
ls o
n ei
ght m
otiv
atio
nal g
oals
.
1985; Wentzel, 1991) that females may espouse Social Affiliation and Social Concern orientations more strongly than males. Finally, we hypothesise that sex will interact with school climate to influence students’ goals orientations, although we do not specify the exact nature of this interaction.
Method Participants Descriptive statistics for the six-hundred and two (602) middle-school students participating in the study are presented in Table 3. Table 3 Demographic Statistics for Participating Students Number and Percentage (%) of Students: in Total 602 by School School 1
156 (26%) School 2 182 (30%)
School 3 134 (22%)
School 4 130 (22%)
by Age 12 years 112 (19%)
13 years 206 (34%)
14 years 221 (37%)
15 years 63 (10%)
Average 13.3 years
by Sex Female 328 (54.5%)
Male 274 (45.5%)
by Year at School
Year 7 318 (53%)
Year 8 284 (47%)
by Type of School
Public 468 (78%)
Private 134 (22%)
by Birth Place Australia 476 (79%)
Overseas (English Speaking) 30 (5%)
Overseas (Non-English Speaking) 96 (16%)
by Primary Language Spoken at Home
English 516 (86%)
Other 86 (14%)
Table 3 indicates that participants contributing data to the research were roughly
equally distributed across the schools, mostly thirteen or fourteen years old, approximately equally male or female, primarily born in Australia, and primarily from English speaking backgrounds.
Measures The Goal Orientations and Learning Strategies Survey (GOALS-S) (Dowson & McInerney, in press(b), 1997b) is a psychometric instrument designed to measure a range of variables relevant to students’ motivation and cognition in academic settings. For the purposes of the present study, the GOALS-S scales that relate to students’ academic and social goals are of most interest. Specifically, the GOALS-S contains three scales measuring student’s academic goals (mastery, performance, and work-avoidance), and five scales measuring students social goals (social affiliation, approval, concern, responsibility, and status).
Brief descriptions of these goals, a sample item from the GOALS-S scales measuring each goal, and the reliability of the scales with the present sample (using Cronbach’s alpha) are presented in Table 4. Table 4
Goals and Strategies Measured by the GOALS-S Motivational Goal Sample Item Alpha Academic goals Mastery Wanting to achieve in order to demonstrate understanding, academic competence, or improved performance relative to self-established standards.
I like school work that challenges me to learn new things.
.78
Performance Wanting to achieve in order to out perform other students, attain certain grades /marks, or obtain tangible rewards associated with academic performance.
I want to get better marks than other people do at school.
.87
Work avoidance Wanting to achieve with as little effort as possible.
I choose easy work at school so that I don’t have too much trouble with it.
.72
Social goals Social affiliation Wanting to achieve in order to enhance a sense of belonging to a group or groups and/or to build or maintain inter-personal relationships.
I try to work with my friends as much as possible at school
.83
Social approval Wanting to achieve in order to gain the approval of peers, teachers, and/or parents.
Getting praise from my teachers for my school work is important to me
.84
Social Concern Wanting to achieve academically in order to be able to assist others in their academic or personal development.
When I do good schoolwork it’s so that my friends can get help from me if they need it.
.74
Social responsibility Wanting to achieve in order to maintain interpersonal commitments, meet social role obligations, or follow social and moral ‘rules’.
It is important for students to help each other at school.
.82
Social status Wanting to achieve in order to attain wealth and/or position in school and/or later life.
I want to do well at school in order to get a good job later on.
.84
Six (6) items per scale were used measure each motivational goal, for a total of fourty-eight (48) items. As indicated in Table 3, these scales displayed substantial reliability (with Cronbach’s alpha ( ) for the scales ranging from 0.72 to 0.87). The psychometric properties of these scales (including measures of their construct validity) are reported in full elsewhere (Dowson & McInerney, in press(b), 1997b). In summary, however, the overall model fit for the ‘best’ 36 GOALS-S items measuring students’ motivational goals was 0.908 (Tucker-Lewis Indicator - TLI), 0.962 (Parsimony Relative Non-Centrality Index - PRNI), and 0.041 (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation - RMSEA). Typically, values above 0.90 for the TLI and PRNI, and values below 0.05 for the RMSEA, are considered to indicated good model fit (Marsh, Balla, & Hau, 1996, Mueller, 1996; Pedhazur & Pedhazur Schmelkin, 1991). Procedures The GOALS-S was administered to participants in class groups by the researchers, with the assistance of teaching staff at each school. In order to standardise the delivery of the GOALS-S across class groups, teachers who assisted in the administration of the GOALS-S received a copy of the instrument, along with written instructions as to how it should be administered. The researchers then also verbally briefed the participating teachers as to the structure, purpose and administration of the GOALS-S, prior to its administration with students. In particular, teachers were instructed not to interpret any of the GOALS-S items for students, but to instruct students to leave an item out if they didn’t understand it. Analyses Multivariate Analyses of Variance (MANOVAs), within the Statical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, 1988), were used to determine whether school and/or sex differences existed with respect to each of the goals measured by the GOALS-S. Specifically, the means of each of the GOALS-S scales were first used in a 4 (school) x 8 (goal) MANOVA to ascertain any main effects of school on students’ goal orientations. A second 2 (sex) x 8 (goal) MANOVA was then used to ascertain any main effects of sex on students’ goal orientations. Finally, a third 3 (school) x 2 (sex) x 8 (goal) MANOVA was used to ascertain where any school x sex interaction effects on students’ goal orientations were present in the data. (Only three schools were represented in this final MANOVA because School Three is a single sex school. As such, it was not possible to estimate a school x sex interaction effect for this school.) Where an overall main or interaction effect for any goal was identified, follow-up One Way ANOVAs were used to determine specifically where the interaction effect was manifest.
Results
School Climate Differences and Goal Orientations The F-test for the overall effect of school on goal orientation indicated a significant main effect (F [22, 1656] = 5.41, p < .000) was present. The associated univariate F-tests also indicated a significant main effect of school on each of the goals taken individually, with the exception of Work Avoidance. On the basis of these results, follow-up One-way ANOVAs were used to determine specifically where the school x goal orientation main effects were manifest. The results of these one-way ANOVAs are reported in Table 5.
Table 5 reports the statistical values and significance of school differences on goal orientations. Of most interest for the present study, however, is the extent to which these values match (or otherwise) the hypotheses reported earlier. In order to facilitate this comparison, Table 6 compares the hypothesised rank order (HR) for each school on each goal with its actual rank order (AR). These rank orders were derived directly from the results reported in Table 5 ie. for each goal in Table 5, the largest school mean was accorded a rank of 1, the second largest mean a rank of 2, etc. Table 6 also records the rank order of each school on each goal when only statistically significant differences are taken into account. We
Tab
le 5
M
ain
Eff
ects
of S
choo
l on
Goa
l Ori
enta
tion
Mas
tery
Pe
rfor
man
ce
Wor
k A
void
A
ffili
ate
App
rova
l C
once
rn
Res
pons
bty
Stat
us
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Scho
ol 1
3.
94
.66
3.50
b .6
3 2.
21
.81
3.50
b .8
4 3.
42a
.95
3.53
b .6
9 2.
88a
.93
4.63
b .5
1
Scho
ol 2
4.
03a
.38
3.91
a .6
7 2.
19
.88
3.50
b .8
8 3.
88b
.75
3.71
a .4
1 3.
37c
.87
4.69
b .4
2
Scho
ol 3
3.
92
.46
3.61
b .8
7 2.
19
.73
3.05
a .8
3 3.
86b
.79
3.47
b .5
9 3.
15b
1.00
4.
68b
.53
Sc
hool
4
3.83
b .4
6 3.
59b
.71
2.40
.9
0 3.
49b
.84
3.57
a .6
6 3.
56b
.67
3.13
b .7
9 4.
48a
.54
All
Scho
ols
3.93
.5
0 3.
67
.74
2.25
.8
4 3.
39
.87
3.70
.8
1 3.
84
.79
3.15
.9
1 4.
62
.50
N
ote:
M
= M
ean
SD
= S
tand
ard
Dev
iatio
n
Rea
ding
dow
n th
e co
lum
ns in
Tab
le 1
, Mea
ns si
gnifi
cant
ly d
iffer
ent f
rom
eac
h ot
her a
t the
.05
leve
l (us
ing
Stud
ent-N
ewm
an-K
euls
post
-hoc
com
paris
ons)
ar
e de
mot
ed b
y di
ffer
ent l
ette
r sup
ersc
ripts
. W
ork
Avo
id =
Wor
k A
void
ance
; Res
pons
bty
= So
cial
Res
pons
ibili
ty
have labelled this a school’s statistical rank order (SR). Where the hypothesised rank of a school concords with either its’ actual or statistical rank, the relevant rankings in Table 6 are bold-faced.
The final columns of Table 6 record, for each goal, the percentage of agreement between schools’ hypothesised ranks and their actual ranks (A%), their hypothesised ranks and their statistical ranks (S%), and their hypothesised ranks with both their actual and statistical ranks (B%). For example, where the actual rank orders (AR) of all four schools for a particular goal corresponded exactly to their hypothesised rank orders (HRs), the percentage of agreement between the ARs and the HRs (A%) was 100. Where three of the four ARs corresponded to the HRs for a particular goal, the A% was 75, etc.
It is clear from Table 6 that the hypotheses are more substantially supported for some goals than others. For example, the hypotheses were relatively well supported for students’ Performance and Social Responsibility goals. Conversely, the hypotheses with respect to students’ Work Avoidance goals were less well supported (largely due to the lack of any statistically significant differences between schools on this goal). Overall, 50% of the hypotheses (using ARs as the criteria), or 41% of the hypotheses (using the SRs as the criteria) were supported. Thus, most differences in rankings between schools were statistically significant. Sex Differences and Goal Orientation The F-test for the overall effect of sex on goal orientation (with [8, 417] degrees of freedom) indicated a significant main effect (F = 2.48, p < .05) was present. The associated univariate F-tests, however, indicated a significant main effect of sex on only one of the goals taken individually - Social Concern. Specifically, the univariate F-test for Social Concern indicated that males reported a significantly weaker Social Concern orientation than females. The results of the Univariate F-Tests are reported in Table 7. Interaction Effects (School x Sex) on Goal Orientations Schools One, Two and Four were included in a 3 x 2 x 8 MANOVA to determine whether interaction effects of school and sex on goal orientation were indicated by the data. (As indicated previously, School Three was eliminated from this MANOVA as it was single-sex boy’s school).
The F-test for the overall interaction effect of school and sex on goal orientation (with [16, 824] degrees of freedom) indicated a significant interaction effect (F = 5.68, p < .000) was present. The associated univariate F-tests also indicated a significant interaction effect for each of the goals taken individually. On the basis of these results, follow-up one-way ANOVAs were used to determine specifically where the interaction effects were manifest. The results of these one-way ANOVAs are reported in Table 8.
The results reported in Table 8 indicate that there were interaction effects present for every goal examined in the study. Moreover, only students’ Mastery, Work Avoidance, and Social Affiliation goals did not display significant differences in every cell of Table 8. This may suggest that students’ Mastery, Work Avoidance and Social Affiliation goals are relatively robust to the combined effects of school and sex on goal orientation. Conversely, these results may indicate that students’ goals, particularly their social goals, are sensitive to the interacting effects of school climate and sex differences.
Tab
le 6
T
ests
of H
ypot
hese
s Rel
atin
g Sc
hool
Clim
ate
to G
oal O
rien
tatio
n D
iffer
ence
s
Scho
ol 1
Scho
ol 2
Scho
ol 3
Scho
ol 4
HR
A
R
SR
H
R
AR
SR
HR
A
R
SR
H
R
AR
SR
A%
S%
B
%
Goa
ls
M
aste
ry
2 2
-
1 1
1
2 3
-
3 4
2
50
25
25
Perf
orm
ance
2
4 2
1
1 1
2
2 2
3
3 2
75
75
50
W
ork
Av.
3
2 -
2
3 -
3
3 -
1
1 -
50
0
0 A
ffili
atio
n 1
1 1
3
1 1
2
3 2
4
2 1
25
50
25
A
ppro
val
2 4
2
2 1
1
1 2
1
3 3
2
25
50
0 C
once
rn
2 3
2
3 1
1
1 4
2
2 2
2
25
50
25
Res
pons
ibili
ty
4 4
3
1 1
1
2 2
2
3 3
2
100
50
25
Stat
us
2 3
1
1 1
1
2 2
1
3 4
2
50
25
25
Av
50.0
40.6
21
.8
Not
e: H
R =
Hyp
othe
sise
d R
ank;
AR
= A
ctua
l Ran
k; S
R =
Sta
tistic
al R
ank
Tab
le 7
M
ain
Eff
ects
of S
ex o
n G
oal O
rien
tatio
n
M
aste
ry
Perf
orm
ance
W
ork
Avo
id.
Aff
iliat
e A
ppro
val
Con
cern
R
espo
nsib
. St
atus
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Fe
mal
es
3.96
.4
8 3.
74
.72
2.21
.7
6 3.
46
.82
3.67
.8
0 3.
68a
.55
3.21
.8
3 4.
64
.45
M
ales
3.
91
.54
3.62
.6
6 2.
35
1.00
3.
55
.90
3.61
.8
2 3.
51b
.65
3.06
.9
4 4.
56
.54
N
ote:
M
= M
ean
SD
= S
tand
ard
Dev
iatio
n R
eadi
ng d
own
the
colu
mns
in T
able
1, M
eans
sign
ifica
ntly
diff
eren
t fro
m e
ach
othe
r at t
he .0
5 le
vel (
usin
g St
uden
t-New
man
-Keu
ls po
st-h
oc c
ompa
rison
s)
are
dem
oted
by
diff
eren
t let
ter s
uper
scrip
ts
Table 8 Interaction Effects (School x Sex) on Goal Orientations School 1 School 2 School 4 Goal Sex M SD M SD M SD Female 3.98 .56 4.02a .41 3.87 .47 Mastery Male 3.90 .77 4.05a .35 3.79b .44 Female 3.58b .62 3.95a .70 3.63b .76 Performance Male 3.41bc .64 3.85ab .63 3.56b .64 Female 2.29 .65 2.02a .68 2.36 .88 Work Avoid. Male 2.11 .96 2.42b 1.06 2.44b .94 Female 3.59 .77 3.27b .79 3.56 .86 Affiliation Male 3.39b .92 3.81a .91 3.42b .81 Female 3.56bd .95 3.78b .70 3.63bd .76 Approval Male 3.26a .93 4.03bc .79 3.49bd .51 Female 3.59b .63 3.70a .46 3.74a .56 Concern Male 3.44b .76 3.74a .33 3.32b .73 Female 2.96ad .85 3.39bc .83 3.23b .78 Responsibility Male 2.78ad .02 3.33b .93 3.01ab .78 Female 4.52bd .47 4.71b .41 4.65b .46 Status Male 4.78bc .51 4.67b .43 4.25a .55
Note: M = Mean SD = Standard Deviation Reading down and across the columns in each section of Table 6, Means significantly different from each other at the .05 level (using Student-Newman-Keuls post-hoc comparisons) are demoted by different letter superscripts
Discussion School Climate Effects on Goal Orientations A key aim of the present research was to ascertain, empirically, if and how differences in school climate may influence students’ motivational orientations. The results indicate that school climate differences do influence students’ motivational orientations. The results also provide support for the contention that the effects of school climate on students’ goal orientations are, at least, partially predictable. However, the fact that the hypotheses in the study were not more strongly supported than they were militates against simplistic conceptions regarding the malleability of students’ goals with respect to a school’s psychosocial environment. In other words, to simply say that a given school environment will produce given goal orientations amongst students is probably to ignore the complexity of school environments, as well as the potential complexity of students’ reactions to these environments. Sex Difference Effects on Goal Orientations A further aim of the research was to determine whether sex differences were related to differences in students’ goals orientations. It was hypothesised that sex would effect goal orientations, and particularly that Social Affiliation and Social Concern orientations would be more strongly espoused by females than males. These hypotheses were largely supported by the research results. Sex did have an overall effect on goal orientations, and Social Concern was espoused more strongly by females than males. However, contrary to the hypothesis, Social Affiliation was more strongly espoused by males in the study than females (although not significantly so).
Overall, the results of this study with respect to sex and goal orientation are not inconsistent with those of other studies (eg. Ford, 1992; Meece & Jones, 1996; Midgely, Arunkumar, & Urdan, 1996) which have suggested that sex by itself may not be a particularly salient influence on students’ goal orientations, especially in comparison with other significant variables. (A comparison of Tables 5 and 7, for example, suggests that school climate differences are more salient than sex differences in determining students’ motivational orientations.) Interaction Effects and Goal Orientations A diverse pattern of effects is evident in Table 8, with different goals displaying a variety of school by sex interactions. However, consistent with our general hypothesis, the results indicate that school and sex combine to substantially influence students’ goals orientations (despite the fact that sex alone is not a particularly salient influence on a range of different goal orientations). This, in turn, suggests that it will be important for future research to examine sex effects on goal orientation in the context of school climate differences. It is possible to speculate, for example, that females and males may interpret school climates in different ways, and that these sex-based differences in interpretation rather than the sex differences per se may substantially influence students’ goal orientations.
The finding that certain goals appear to display more substantial school by sex interaction effects than others is also worthy of note. We indicated above that the combined effects of school and sex appear to particularly influence students’ social goal orientations, whereas students’ academic goals (specifically their Mastery, and Work Avoidance goals) appear more robust against these interaction effects. Thus, students’ Mastery and Work Avoidance goals appear to be less context dependent (or, at least, less context sensitive) than other goals examined in this study. Conversely, students’ social goals (on the whole) appear to be more context dependent/sensitive, than other goals examined in this study. These findings are not inconsistent with previous literature (eg. Corno & Rohrkemper, 1985; Dweck, 1986; McInerney, et al., 1998).
Despite the above, the fact that students’ Performance and Social Affiliation goals did not fit this general trend needs to be duly recognised. This raises two interesting questions:
(a) Why is the Performance goal orientation apparently more substantially influenced by the interactive effects of school and sex than other academic goals?, and
(b) Why do the interactive effects of school and sex apparently less influence the Social Affiliation orientation than the other social goals?
The present research can not answer these questions directly. However, it may be that, for whatever reason, males and females are differentially more sensitive to the Performance ‘cultures’ of different schools whilst being differentially less-sensitive to differences in the Social Affiliation ‘cultures’ of different schools. In others words, the ‘pressure’ to adopt performance orientations may be more strongly differentiated by girls and boys in different schools relative to other academic goals. On the other hand, the ‘pressure’ to affiliate may be more uniformly adopted by boys and girls across a range of school settings relative to other social goals.
Finally, although the overall (main) effect of sex on goal orientations was largely confined to the Social Concern Orientation, the interaction effects indicate that, for certain Schools, significant sex differences with respect to different goal orientation are more widespread. For example at:
(a) School One there are significant sex differences for Social Approval, (b) School Two there are significant sex differences for Work Avoidance and
Social Affiliation, and (c) School Three there are significant sex differences for Social Concern and
Social Status. These differences indicate that sex differences in students’ goal orientations may need
to be considered on a school by school basis rather than across schools as a whole. It may be that one of the reasons previous studies have shown few sex differences in students’ goal ordinations is because school by school analyses of data have not been systematically conducted. In other words, sex differences in goal orientation may have been artificially suppressed in studies that aggregate data across schools. This is a potentially significant methodological point for future research studies investigating sex differences in students’ goal orientations.
Overall, the present findings with respect to the interaction of school and sex on students’ goal orientations militate against simplistic formulations that may suggest that school differences or sex differences alone may have homogeneous effects on students’ motivational orientations, especially across a range of possible motivational orientations. In contrast, the present research suggests that the interaction of school and sex differences across a range of goals should be taken into account when assessing orientational variations amongst students. For this reason, future studies investigating students’ motivational profiles should be careful not to ignore or oversimplify the range of goals students may espouse in achievement settings, or their differing interactions with school and sex differences. Limitations The present research has some important limitations. First, no direct measure of students’ perceptions of the goals they perceived their school was promoting was taken. Thus, it is possible that the goals the researchers perceived were being promoted in each school were not (or, at least, not precisely) the goals students’ perceived their school was promoting. Hence, while we believe that our observations and interviews (the structure of which are described elsewhere ie. Dowson & McInerney, 2001, in press(a)), generated accurate perceptions and descriptions of each school, it is not possible with the present data to verify that this was the case.
Second, the research did not assess potential classroom effects on students’ goal orientations. This is a limitation of the study because it has been shown (eg Ames, 1992; Ames & Archer, 1988; Blumenfeld, 1992; Corno & Rohrkemper, 1985) that classroom effects may act to either reinforce or counter school-level effects on students’ goal orientations. Thus,
it is possible that some of our hypotheses may have been disconfirmed (or confirmed, for that matter) under the influence of classroom effects which we did not assess.
Finally, the research did not test for the long-term stability of students’ goal orientations ie. repeated measures of students’ goals on more that one occasion were not taken. Thus, it is possible that the goals of the students in the study may change over time in ways that act to confirm or disconfirm some of our hypotheses. Of course, if repeated measures of students’ goals were to be taken, repeated measures of the climate of each school would also have to be taken in order to determine that the goals promoted by each school have not (or have) changed over time.
Conclusion The present study provides empirical support for both the individual and combined effects of school and sex on students’ motivational orientations. It also provides evidence that the direction of school and sex effects on students’ motivational orientations are, at least, partially predictable. Given this, the present research may provide a catalyst for future research that attempts to more closely and accurately specify the effects of school and sex differences on students’ motivational orientations. This may particularly so for studies which, like the present one, attempt to do this in a multiple goal context.
References Ainley, M.D. (1993). Styles of engagement with learning: Multidimensional
assessment of their relationship with strategy use and school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 395-405.
Anderman, E.A., & Maehr, M.L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64, 287-310.
Anderman, E.M., & Young, A.J. (1994). Motivation and strategy use in science: Individual differences and classroom effects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 811-31.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
Ames, R., & Ames, C. (1991). Motivation and effective teaching. In L. Idol, & B.F. Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform (pp. 247-271). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Student learning strategies and achievement motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 18, 409-414.
Blumenfeld, P.C. (1992). Classroom learning and motivation: Clarifying and expanding goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 272-281.
Bouffard, T., Boisvert, J., Vezeau, C., & Larouche, C. (1995). The impact of goal orientation on self-regulation and performance among college students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 317-329.
Brickman, S., & Miller, R. (2001). The impact of sociocultural context on future goals and self-regulation. In D. M. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.). Research on Sociocultural Influences on Motivation and Learning, Vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Corno, L., & Rohrkemper, M.M. (1985). The intrinsic motivation to learn in the classroom. In C. Ames, & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education, Vol. 2 (pp. 53-90). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Covington, M. L. (1992). Making the Grade. A Self-Worth Perspective on Motivation and School Reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dickinson, L. (1995). Autonomy and Motivation: A Literature Review. System, 23, 165-74.
Dodge, K.A., Asher, S.R., & Parkhurst, J.T. (1989). Social life as a goal coordination task. In C. Ames, & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on Motivation in Education, Vol. 3: Goals and Cognitions (pp. 107-135). New York: Academic Press.
Dowson, M., & Cuneen, T. (1998, April). School improvement that works. Enhancing the academic motivation, cognition, and achievement of senior secondary school students. A longitudinal qualitative investigation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.
Dowson, M., & Cuneen, T. (1997, December). School improvement that works. Enhancing the academic motivation, cognition, and achievement of senior secondary school students. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Brisbane.
Dowson, M. & McInerney, D.M. (in press(a)). Towards a more complex and dynamic understanding of students’ academic and social goals. Contemporary Educational Psychology.
Dowson, M. & McInerney, D.M. (in press(b)). The development and validation of the Goal Orientations and Learning Strategies Survey. Educational and Psychological Measurement.
Dowson, M., & McInereny, D.M. (2001). Psychological parameters of studetns’ social and work avoidance goals: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 35-42.
Dowson, M., & McInerney, D.M. (1998, April). Cognitive and motivational determinants of students’ academic performance and achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.
Dowson, M., & McInerney, D.M. (1997a, March). Psychological parameters of students’ social and academic goals: A qualitative investigation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Dowson, M., & McInerney, D.M. (1997b, March). The development of the Goal Orientation and Learning Strategies Survey (GOALS-S). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Dweck, C.S. (1992). The study of goals in psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 165-167.
Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
Dweck, C., & Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
Eccles, J., Adler, T.F., Futterman, R., Goff, S.B., Kaczala, C.M., Meece, J.L., & Midgely, C. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviours. In J.T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75-146). San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.
Eder, D. (1985). The cycle of popularity: Interpersonal relations among female adolescents. Sociology of Education, 58, 154-165 .
Elliot, A. & Harackiewicz, J. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461-475.
Elliot, A.J., & McGregor, H.A. (2001). A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501-519.
Farrell, D. (1993). Sydney: A Social Atlas. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Ford, M.E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agency.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Graham, S., & Golan, S. (1991). Motivational influences on cognition: Task
involvement, ego involvement, and depth of information processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 187-196.
Harackiewicz, J.M., Barron. K.E., Tauer, J.M., Carter, S.M., & Elliot, A.J. (2000). Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement goals: Predicting interest and performance over time. Journal and Educational Psychology, 92, 316-30.
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M.L. (1996). Psychological well-being of African-American and Euro-American adolescents: Toward a goal theory analysis. Unpublished Manuscript.
Lochman, J.E., Wayland, K.K., & White, K.J. (1993). Social goals: Relationship to adolescent adjustment and to social problem solving. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 21, 135-151.
Mac Iver, D. (1987). Classroom factors and student characteristics predicting student’s use of achievement standards during self-assessment. Child Development, 58, 1258-1271.
Maehr, M. (1984). Meaning and Motivation. In R. Ames, & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on Motivation in Education, Vol. 1: Student Motivation (pp. 115-144). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Maehr, M. L., & Anderman, E. M. (1993). Reinventing schools for early adolescents: Emphasizing task goals. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 593-610.
Maehr, M.L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming school cultures. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Maehr, M., & Midgley, C. (1991). Enhancing student motivation: A schoolwide approach. Educational Psychologist, 26, 399-428.
Marsh, H.W., Balla, J.R., & Hau. K. (1996). An evaluation of incremental fit indices: A clarification of mathematical and empirical properties. In G.A. Marcoulides & R.E.
Schumacker (Eds.). Advanced structural equation modelling: Issues and techniques (pp. 315-354). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McInerney, D. M., Hinkley, J., Dowson, M., & Van Etten, S. (1998). Children's beliefs about success in the classroom: Are there cultural differences? Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 621-629.
McInerney, D. M., Roche, L., McInerney, V., & Marsh, H. W. (1997). Cultural perspectives on school motivation: The relevance and application of goal theory. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 207-236.
Meece, J.L. (1994). The role of motivation in self-regulated learning. In D.H. Schunk, & B.J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Meece, J.L. (1991). The classroom context and student’s motivational goals. In M.L. Maehr, & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement. A research annual, Vol. 7. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Meece, J.L., & Holt, K. (1993). A pattern analysis of student’s achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 582-590.
Meece, J.L., & Jones, M. G. (1996) Gender differences in motivation and strategy use in science: Are girls rote learners? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 393-406.
Middleton, M., & Midgley, C. (1997, March). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An under-explored aspect of goal theory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Midgley, C., Arunkumar, R., & Urdan, T. (1996). If I don’t do well tomorrow there’s a reason: Predictors of adolescents’ use of academic self-handicapping behaviour. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 423-434.
Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological environment and adolescents’ self-appraisals and academic engagement: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 408-422.
Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1995). Predictors of middle school students’ use of self-handicapping strategies. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 389-411.
Mueller, R.O. (1996). Basic principles of structural equation modelling. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Nicholls, J.G., Patashnick, M., & Nolen, S.B. (1985). Adolescents’ theories of education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 683-692.
Nolen, S.B., & Haladyna, T.M. (1990). Personal and environmental influences on student’s beliefs about effective study strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 116-130.
Nurmi, J.E., Poole, M.E., & Seginer, R. (1995). Tracks and transitions: A comparison of adolescent future-oriented goals, explorations and commitments in Australia, Israel, and Finland. International Journal of Psychology, 30, 355-375.
Nurmi, J.E., Poole, M.E., & Kalakoski, V. (1994). Age differences in adolescent future-oriented goals, concerns, and related temporal extension in different sociocultural contexts. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 23, 471-487.
Pedhazur, E.J., & Pedhazur Schmelkin, L. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pietrucha, C.A., & Erdley, C.A. (1996, April). Sources of influence on children’s social goals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Renninger, K.A. (2000). Individual interest and learning: Implications for practice. in C. Sansone, & J.M. Harackiewicz (Eds.). Intrinsic motivation: Controversies and new directions. New York: Academic Press. Roeser, R.W.,
Roeser, R.W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological environment and adolescents’ self-appraisals and academic engagement: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 408-422.
Ryan, R.M., Connell, J.P., & Deci, E.L. (1985). A motivational analysis of self-determination and self-regulation in education. In C. Ames, & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on Motivation in Education, Vol. 2 (pp. 13-51). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
SPSS-X. (1988). User’s guide, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill. Stipek, D.J., & Kowalski, P. (1989). Learned helplessness in task-orienting verses
performance orienting testing conditions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 384-391. Triandis, H. (1995). Motivation and achievement in collectivist and individualist
cultures. Advances in Motivation and Achievement (Vol. 9, pp.1-30). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Urdan, T. C., & Maehr, M. L. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation and achievement: A case for social goals. Review of Educational Research, 65, 213-243.
Van Etten, S., Freebern, G., & Pressley, M. (1997). College students’ beliefs about exam preparation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 192-212.
Wentzel, K.R. (1991). Social competence at school: Relation between social responsibility and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 61, 1-24.
Zimmerman, B., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Ponz, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663-676.
