Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 219–236 | Cite as

The impact of within-school autonomy on students’ goal orientations and engagement with mathematics

  • Colin Carmichael
  • Tracey Muir
  • Rosemary Callingham
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

School autonomy has been identified as having an impact on a school’s performance, yet less has been reported about the effect this has on students’ goal orientations and engagement with mathematics. In a national study conducted in schools across Australia, measures of school autonomy were collected from teachers and school leaders, along with students’ perceptions of the mastery and performance goal orientations of their classrooms and personally using surveys. Schools were identified as having high or low levels of autonomy on the basis of school leaders’ responses. For the study discussed in this paper, a subset of 14 schools for which matched student and teacher data were available provided students’ responses to a variety of variables including goal orientations. The findings suggested students in high-autonomy schools were less likely to hold a personal performance approach and avoidance goals than their peers in low-autonomy schools. Fifty-five case studies conducted in 52 schools provided evidence of some of the practical aspects of these findings, which have implications for systems, schools and teachers.

Keywords

Autonomy NAPLAN Mathematics Self-determination theory 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the Office of the Chief Scientist (OCS). The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and project team and do not necessarily reflect the view of the OCS. The involvement and contributions of A/Prof. Judy Anderson, Prof. Kim Beswick, A/Prof. Vince Geiger, Prof. Merrilyn Goos, Dr. Derek Hurrel, Dr. Christopher Hurst and Prof. Helen Watt are acknowledged.

References

  1. Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43(4), 561–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashcraft, M. H., & Kirk, E. P. (2001). The relationships between working memory, math anxiety and performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 130(2), 224–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Askew, M., Brown, M., Rhodes, V., Wiliam, D., & Johnson, D. (1997). Effective teachers of numeracy: report of a study carried out for the teacher training agency. London: King’s College, University of London.Google Scholar
  4. Assor, A., Vansteenkiste, M., & Kaplan, A. (2009). Identified versus introjected approach and introjected avoidance motivations in school and in sports: the limited benefits of self-worth strivings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 482–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Attard, C. (2011). The influence of teachers on student engagement with mathematics during the middle years. In J. Clark, B. Kissane, J. Mousley, T. Spencer, & S. Thornton (Eds.), Mathematics: traditions and [new] practices (Proceedings of the AAMT-MERGA Conference, July). Alice Springs, NT: AAMT-MERGA.Google Scholar
  6. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2013). Guide to understanding 2013 Index of Community Socio-educational Advantage (ICSEA) values. Sydney: ACARA Available: http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Guide_to_understanding_2013_ICSEA_values.pdf.Google Scholar
  7. Boaler, J. (1994). When girls prefer football to fashion? An analysis of female under achievement in relation to realistic mathematics contexts. British Educational Research Journal, 20(5), 551–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Caldwell, B. J. (2014). Impact of school autonomy on student achievement in 21st century education: a review of the evidence. Melbourne: Educational Transformations Available: http://educationaltransformations.com.au/wp-content/uploads/School-Autonomy-and-Student-Achievement-Evidence.pdf.Google Scholar
  11. Carmichael, C. S., MacDonald, A., & McFarland-Piazza, L. (2013). Predictors of numeracy performance in national testing programs: insights from the longitudinal study of Australian children. British Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 637–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clarke, D., & Clarke, B. (2002). Challenging and effective teaching in junior primary mathematics: What does it look like? In M. Goos & T. Spencer (Eds.), Mathematics making waves proceedings of the 19th biennial conference of the Australian Association of mathematics Teachers (pp. 309–318). Adelaide, SA: AAMT.Google Scholar
  13. Conley, A. M. (2012). Patterns of motivation beliefs: combining achievement goal and expectancy-value perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 32–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: the structure of adolescents’ achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 215–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frenzel, A. C., Dicke, A., Pekrun, R., & Goetz, T. (2012). Beyond quantitative decline: conceptual shifts in adolescents’ development of interest in mathematics. Developmental Psychology, 48(4), 1069–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodenow, C. (1993). The psychological sense of school membership among adolescents: scale development and educational correlates. Psychology in the Schools, 30(1), 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harackiewicz, J. M., Durik, A. M., Barron, K. E., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., & Tauer, J. M. (2008). The role of achievement goals in the development of interest: reciprocal relations between achievement goals, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Abindon, OXON: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Heinze, A., Reiss, K., & Franzizka, R. (2005). Mathematics achievement and interest in mathematics from a differential perspective. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 37(3), 212–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ikeda, K., Castel, A.D., Murayama, K. (2015). Mastery-approach goals eliminate retrieval-induced forgetting: the role of achievement goals in memory inhibition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1–9. doi: 10.1177/0146167215575730.
  24. Janke, S., Nitsche, S., & Dickhauser, O. (2015). The role of perceived need satisfaction at work for teachers’ work-related learning goal orientation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47(1), 184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kanat-Maymon, Y., Benjamin, M., Stavsky, A., Shoshani, A., & Roth, G. (2015). The role of basic need fulfillment in academic dishonesty: a self-determination theory perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 43(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kunter, M., Frenzel, A. C., Nagy, G., Baumert, J., & Pekrun, R. (2011). Teacher enthusiasm: dimensionality and context specificity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 298–301.Google Scholar
  27. Lee, W., Lee, M., & Bong, M. (2014). Testing interest and self-efficacy as predictors of self-regulation and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(1), 86–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Linacre, J. M. (1999). Investigating rating scale category utility. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 3(2), 103–122.Google Scholar
  29. Luke, A., Elkins, J., Weir, K., Land, R., Carrington, V., Dole, S., et al. (2003). Beyond the middle: a report about literacy and numeracy development of target group students in the middle years of schooling. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  30. Madjar, N., Nave, A., & Hen, S. (2013). Are teachers’ psychological control, autonomy support and autonomy suppression associated with students’ goals? Educational Studies, 39(1), 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Masters, G. N. (2010). Teaching and learning school improvement framework. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research and Queensland Department of Education and Training Available: http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=monitoring_learning.Google Scholar
  32. McPhan, G., Morony, W., Pegg, J., Cooksey, R., & Lynch, T. (2008). Maths? Why not? Canberra: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.Google Scholar
  33. Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E. M., Anderman, L. H., Freeman, K. E., et al. (2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  34. Muir, T. (2008). Principles of practice and teacher actions: influences on effective teaching of numeracy. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(3), 78–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Munns, G., & Martin, A. J. (2006). It’s all about MeE: a motivation and engagement framework. In P. Jeffery (Ed.), Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE, 2005). NSW: UWS Parramatta Campus Available from http://www.aare.edu.au/publications-database.php/4806/its-all-about-mee-a-motivation-and-engagement-framework.Google Scholar
  36. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (Seventh ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen&Muthen.Google Scholar
  37. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2012). PISA 2009 technical report. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2013). TALIS 2013 technical report. Paris: OECD Publishing Available from: http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/TALIS-technical-report-2013.pdf.Google Scholar
  39. Owens, L., & Barnes, J. (1982). The relationship between cooperative, competitive, and individualized learning preferences and students’ perceptions of classroom learning atmosphere. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 182–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., Ryan, A. M., Edelin, K. C., & Midgley, C. (2001). Teachers’ communication of goal orientations in four fifth-grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reezigt, G. J., & Creemers, B. P. M. (2005). A comprehensive framework for effective school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(4), 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schultz, P. P., Ryan, R. M., Niemiec, C. P., Legate, N., & Williams, G. C. (2014). Mindfulness, work climate, and psychological need satisfaction in employee well-being. Mindfulness, 6, 971–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Standage, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2011). Predicting motivational regulations in physical education: the interplay between dispositional goal orientations, motivational climate and perceived competence. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21(6), 631–647.Google Scholar
  45. Stephanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., Di Cintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy in the classroom: ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sullivan, P. (2011). Teaching mathematics using research informed strategies. (Australian educational review, 59.). Melbourne: ACER Available from https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=aer.Google Scholar
  47. Tapola, A., & Niemivirta, M. (2008). The role of achievement goal orientations in students’ perceptions of and preferences for classroom environment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 291–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thomson, S., Hillman, K., Wernert, N., Schmid, M., Buckley, S., & Munene, A. (2012). Highlights from TIMSS and PIRLS 2001 from Australia’s perspective. Camberwell, VIC: ACER.Google Scholar
  49. Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: the synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 246–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-determination theory: another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Verschelde, M., Hindriks, J., Rayp, G., & Schoors, K. (2015). School staff autonomy and educational performance: within-school-type evidence. Fiscal Studies, 36(2), 127–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Watt, H. M. G. (2004). Development of adolescents’ self-perceptions, values and task perceptions according to gender and domain in 7th through 11th grade Australian students. Child Development, 75, 1556–1574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Watt, H. M. G., Shapka, J. D., Morris, Z. A., Durik, A. M., Keating, D. P., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Gendered motivational processes affecting high school mathematics participation, educational aspirations, and career plans: a comparison of samples from Australia, Canada, and the United States. Developmental Psychology, 48(6), 1594–1611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Williams, S. R., & Ivey, K. M. C. (2001). Affective assessment and mathematics classroom engagement: a case study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47, 75–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: using goal structures and goal orientations to predict students’ motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 236–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. You, S., Ritchey, K. M., Furlong, M. J., Shochet, I., & Boman, P. (2011). Examination of the latent structure of the Psychological Sense of School Membership scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(3), 225–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Charles Sturt UniversitySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.University of TasmaniaLauncestonAustralia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options