Advertisement

Developing a Structural Model on the Relationship among Motivational Beliefs, Self-Regulated Learning Strategies, and Achievement in Mathematics

  • Fatma Kayan Fadlelmula
  • Erdinc Cakiroglu
  • Semra Sungur
Article

Abstract

This study examines the interrelationships among students’ motivational beliefs (i.e. achievement goal orientations, perception of classroom goal structure, and self-efficacy), use of self-regulated learning strategies (i.e. elaboration, organization, and metacognitive self-regulation strategies), and achievement in mathematics, by proposing and testing a structural model. Participants were 1,019 seventh grade students, enrolled in public elementary schools in Ankara, Turkey. Self-report questionnaires and a mathematics test were administered to participants during their regular class periods. Results revealed that students’ perception of classroom goal structure was significantly related to their adoption of achievement goals. Among achievement goals, only mastery goal orientation was significantly related to use of self-regulated learning strategies and mathematics achievement. Among self-regulated learning strategies, only elaboration was significantly related to mathematics achievement. In addition, self-efficacy was associated with achievement goals, use of self-regulated learning strategies, and mathematics achievement. These results supported many of the hypothesized relationships, and offered additional clarification for the literature. Possible explanations are discussed regarding both the expected and unexpected outcomes.

Key words

achievement goal orientation mathematics education self-efficacy self-regulated learning strategies structural equation modeling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barron, K. E. & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation: Testing multiple goal models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 706–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bong, M. (2001). Between and within domain relations of academic motivation among middle and high school students: Self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elliot, A. J. (1997). Integrating the “classic” and “contemporary” approaches to achievement motivation: A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 143–179). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  8. Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elliot, A. J. & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elliot, A. J. & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gable, R. K. (1998). Review of Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. In J. Impara & B. S. Plake (Eds.), The thirteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 681–682). Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  12. Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, A. J. & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Revision of achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 638–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Karadeniz, Ş., Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö. E., Çakmak, E. K. & Demirel, F. (2008). The Turkish adaptation study of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) for 12–18 year old children: Results of confirmatory factor analysis. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(4), 108–117.Google Scholar
  14. Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher’s guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Law, W., Elliot, A. J. & Murayama, K. (2012). Perceived competence moderates the relation between performance-approach and performance avoidance goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 806–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Linnenbrink, E. A. & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Achievement goal theory and affect: An asymmetrical bidirectional model. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marcou, A. & Philippou, G. (2005). Motivational beliefs, self-regulated learning and mathematical problem solving. In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 3 (pp. 297–304). Melbourne: PME.Google Scholar
  18. Mels, G. (2003). A workshop on structural equation modelling: An Introduction. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  19. Middleton, M., Kaplan, A. & Midgley, C. (2004). The change in middle school students’ achievement goals in mathematics over time. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 289–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Middleton, M. J. & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 710–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., Gheen, M., Kaplan, A., Kumar, R., Middleton, M. J., Nelson, J., Roeser, R. & Urdan, T. (2000). Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  22. Murayama, K., Elliot, A. J. & Yamagata, S. (2011). Separation of performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals: A broader analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 238–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Pajares, F. (2001). Toward a positive psychology of academic motivation. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(1), 27–35.Google Scholar
  26. Pajares, F. & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 124–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pape, S. J. & Wang, C. (2003). Middle school children’s strategic behavior: Classification and relation to academic achievement and mathematical problem solving. Instructional Science, 31, 419–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pintrich, P. R. & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pintrich, P. R. & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
  31. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T. & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  32. Raykov, T. & Marcoulides, G. A. (2006). A first course in structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Ryan, A. M., Gheen, M. H. & Midgley, C. (1998). Why do some students avoid asking for help? An examination of the interplay among students’ academic efficacy, teachers’ social-emotional role, and the classroom goal structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 528–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J. & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schumacker, R. E. & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Schunk, D. H. (2000). Coming to terms with motivational constructs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 116–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schunk, D. H. (2001). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 153–189). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Schwartz, N. H., Andersen, C. A., Howard, B. C., Hong, N. & McGee, S. (1998). The influence of configurational knowledge on children’s problem-solving performance in a hypermedia environment. San Diego, CA: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  39. Skaalvik, E. M. & Skaalvik, S. (2009). Self-concept and self-efficacy in mathematics: Relation with mathematics motivation and achievement. Journal of Education Research, 3(3), 255–278.Google Scholar
  40. Sungur, S. (2004). An implementation of problem based learning in high school biology courses. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.Google Scholar
  41. Taş, Y. & Tekkaya, C. (July, 2008). Students’ adoption of personal goal orientations and their perceptions of science classroom goal structures. Paper presented at the Junior Researchers of EARLI, Leuven, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  42. Taylor, R. T. (2012). Review of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) Using Reliability Generalization Techniques to Assess scale Reliability (Doctoral Dissertation). Auburn University, Alabama.Google Scholar
  43. Urdan, T. C. & Midgley, C. (2003). Changes in the perceived classroom goal structure and pattern of adaptive learning during early adolescence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 524–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Usher, E. L. & Pajares, F. (2008). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning: A validation study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(3), 443–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Webb, N. L. (1999). Alignment of science and mathematics standards and assessments in four states. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.Google Scholar
  46. Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Achieving self-regulation: The trial and triumph of adolescence. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Adolescence and education (Vol. 2, pp. 1–27). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
  47. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner. Theory Into Practice, 41, 64–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zimmerman, B. J. (2005). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fatma Kayan Fadlelmula
    • 1
  • Erdinc Cakiroglu
    • 1
  • Semra Sungur
    • 1
  1. 1.Middle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations