Close
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Goal orientation of Latino English language learners: the relationship between students’ engagement, achievement and teachers’ instructional practices in mathematics
(USC Thesis Other)
Goal orientation of Latino English language learners: the relationship between students’ engagement, achievement and teachers’ instructional practices in mathematics
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
GOAL ORIENTATION OF LATINO ENGLISH LANGUAGE
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENTS’ ENGAGEMENT,
ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHERS’ INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES IN
MATHEMATICS
by
Patricia Ann Dickenson
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2009
Copyright 2009 Patricia Ann Dickenson
ii
DEDICATION
To my husband, Robert, my son Braeden and my little one to be.
Ricky and Pepper my beloved friends;
My parents William and Patricia
Bob and Jody
Dreams come true.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge my family. My husband Robert you
believed in me even when my world was full of doubt, you gave me wings
and encouraged me to fly. You made sacrifices in your life so I could reach
my goals. You taught me what it means to love and be loved, and that nothing
is impossible in this world. Thank you for being an amazing husband, best
friend and dad. My son Braeden, this project began when you were still in my
womb, and since the day you entered my life, you have been my inspiration
to see this project is finished with integrity, passion and wisdom. I want you
to know that you can achieve your dreams and I will support you. Te Quiero!
I would also like to acknowledge the wonderful teachers in my life,
who have served as mentors on this journey. Dr. Robert Rueda your guidance
and expertise has been a blessing and your dedication to research in this field
inspirational. Dr. Mark Ryan you were a catalyst for taking the next step
toward a doctoral degree, thank you for always believing in me and showing
me there is no greater service than servicing the children who are in most of
need. Dr. Helena Seli your enthusiasm is contagious and your commitment to
education most inspirational. Marilyn Anderson your
iv
love and dedication to mathematics education and belief in success for all
students moved me to take on this challenge.
I would like to acknowledge my friends. Beth you have always stood
by me through thick and thin. You never doubted me and always showed me
just how much you care. Martyne, and Tami for always being there and
believing in me. Tamilla your help throughout this process has been
invaluable. Finally, I would also like to thank the researchers who worked
hard to create the measures used in this study. I have learned through this
process that nothing is accomplished without hard work and discipline. Dr.
Sara Woodruff of Ohio’s Evaluation and Assessment Center for Mathematics
and Science Education and Dr. Kahle for permission to use the measure on
Standard-based Teaching Practices in Mathematics. Dr. Carol Midgley who
created the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey, her memory has left an
imprint on the importance of motivation in educating.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xii
ABSTRACT xiii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Overview of the Issues
Latino English Language Learners in the Classroom
Transition Period from Elementary to Middle School
Goal Orientation and Learning
Gender Differences
Engagement and Classroom Instruction
Standard-based Teaching Practices
Research Question
Definitions of Terms
Delimitations
Assumptions
Limitations
Purpose of the Study
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Literature Review
Organization of the Literature Review
Search of the Literature
Achievement Goal Orientation
Mastery Goal and Performance Goals
Performance-Approach and Performance-Avoidance
Beliefs about Intelligence
Multiple Goals
Classroom Goals
Gender and Goal Orientation
Goal Orientation of Elementary and Middle School Students
1
3
3
6
7
9
9
10
12
13
16
16
17
18
20
20
20
21
22
23
25
27
28
31
32
36
vi
Differences in Elementary and Middle School
Social Goals
The Transition Period
Goal Orientation and Minority Students
Goal Orientation and Classroom Environment
Instructional Practices
TARGET
Standard-based Teaching Practices
Minority Students and Teacher-centered Instruction
Motivation and Engagement
Behavioral Engagement
Emotional Engagement
Cognitive Engagement
Minority Students and Engagement
Cultural Influences of Latino’s School Experience
Cultural Capital
Self-Perceptions
Stereotypes
Group Dynamics
Framework for Understanding the Impact of the Classroom
Environment
Questions Unanswered by the Literature Review
Purpose of Study and Research Questions
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Overview
Participants and Setting
Profile of Participating School Districts and Schools
School District
Elementary School
Middle School
Teacher Selection
Students Selection
Data Collection Procedures
Teacher Permission
Teacher Survey Administrations
Student Permission
Student Survey Administration
36
39
41
45
52
53
56
58
65
68
69
70
70
71
75
76
77
80
81
84
85
86
88
88
88
91
91
91
92
93
93
94
95
95
96
96
97
vii
Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
Instruments
Teacher Survey
Student Achievement
Student Survey
Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales: (PALS)
Personal Mastery Goal Orientation
Personal Performance-Approach Goal Orientation
Personal Performance-Avoidance Goal Orientation
Engagement
Student Engagement Instrument
School Engagement Scale
Behavioral Engagement
Emotional Engagement
Standard-Based Teaching Practices
Data Analysis
Data Analysis Procedures
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
Participants
Teacher Participants
Student Participants
Descriptive Statistics
Intercorrelations
Research Question 1: Grade Differences
Differences in Goal Orientation
Differences in Student Engagement
Differences in Standard-based Teaching Practices
Research Question 2: Elementary and Middle School
Difference
Middle School and Elementary School Differences
Research Question 3: Gender Differences
Gender Differences by Grade Levels
Overall Motivational Findings
Linear Regression Model
Elementary School Linear Regression
Middle School Linear Regression: 7
th
Grade
98
99
99
99
100
101
101
102
102
103
104
104
105
105
106
107
108
110
110
110
113
115
120
126
126
128
130
132
135
140
145
151
152
153
154
viii
Middle School Linear Regression 8
th
Grade
Multiple Linear Regression Model
Elementary School Multiple Linear Regression
Middle School Multiple Linear Regression: 7
th
Grade
Middle School Multiple Linear Regression: 8
th
Grade
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
Motivational Profile of Latino English Language Learners
Findings Support Mastery Goal Orientation
Performance-Approach Goals and Latino ELL
Performance-Avoidance Goals and Latino ELL
Latino English Language Learners and Multiple Goals
Findings Support Engagement with Latino ELL
Comparing Goal Orientation of Latino ELL in Grades
Comparing Engagement of Latino ELL in Grades
Comparing Perception of Standard-based Teaching Practices
Implications for Policy and Practice
Goal Orientation of Latino ELL
Increasing Engagement of Latino ELL
Implementing Standard-based Teaching Practices
Meeting the Needs of Latino ELL Families
Limitations
Future Research
Conclusions
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
A. Spanish Informed Consent for Survey
B. English Informed Consent for Survey
C. Spanish Child Assent for Survey
D. English Child Assent for Survey
E. Youth Assent for Survey
F. Teacher Consent for Survey
G. Cover Sheet Consent Packet
H. Recruitment Speech
I. Study Proposal
J. Teacher Questionnaire
158
159
161
163
165
170
172
173
176
178
178
181
188
193
202
206
207
214
219
223
225
226
227
232
250
255
260
262
264
269
273
275
277
279
vix
K. Mastery Goal Orientation Questions
L. Performance-Approach Goal Orientation Questions
M. Performance-Avoidance Orientation Questions
N. Behavioral Engagement Questions
O. Emotional Engagement Questions
P. Cognitive Engagement Questions
Q. Standard-based Teaching Questions
R. Introduction Letter to Student Survey
S. Student Survey Demographic Questions
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
290
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1:Teacher Participants by Gender, Grade, Ethnicity and
Experience
Table 2: Overall Teacher Participation
Table 3: Student Participants by Gender, Grade, and County of
Origin
Table 4: Overall Student Participation by Gender, Grade and
Country of Origin
Table 5: Overall Descriptive Statistics for Variables
Table 6: Descriptive Statistics of the Goal Orientation and
Engagement Scales
Table 7: Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-Order Pearson
Product Correlations for Measured Variables
Table 8: Means, and Standard Deviations of Goal Orientations for
Elementary and Middle School Students
Table 9: Means and Standard Deviations of Teacher Practices for
Elementary and Middle School Students
Table 10: Means and Standard Deviations of Teacher Practices for
Elementary and Middle School Students
Table 11: Zero-order Correlations for Elementary and Middle School
Table 12: Overall Descriptive Statistics for Variables by Gender
Table 13: Zero-order Correlations for Girls and Boys
Table 14: Table 14: Descriptive Statistics for Measures by Level of
School and Gender
111
112
113
114
117
119
125
127
129
131
136
141
144
146
xi
Table 15: 4
th
Grade Linear Regression Model Summary Findings for
all Predictor Variables for Mathematics Achievement
Table 16: 7
th
Grade Linear Regression Model Summary Findings for
all Predictor Variables for Mathematics Achievement
Table 17: 8
th
Grade Linear Regression Model Summary Findings for
all Predictor Variables for Mathematics Achievement
Table 18: 4
th
Grade Multiple Regression Analysis
Table 19: 4
th
Grade Multiple Regression Coefficient Findings for all
Predictor Variables for Mathematics Achievement
Table 20: 4
th
Grade Multiple Regression Model Summary
Table 21: 7
th
Grade Multiple Regression Analysis
Table 22: 7
th
Grade Multiple Regression Coefficient Findings for all
Predictor Variables for Mathematics Achievement
Table 23: 7
th
Grade Multiple Regression Model Summary
Table 24: 8
th
Grade Multiple Regression Analysis
Table 25: 8
th
Grade Multiple Regression Coefficient Findings for all
Predictor Variables for Mathematics
Table 26: 8
th
Grade Multiple Regression Model Summary
153
156
158
161
162
163
163
164
165
165
166
167
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Motivational Profile Model
Figure 2: Goal Orientation: 4
th
, 7
th
and 9
th
Grade Group
Figure 3: Engagement: 4
th
, 7
th
, and8th Grade Groups
Figure 4: Standard-based Teaching Practices: 4
th
, 7
th
and 8
th
Grade
Groups
Figure 5: Gender and Goal Orientation: 4
th
, 7
th
and 8
th
Grade Groups
Figure 6: Gender and Engagement: 4
th
7
th
and 8
th
Grade Groups
Figure 7: 4
th
Grade Regression R Square Values for All Predictor
Variables for Mathematics Achievement
Figure 8: 7
th
Grade Regression R Square Values for All Predictor
Variables for Mathematics Achievement
Figure 9: 8
th
Grade Regression R Square Values for All Predictor
Variables for Mathematics Achievement
90
127
130
131
149
150
155
157
160
xiii
ABSTRACT
Latino English language learners are one of the fastest growing
populations of students in the United States, yet few studies have examined
how students’ goal orientation and perception of teaching practices impacts
their achievement and engagement in the classroom. The purpose of this study
was to analyze the following relationships: (1) the salience of Latino English
language students’ personal achievement goal orientation, engagement, and
perception of teaching practices in elementary and middle school
mathematics classrooms; (2) the impact of students’ perception of teacher’s
instructional practices on students’ motivation, engagement, and achievement;
(3) whether students’ goal orientation, engagement and perception of teaching
practices are mediated by their gender and grade level; and (4) the influence
of students engagement, goal orientation and perception of teaching practices
on students’ achievement in mathematics. Participants completed surveys
from three schools in Central California which included eighty-seven, fourth
grade students from two elementary schools, one-hundred fifty-three, seventh
graders and ninety-five, eighth graders from one middle school. Descriptive
statistics were calculated to determine the overall goal orientation,
engagement and perception of teaching practices of Latino English language
students. Follow-up multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to
xiv
examine the effect of gender and grade differences. Multiple linear regression
analysis was computed to show the prediction of the independent variables
(goal orientation, engagement, and teaching practices) to the dependent
variable of mathematics achievement in the study. The results of this study
indicate that Latino English language learners espouse high mastery goals in
elementary and middle school environments. Significant differences were
found across grade levels and gender in relation to students’ goal orientation,
engagement, and perception of teaching practices. Most noteworthy was
teaching practices were found to have a negative impact on student
achievement and elementary students espoused higher performance goals
than middle school students. Results also indicate the independent variables
were able to predict the dependent variable of student achievement. Overall
this study indicates Latino English language students in the elementary and
middle school perceive the instructional environmental differently, and their
motivation and engagement differs in relation to teaching practices.
.
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Data analyzed by the Pew Hispanic Center (Fry, 2003) revealed an
estimated 20 percent of Latino youth are high school dropouts compared to
eight percent of white youth, and 12 percent of African American youth. It is
imperative that educators are prepared to teach a diverse population of
students or the school dropout rate may continue to grow. Furthermore, at the
current college enrollment and completion rates, only 10 out of every 100
Latino kindergartners will obtain a bachelors degree (US Department of
Commerce, 2005). Research has shown students at greatest risk of school
dropout are especially vulnerable to conditions in the school and classroom.
For Latino students who dropout, national longitudinal survey results reveal,
school-related reasons such as “couldn’t get along with teachers” was cited
more than any other reason (NCES, 1995).
Goal orientation plays an important role in understanding how
students perceive the classroom environment by exploring students’ intrinsic
motivation in relation to learning. School engagement refers to students’
involvement in carrying out classroom activities and has been linked to
academic achievement, school retention, and student resiliency (Fredricks, et
al., 2004). In essence motivation is what we do and engagement is how we do
it. Using engagement and goal-orientation as a framework can allow us to
2
explore the impact of classroom instruction on Latino English language
learners
Research in the field of motivation is of importance not just to
educators, but parents, policy makers, administrators and curriculum experts
as well. State and federal mandates impose structured curriculum and school
goals for academic achievement. Educators grapple with ways to motivate
students, while trying to meet the demands of district and state requirements.
Motivation is essential for success in the classroom and beyond the required
school years. Understanding how classroom instruction impacts students’
motivation and engagement may be the key to understanding why students
disengage from school. The more stakeholders understand how motivation
and engagement influences student learning, the greater the possibility of
creating a classroom environment which engages the student and fosters a
lifetime of learning. Research in education must strive to reflect all groups of
students, so policymakers, teachers and administrators can make informed
decisions that cultivate success for all students. Research in the field of
motivation has yet to explore the motivational profile of Latino English
language learners. Solutions to problems such as school dropout and
disengagement can emerge once educators and researchers understand what
motivates and engages this population of students.
3
The purpose of this study was to determine the motivational profiles
of Latino English language learners in elementary and middle school
mathematics classrooms. This study also sought to examine how motivation
influences students’ achievement and engagement across grade levels and
gender. Since research has suggested differences in elementary and middle
school learning environments, teaching practices are examined and students
profiles in the elementary and middle schools were compared. At the end of
this study, the research can be translated into strategies for improving the
classroom environment by creating a more motivating and engaging
experience for Latino English language learners.
Overview of the Issues
This section includes an overview of the issues related to the study. Issues
include (1) Latino English learners in the classroom, (2) transition period
from elementary to middle school, (3) goal theory and learning (4)
engagement and achievement, and (5) standard-based teaching practices in
mathematics.
Latino English Learners in the Classroom
Latinos and learners whose primary language is not English is one of the
fastest growing school-age populations in the United States (NCELA, 2007).
Since 1995, ELL enrollment in the United States has grown by 57 percent,
4
compared with less than 4 percent for all students. Approximately 79 percent
of ELL’s nationally are from Spanish-language backgrounds (ETS Policy
Information Center, 2008). Second generation students who are born in the
United States to at least one immigrant parent comprise 75 percent of
elementary ELLs and 23 percent of the nation’s children (Capps, et al., 2004).
Despite federal mandates that strive to narrow the achievement gap
between minority students and their non-minority peers, achievement
amongst Latino students continues to be a pervasive problem in United States
education. Minority students receive less quality instruction and a greater
quantity of test preparation instruction (Lomax et al., 1995). Despite policies
that strive to narrow the achievement gap, mandates may actually drive
instructional practices to focus on teaching to the test rather than on
higher-level skills that are necessary to master the concept.
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 has raised the bar of
accountability for districts, schools, and students. Students are categorized
into subgroups according to their race, socioeconomic status and language
proficiency. Each subgroup must show growth on the annual standardized
assessment. Schools must meet their “Adequate Yearly Progress” (AYP)
which is a specific percentage of the school’s students who must score
proficient or above in English and math on the annual standardized
5
assessment selected by the state. In California, if the school or districts miss
their AYP goal for two consecutive years they are classified as “Program
Improvement” school. Once identified as “Program Improvement” they face
harsh sanctions such as removal of staff or the school being controlled by the
state rather than the district if they continue to miss their target. Schools and
districts across the nation are challenged to find ways to motivate students
and raise achievement especially for subgroups who continue to fail to meet
their growth targets. Studies suggest English language learners are more
likely to perform below grade level on assessments of mathematics and
reading proficiency (NCES, 2004).
Not only is it imperative for K-12 schools to meet the demands of
NCLB but as our nation becomes increasingly dependent on technology and
students compete for positions in our global economy it is vital for students to
possess the necessary skills in mathematics and science as jobs in these fields
are in high demand. In 2002, the National Science Foundation found just 3%
of Hispanic workers employed in a science or engineering occupation. The
Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts the number of jobs in science and
engineering will grow by 47%, three times the rate of all occupations by the
year 2010. The education system is failing to bring into being minority
students who are qualified and willing to enter the workforce in this field.
6
The problem of motivation in mathematics is acknowledged by the National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) who included the motivational
domain Becoming Confident in one’s own ability and Learning to value
mathematics (NCTM, 1989) as two of its principal tenets. The change in
students’ motivation over time may be crucial to solving this problem. There
is a dire need to know how teachers of Latino students can motivate and
sustain students’ engagement in mathematics.
Transition Period from Elementary to Middle School
For numerous children, the transition from elementary to middle school
is associated with a decline in motivation and achievement (Anderman &
Midgley, 1997; Eccles & Midgley, 1989, Eccles et. al., 1993). Student reports
show the changes in the contextual environment from one teacher in a
self-contained classroom to numerous teachers on a large campus setting can
create a feeling of fear (Cauley & Jovanovich, 2006). It is of value to
examine the transition period in education to see if changes in students’
motivational beliefs can be attributed to the instructional environment rather
than factors such as the physiological and psychological changes students
experience during this time in their lives.
Results of national testing, conducted in 2005, shows nearly half (46%)
of 4th grade students in the English language learners (ELL) category scored
7
in the lowest possible level "below basic" in mathematic whereas the number
of students scoring “below basic” in the 8
th
grade middle school achievement
test rose to 71% (Fry, 2007). When students leave elementary school to begin
middle school they often encounter a completely different environment with
new rules, policies, and school culture. This time frame in which students
adjust to their new surroundings is referred to as the transition period.
Knowing if changes in the classroom environment during the transition from
elementary to middle school are related to a decrease in motivation would be
beneficial in creating interventions to sustain students’ motivation and
engagement during this time.
Goal Orientation and Learning
The type of goal a student adopts will elicit a different motivation pattern in
the classroom (Ames, 1992). In this study, students’ goal orientation was
examined using a trichotomous goal orientation model of mastery,
performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals. Students with a
mastery goal orientation have the desire to learn and master the subject for
understanding. Adaptive patterns of learning are associated with a mastery
goal orientation such as task enjoyment, self-improvement and
understanding. Mastery goal oriented students attribute success and failure to
one’s effort rather than intelligence. Therefore if a student does not do well
8
on a test they do not believe they are unintelligent rather they did not try hard
enough. Mastery students do not give up in the face of failure and persist in
their efforts as the purpose of learning is to master the task for understanding
not achievement.
Performance-approach goal orientation is associated with maladaptive
patterns of learning. Failure is attributed to one’s intelligence rather than
effort, thus the individual is concerned with looking competent in comparison
to their peers. The focus of a performance-approach goal orientation is on
one’s self-worth not individual improvement such is the case with mastery
goal orientation. Performance-avoidance goal orientation is associated with
maladaptive pattern of learning. The focus of learning is to avoid being
perceived as incompetent in achievement settings. The teachers’ choices with
regards to the classroom structure, delivery of instruction, and evaluation
practices, influences the goals students adopt in the classroom. Teachers
establish the learning environment in the classroom which impacts student
motivation and achievement (Meece, 2003).
Although goal orientation has been examined for over twenty years
research has not examined the goals of Latino English language learners.
Research with this population is important as cultural differences may
Comparing the goal orientation of students from elementary to middle school
9
may shed light as to why students goal orientation changes over time and
achievement in mathematics steadily declines. If teachers instructional
practices do impact English language learners’ (ELL) goal orientation and
engagement, this knowledge would benefit the education community in
designing the optimal learning environment. Understanding the motivation of
ELL’s can bring awareness to classroom practices that are both valuable and
deleterious to this population of students.
Gender Differences
There is a lack of research with regards to gender difference in goal
orientation. The majority of research in achievement goal orientation does not
address differences in gender in fact very little research has examined gender
(Eccles, Wigfield and Schiefele, 1998).
Engagement and Classroom Instruction
The concept of engagement has been used to examine how classroom
instruction and tasks can heighten intellectual engagement (Newmann,
Wehlage, & Lamborn, 1992). Research with urban students show a
relationship between low behavioral engagement and cutting class, skipping
school, suspension and retention (Connell et al., 1994; Connell et al., 1995).
These behaviors are often associated with dropping-out. Few studies have
examined the relationship between students’ goal orientation and engagement
10
in the classroom. Motivated students do not always translate into engaged
students thus examining this relationship will distinguish if students’
motivation is aligned with their engagement in the classroom. In addition it is
beneficial to know if students’ perceptions of teachers’ instructional practices
are related to their engagement or disengagement. Teaching practices in
mathematics education are influenced by the National Council of Teaching
Mathematics.
Standard-Based Teaching Practices
The National Council of Teaching Mathematics (NCTM, 1989)
proposals to reform teaching and schools have influenced K-12 classroom
curriculum, instruction, and teacher training. The instructional strategies
favored by the council deviate from teacher-directed instruction, which is
maintained and controlled by the teacher, to a learner-directed approach
which provides autonomy to the student and the ability to interact and learn
from classmates. Although the types of instruction recommended by the
council include various strategies, this study focused on cooperative learning,
questioning, and problem solving as such strategies can be applied to both
elementary and middle school settings.
There is a need to investigate how the standard-based teaching practices
proposed by the National Council of Teaching Mathematics influence Latino
11
English language learners’ motivation, engagement, and achievement.
Furthermore it is worthwhile to examine if differences exist in the use of
standard-based teaching practices between elementary and middle schools
and how students’ perception of the teachers’ practices may impact the type
of goals students adopt. Finally it is beneficial to examine the relationship
between Latino English language students’ goal orientation, engagement,
achievement and the reported use of standard-based teaching practices for
future research and practice.
The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, (TIMSS)
is an international study that provides data on student achievement in
mathematics and science in the 4
th
and 8
th
grade. Teachers’ instructional
practices in mathematics and science are also examined through self-report
and classroom observations. Although United States teachers reported
understanding and implementing mathematics reform practices, classroom
observations revealed such strategies are infrequently used (Hiebert & Stigler,
2000). Since classroom observations are not being conducted in this study,
the students were asked to report the teachers’ use of instructional practices
rather than surveying the teachers.
12
Research Questions
According to Kaplan and colleagues an in-depth analysis of
achievement goals is needed for one ethnic minority group (Kaplan et. al.,
2002). The main purpose of this study was to describe Latino English
language students’ goal orientation in elementary and middle school and
examine differences in grade level, engagement, and gender. The relationship
between students self-report of standard-based teaching practices and their
achievement goal orientations, classroom engagement, and mathematics
achievement was examined as well. The following research questions are
proposed to achieve these goals:
1. Is there a difference between students reported goal orientation, level of
engagement, and perception of standard-based teaching practices
among grades?
2. Is there a difference in the relationship between goal orientation, level
of engagement, and perception of standard-based teaching practices
among elementary and middle school students?
3. Is there a difference between students reported goal orientation, level of
engagement, perception of standard-based teaching practices among
gender?
4. What is the relationship between Latino English language learners’
13
academic achievement in mathematics and their reported goal
orientation, level of engagement, and perception of standard-based
teaching practices?
Definitions of Terms
The following definitions apply to this study:
1.Academic Performance Index (API). Academic Performance Index
is a number between 200 to 1000 that is calculated for a school site and their
subgroups (English language learner, socioeconomically disadvantaged, etc.)
based on their performance on the annual standardized test. The API is
composed of two numbers that are compared. Test scores of the previous year
are called the base score which is compared to the current year test score
referred to as the growth score.
2. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Schools are required under the
No Child Left Behind Law (NCLB) to meet target goals for each subgroup of
students at their school site. Target goals were created as a way for every
school to make 100 percent student proficiency in reading and mathematics
by 2014. Goals are set annually by the state for attendance and performance
in mathematics and reading. In California students goals are measured by the
California state test (CST). If a school misses one target they do not make
AYP.
14
3. Cooperative learning. This instructional approach to teaching has
students work in small groups and be active participants in the learning
process. Five basic elements are incorporated into the cooperative learning
environment: interaction, individual and group accountability, positive
interdependence, collaborative skills, and group processing (Johnson,
Johnson, & Holubec, 1987).
4. Elementary School: An elementary school usually consists of
grades k-5, however it may also be comprised of grades K-6, or K-4.
5. English language learners (ELL). An English language learner is
usually learning English as a second language and is in the process of
acquiring the English language skills and knowledge (Nations Report Card,
2008).
6. Mastery Goal Orientation. The goal is to improve skills and
knowledge for understanding.
7. Middle School: A middle school usually consists of grades 6-8,
however it may also consist of grades 5-7, 7-8, or 5-8.
8. No Child Left Behind (NCLB). This federal law is a
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Authorization Act. This act
15
defines the federal governments’ role in statewide public education. Schools
are required to assess students each year and to show progress in subject
areas. The Act also calls for “highly qualified” teachers and imposes harsh
sanctions upon schools that do not make progress in meeting their goals.
9. Performance Avoidance Goal Orientation. The goal is to avoid
judgment by others as lacking ability.
10. Performance-approach Goal Orientation. The goal is to
demonstrate ability to others.
11. Program Improvement. Schools and districts that do not make
Adequate Yearly Progress on state standardized tests for two consecutive
years are identified as Program Improvement.
12. School Transition: Refers to the student progressing from an
elementary school to a middle school environment
13. Standard-based teaching practices. Classroom practices which are
recommended by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics to
promote an interactive student-centered learning environment.
14. Statewide Rank. API score is divided into ten equal groups called
deciles which 10% of the schools are placed in each group from one (lowest)
to ten (highest). A school’s statewide rank is the deciles into which it falls.
16
15. Student-centered instruction. This form of instruction focuses on
the individual student and their needs. Students are provided with the
opportunity to learn independently or from other classmates. The teacher acts
as a coach or facilitator in the process.
16. Teacher-centered instruction. This form of instruction allows the
teacher to control the classroom discussion, and decisions by instructing the
whole class simultaneously. One of the most salient features is lecture, drill
and practice.
17. Title 1. Federal funding for schools identified as serving students
that are at risk of school failure or behind academically. Schools are usually
identified by the number of students who qualify for free and reduced lunch
program.
Delimitations
This research focuses on the education systems of Latino students
who are English language learners at the elementary and middle school level.
The results of this study should be generalized to other Latino students who
are English language Learners at the elementary and middle school.
Assumptions
The study assumes that all instruments used for measuring the
correlation are valid and reliable regardless of participants’ ethnicity,
17
socio-economic status, gender difference, and students’ level of intelligence.
Responses to students’ survey are assumed to be valid.
Limitations
All participants in this study were volunteer students in elementary
and middle schools (N=335) in Central California. All participants know they
are being studied and the self-report measures are assumed to be valid.
However, response bias is possible due to students’ self-report of goal
orientation, engagement, and perception of teaching practices in mathematics.
Some students may not be comfortable reporting honestly on items that do
not portray a positive belief of themselves or their teacher.
This cross-sectional study assumes changes occur across grades with
different groups of students and with different mathematics assessments.
However a longitudinal study would be more effective in determining if
changes are the result of classroom practices and norm-referenced testing
would be a better measure of student achievement. Other factors influencing
student engagement may include parent involvement and attitudes, as well as
prior experience in mathematics. If parents do not believe mathematics is
valuable this may impact student engagement. Similarly, students with low
self-efficacy in math may feel hopeless or exhibit self-handicapping
behaviors. The motivational variables in this study are limited to goal
18
orientation and engagement and the learning context in this study is limited to
standard-based teaching practices in the fourth, seventh, and eighth grade.
Achievement in mathematics is limited to student formative assessment data
during the fall semester.
Finally, the validity of the measure “Standard-based Teaching
Practices” may have changed due to the alteration of the original questions.
Questions were modified from “in this science class” to “in this math class”.
This measure has not been validated in a mathematics classroom and
modifications to the original measure may affect the measures’ validity.
Purpose of the Study
The transition from elementary to middle school is a precarious time
in a students’ life. It is of interest to know how motivation changes and what
factors may impact achievement during this time. In addition, standard-based
teaching practices are commonly used in elementary and middle school
classrooms, therefore it would be beneficial to know if such practices engage
and motivate Latino ELL students or influence the type of goal orientation
students adopt in the mathematics classroom. Finally projections suggest
English language learner students will comprise over 40 percent of
elementary and secondary students by 2030 (Thomas & Collier, 2001).
Understanding what features of the classroom are salient to Latino ELL
19
students in elementary and middle school can help teachers ease the transition
period for students at risk of school failure.
According to Telese, (1999) Latino students are typically taught using
whole group approaches, and their attitude toward mathematics is generally
unfavorable. The results of this research should be able to offer important
insight as to how educators can design instructional practices to sustain
motivation and engagement in mathematics, improve the number of
minorities in advanced mathematics courses and promote future careers in
mathematics. Presently the research is unclear as to how Latino English
language learners perceive the learning environment and there are no studies
to date which investigate students’ achievement goal orientations with Latino
English Language learners.
20
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Literature Review
The purpose of this literature review is to examine the literature on
Latino English language learners’ goal orientation and level of engagement in
the school and classroom environment. Goal orientation can be a useful
framework to analyze learners’ motivation in the classroom environment. It is
also important to examine the research on student engagement as it mediates
the relationship between motivation and academic achievement. Engagement
is related to student success and failure in school Social psychological factors
are discussed to explore the cultural and social influences that are related to
Latino English language learners’ engagement or disengagement from the
school environment.
Organization of the Literature Review
The literature review is divided into six sections to present key
findings related to the main research question of the study: What is the
relationship between students’ goal orientation, engagement, achievement,
and perception of standard-based teaching practices in mathematics among
Latino English language students in elementary and middle school? The first
section provides an overview of the motivational construct goal orientation,
which serves as the theoretical framework for this study. In the next section,
21
literature pertaining to goal orientation of elementary and middle school
students articulates the relationship between differences in classroom and
school environments and student outcomes. The third section is focuses on
the role of goal orientation with minority students. Since there is a lack of
literature that examines the motivational constructs of Latino English
language learners, this section explores recent literature pertaining to all
minority groups. The next section is an examination of the classroom
environment and standard-based teaching practices in mathematics. Section
five is an overview of student engagement and examines the literature related
to engagement with minority students. Section six discusses how ethnicity
and culture influence Latino students’ school experience. Finally section
seven is an examination of the framework for understanding how the
classroom environment impacts students’ personal achievement goal
orientation and engagement in mathematics. A summary at the end of each
section highlights the foremost points. Finally the chapter addresses existing
gaps in the literature as well as questions that remain unanswered.
Search of the Literature
The following peer-reviewed journal articles in this literature review
were obtained through an online database search of PsychINFO, JSTOR,
Web of Knowledge, ERIC, ProQuest, and Google Scholar. The online search
22
was conducted within the timeframe of 1995 through 2008 using the
following keywords: standard-based teaching, English language learners and
mathematics, English language learners and goal orientation, English
language learners and cooperative learning, goal orientation, urban students
and goal orientation, goal orientation and gender, classroom environment,
minority students and mathematics, motivation and mathematics, elementary
and middle school transition, elementary and middle school and goal
orientation, engagement and classroom environment, and engagement and
urban students.
Selected resources dated prior to 1995 were referenced to provide a
deep understanding of the motivational constructs of goal orientation and
engagement. The studies selected for review were within the k-8 classroom
setting and relevant to the above question, however studies involving high
school and higher education were included if pertinent. Resources were
collected from the university library and through a search of electronic
resources.
Achievement Goal Orientation
Goals are part of the classroom setting, from the moment the student enters
the class, to the assignment of homework at the end of the day. The reason for
engaging in an achievement behavior and the value one assigns to such
23
behaviors is the root of goal orientation-theory. Dweck and Leggett (1988)
define goal orientation as the goals individuals implicitly pursue while
attempting to attain certain performance outcomes. Goals are the purpose to
engage in a task and the type of goal one adopts creates a framework to shape
the behavior and performance in meeting the outcome. According to Pintrich
(2000) achievement goals include not only the purposes for pursuing an
achievement task, but the way in which one evaluates their success or failure
in achieving the goal. Goal orientation theorists believe achievement
outcomes are influenced by the students’ perception of the classroom
environment and the type of goal they adopt. In this manuscript, the terms
goal and goal orientation are used interchangeably. Teachers shape the
classroom environment, which in turn affects the type of goal a student
adopts. Goal orientation has traditionally been identified as either mastery
goals (also referred to as a task goal) or performance goals (also known as
ego goals).
Mastery Goals and Performance Goals
Mastery goals are associated with positive outcomes such as task
enjoyment, self-improvement and understanding. A mastery goal orientation
attributes achievement to one’s effort. Students who espouse mastery goals
prefer challenging tasks, developing new skills, mastering a given task, and
24
do their work with the purpose of learning (Ames, 1992 & Maehr & Midgley,
1991). Elliot and Dweck (1988) found when students believe mastery goals
are salient in the classroom they will demonstrate mastery oriented behaviors
such as sophistication in problem solving, taking on challenging tasks and
participating even when mistakes are known to others.
Performance goals on the other hand are focused on the
demonstration of ability. The emphasis is on how one performs as compared
to others and achievement is attributed to one’s ability rather than effort.
Performance goals are often associated with negative outcomes such as low
intrinsic motivation, lack of persistence in the face of failure, and challenge
avoidance (Ames, 1992). A student with a performance goal-orientation may
disengage from activities which are viewed as challenging or too difficult to
accomplish in an effort to avoid judgment from others.
Ames and Archer (1988) found that mastery students use more effective
learning strategies than students who perceive performance goals in the class.
In the mathematics classroom having a mastery-orientation would be
advantageous as problem solving is an essential component of this domain.
Students who lack the self-regulation skills that are necessary for problem
solving may become disengaged in mathematics as a result of a
performance-oriented classroom. The belief that effort leads to success, and
25
that failure can be altered by the choice of strategy, is associated with a
mastery goal-orientation (Garner 1990). The kind of goal one adopts in the
classroom creates a reference point from which the student interprets
classroom events, interactions, and behaviors. Students who espouse a
mastery goal orientation interpret feedback as useful information to improve
their performance, whereas students who possess performance goals view
feedback as a harsh evaluation rather than a means to improve themselves
(Moller & Elliot, 2006).
Although research with mastery goals has consistently found adaptive
patterns of learning, performance goals have not been as consistent. Several
studies have found performance goals can have positive outcomes as well
such as high academic efficacy, and achievement in school work (Midgley et
al., 2001, Urdan, 1997). Through dividing performance goals as
performance-approach and performance avoidance goals,
performance-approach goals can be viewed as adaptive under certain
circumstances (Midgley et al., 2001).
Performance-Approach and Performance-Avoidance
A trichotomous goal-orientation, proposed by Elliot and Church
(1997), includes mastery goals, but distinguishes performance goals as either
performance-approach or performance-avoidance. With the division of
26
performance goals as approach or avoidance, the positive and negative
attributes of this goal orientation are more notable. Midgley and Urdan (2001)
found academic self-handicapping to be positively correlated to both
performance goals however regression analysis revealed only
performance-avoidance goals to positively predict self-handicapping.
Performance-approach goals are characterized by the students need for
positive feedback regarding their ability, and positive outcomes such as
achievement and academic efficacy have been found with this orientation
(Midgley et al., 2001). Performance-avoidance goals however focus on
avoiding negative feedback and have been consistent in predicting negative
outcomes. Thus in approach and avoidance motivation, behavior is directed
by a positive or negative event.
Elliot (1999) proposed the performance-approach and
performance-avoidance model of achievement motivation to include the
competence beliefs of the individual. Individuals who are ego (performance)
involved, and have high-perceived competence seek to attain high normative
ability judgments, and those who have low-perceived competence seek to
avoid such judgments (Nicholls 1984). Performance-approach individuals
seek to appear competent to others, whereas those who seek to avoid
judgment from others identifies the performance-avoidance individual.
27
Beliefs about Intelligence
Research in the area of perception of intelligence has examined the
factors that influence the goals students adopt in the classroom. Dweck (1986)
found one’s beliefs about intelligence may direct an individual toward a
particular achievement goal. A performance goal is an entity belief that views
intelligence as fixed and unalterable, as outcomes are attributed to one’s
ability rather than effort. An incremental belief however views intelligence as
malleable and is associated with a mastery goal, such that one can master a
skill with hard work and effort. How an individual views the development of
intelligence serves as an antecedent to the goals students adopt in the
classroom and their attribution of success or failure in a given task. Thus
one’s view of intelligence is in many ways a precursor to the goals students
adopt in the classroom.
Competence has also been examined as a precursor to the goals one
adopts. Competence is one’s belief in their ability to do something well. High
perceptions of competence were linked to mastery-approach and
performance-approach goals and low perceived competence were linked to
mastery avoidance and performance avoidance goals (Cury et al., 2006).
Leonardo and Gialamas (2002) examined the role of goal orientation,
28
implicit theories of intelligence and perceived competence of elementary and
middle school students. Achievement goals and perceived competence were
found to be important predictors of school achievement. Elementary students
were more likely to have an incremental view of intelligence than junior high
school students. Therefore elementary students believe that intelligence is
malleable and mastery can be achieved with hard work and effort. Although
incremental beliefs of intelligence were not related to academic achievement,
they were positively related to a mastery goal orientation.
Multiple Goals
Research has explored the idea of students espousing multiple goals,
yet it is unclear if the combinations of goals are associated with positive or
negative patterns of outcomes. According to Harackiewicz, (1998) the
possibility of multiple goals requires researchers to evaluate the simultaneous
effect of goals and analyze if they act concurrently in predicting motivation
and achievement. Some researchers have found that students who adopt high
performance and high mastery goals have higher levels of self-regulation and
grades than students who endorse one or neither goal (Ainley, 1993; Wentzel,
1991). Studies have also found high-mastery and low-performance goals to
be more adaptive than high-mastery and high-performance goal orientation
(Meece & Holt, 1993).
29
Witkow & Fuligni (2007) examined a 2x2 achievement goal model
which included a performance-approach, performance avoidance, and
mastery approach and mastery avoidance goal orientation. The sample
consisted of 700 high school students from diverse backgrounds including:
30% Latinos, 36% Asians, and 13% European Americans. A modified version
of the Achievement Goals Questionnaire (Elliot & McGregor, 2001) was
used to measure students’ goal orientation. Students’ goals for school in
general were examined rather than their goal orientation in a specific subject
domain such as math or science. The students’ goals were related to their
grades and intrinsic value for school across their classes. In addition daily
school experiences and feelings about school were examined as mediators of
goals, achievement, and intrinsic motivation. Students were asked to record
their activities for two weeks in a journal and entries were examined to
determine students’ feelings about school and daily school experience.
Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to test the fit of the four goal
model (performance-approach, performance avoidance, mastery approach,
and mastery avoidance) and the three goal model (mastery,
performance-approach and performance avoidance). Results found both
models to adequately fit the data however a chi-square difference test found
the four goal model to be a significantly better fit than the trichotomous
30
model. This finding supports the belief that a multiple goal model may be a
better indicator of student goal orientation. However this model was tested
with students perceptions of school goals in general, similar results may not
be found when examining students’ goals in a specific subject. Results also
found performance-approach goals to be positively associated with
achievement, and mastery-approach goals positively associated with
achievement and intrinsic value of school. Mastery-avoidance goals were
negatively associated with achievement, and no relationship was found
between performance-avoidance goals and achievement. This supports the
belief performance goals do have positive outcomes such as academic
achievement and mastery goals coupled with avoidance goals are associated
with negative outcomes in achievement. Multiple goals may be a better
achievement goal model for a diverse population of students in high school.
Pintrich (2000) examined the effect of students’ espousing multiple
goals over time. Students completed a self-assessment of their achievement
goals, and motivational strategies, in three waves from 8
th
to 9
th
grade.
Mathematics grades examined the effect of goals and strategies on academic
achievement. Survey results of achievement goals categorized students into
one of four groups: (a) high mastery/high performance goals,
31
(b) high mastery/low performance goals, (c) low mastery/high performance,
(d) low mastery/low performance. Significant differences were not found
between the high mastery/low performance group and the high mastery/high
performance group, suggesting that a multiple goal approach may be a more
accurate model to measure the role of personal achievement goal orientation.
If differences were found between the groups favoring a high mastery/ low
performance goal orientation this would support the previous models which
associate only mastery goals with positive behaviors. In addition, the high
mastery/high performance group reported higher task value in mathematics.
This finding supports the idea that high performance goals may not be
maladaptive as found in earlier research.
Classroom Goals
The organization and structure of the classroom in conjunction with
the practices of the teacher creates the students perception of the classroom
goal orientation. Students’ goals are influenced by the daily dynamics of the
classroom environment. For example, a teacher can promote a
performance-oriented environment by posting scores from a test for all
students to see, so that social comparison takes place, whereas a mastery
oriented environments may have students working on meaningful classroom
activities that are challenging and engaging. The classroom goal orientation is
32
dependent on how each student perceives the class environment. Prior
experiences, interpretations of the classroom events and personal relationship
with the teacher influence the students’ perception of the classroom goals.
Although this study does not measure the students’ perception of classroom
goal, this feature of goal orientation is worth noting as standard-based
teaching practices are part of the classroom structure and organization which
function as an aspect of classroom goals. Furthermore although the teacher
may favor certain instructional practices the students’ perception of such
practices may differ among students. Thus when the teacher posts classroom
grades a performance-approach student may perceive the grades as a personal
challenge to be the best in the class, whereas a performance-avoidance
student may perceive this as a reason to avoid interacting with other students
in the class.
Gender and Goal Orientation
Analysis of educational data revealed the gender gap is greatest
among Hispanics (Ginorio & Huston, 2000). This study also found in grades
4-12, Latinas outperform Latino peers in most subjects, and are less likely to
be suspended or referred to special education than males. In addition, Latinas
were less likely than other groups of girls to graduate from high school or
take the SAT exam. Ginorio and Huston (2000), contend Latinas are not
33
being supported by their schools. Thus examining gender differences among
Latino English language learners can add to the literature in support of these
findings.
The majority of research in achievement goal orientation does not
address differences in gender in fact very little research has examined gender
(Eccles, Wigfield and Schiefele, 1998). The findings are inconsistent as to
what role gender plays in achievement goals. Henderson & Dweck, (1990)
found females are more likely to espouse performance oriented goals than
males and exhibit less adaptive attribution patterns. Dweck (1986) found
females have lower preference for challenge, and more frequent failure
attributions to ability than males. This finding suggests females are likely to
adopt a performance goal orientation more than males. Ablard and Lipschultz
(1999) examined the relationship between goal orientation and self-regulated
learning with high-achieving seventh grade students’. MANOVA results
found gender differences in goal orientation as girls had stronger mastery
goal orientation than boys, but no differences were found with performance
goals. However Eccles and colleagues (1998) did not find differences in
gender. Research with achievement goals and their behavior outcomes is
inconsistent and scarce. Additional research is needed to explore if gender
differences do exist with achievement goals (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002).
34
In summary goal orientation is a multifaceted motivational construct
that continues to evolve in the research. This theory offers insight as to the
reasons students pursue goals, the type of environment that makes goals
salient, and the behaviors associated with goal orientation. Mastery goals are
associated with positive achievement activities such as enhanced engagement,
positive attitude toward learning and the use of effective learning strategies.
In addition students who adopt a mastery goal orientation tend to focus on
learning and mastering a task, persist in challenges and have higher levels of
performance. In contrast performance goals are associated with negative
achievement outcomes such as lack of persistence and avoiding challenging
activities. Students with a performance goal orientation are concerned with
their ability relative to others and may seek to outperform others or avoid
looking incompetent.
The dichotomous framework of goal orientation has been examined
for some time now however this framework fails to acknowledge that
performance goals can have positive and negative outcomes. Elliot and
Church (1997) acknowledge this discrepancy and divided performance goals
into avoidance and approach goals. The trichotomous goal orientation
framework used in this study includes mastery goals, performance-approach
35
and performance avoidance goals. Under this umbrella,
performance-approach goals may results in adaptive behaviors such as better
performance and achievement. In a performance-approach goal orientation
students are seeking positive feedback and orient themselves to demonstrate
their ability and accomplishing the task as a way to demonstrate their
competence. In a performance avoidance goal orientation, students seek to
avoid negative feedback and looking incompetent, which may lead to
disengaging from the task.
Research with multiple goals orientation is still new, but existing
studies support the notion that students can hold multiple goals. The
classroom is a dynamic environment that may include aspects of a mastery
and performance goal orientation. The 2x2 framework partitions mastery
goals into mastery-approach and mastery-avoidance, and includes
performance-approach and performance-avoidance goal orientation. Students
may hold multiple goals in the classroom as the teacher may support
behaviors that advocate a mastery orientation such as effort and persistence at
tasks, as well as a performance orientation such as ability and achievement.
Federal mandates such as No Child Left Behind Act (2001), place
teachers under pressure to ensure students are successful on standardized
tests,. However this may produce a greater emphasis on performance goals at
36
a younger age. Research should be examined simultaneously with policy to
examine the impact of such reforms. It is unclear the positive or negative
patterns of behavior that are associated with multiple goals. However some
researchers believe it does not matter what type of goals are pursued, but that
the goals lead to cognitive and affective involvement in the task
(Harackiewicz et al., 1998).
Classroom goal orientation has been identified as the organization and
structure of the classroom in conjunction with the practices of the teacher.
This study focuses on the effect of standard-based teaching practices with
Latino English language learners’ and their perception of personal
achievement goals within a trichotomous framework across elementary and
middle school. Students’ perception of the classroom environment was
categorized as mastery, performance-approach or performance-avoidance
goal orientation and their engagement in the classroom was explored as
behavioral, emotional and cognitive.
Goal Orientation of Elementary and Middle School Students
Differences in Elementary and Middle School Environments
Differences in the learning environment from elementary to middle
school may be clear to students, but the reasons why students experience a
negative change in motivation and a decrease in achievement remains unclear
37
to researchers in this field (Eccles & Midgley, 1989). Some theorists
postulate the physiological changes students experience at this time in their
life may impact their performance and motivation in middle school. Other
theorists believe differences in the learning environment could play a vital
role in students’ motivation and achievement. Maehr (1991) found the goals
emphasized in the classroom had a stronger relation to students’ motivation in
successive grade levels, and the strongest effect in 10
th
grade. His findings
suggest older adolescents are especially receptive to the goals espoused in the
classroom.
In middle school students no longer have one classroom teacher and a
heterogeneous group of classmates which they consistently interact with
throughout the day. Students move from class to class and are often assigned
to courses based on their achievement and ability. The placement of students
based on ability is referred to as tracking. In middle school students who are
assigned to low achieving groups often stay within those groups throughout
high school years. Student placement based on ability is reflective of a
performance orientation as the focus is on students’ achievement performance.
In addition to student placement, differences between the relationship of the
teacher and student in the elementary and middle schools also exist. The
interaction between teacher and student is less frequent in middle school as
38
instructional periods leave less time for personal communication and for
student and teacher relationships to form. This may be why evaluation
practices are more salient in the middle school as teachers often instruct five
or more classes of different students throughout the day. However much of
the research with goal orientation was conducted before current policies were
in place.
According to Midgley and Urdan, (1992) grades may be based more
on ability and less on effort, as is the case in elementary school. Student
recognition is prominent in middle school with honor roll and honor societies.
This may create a school division by recognizing those who do well as
superior. Changes in classroom orientation suggest middle school stresses
performance goals more than task goals. Midgley and Hicks (1995) surveyed
elementary and middle school students and teachers achievement goals and
perception of the school culture. Results suggest middle school teachers and
students perceive the school culture as more performance-focused and less
task focused than elementary teachers and students. Teacher surveys’ of
instructional practices revealed elementary school teachers use instructional
practices that emphasize task goals and endorse task-focused achievement
goals for their students more than middle school teachers. Qualitative
methods such as teacher interviews would be beneficial to reveal the reasons
39
performance orientation tends to be adopted by middle school teachers. In
addition to the changes in the classroom environment between elementary
and middle school, the experience of going to a new school can be a factor,
impacting student motivation and engagement as well.
Social Goals
Social relationships are especially salient in a young adolescents’ life.
The relationship between students’ social interactions and achievement in
school has been examined for some time. Patrick (1997) found students who
elicit positive social relationships such as relating to their classmates and
being accepted by their peers, tend to do well in school, are engaged and
report liking school. Achievement difficulties were found with students who
had low peer relationships and acceptance (Parker & Asher, 1987).
Dowson and McInerney, (2003) investigated the relationship between
academic and social goals of middle school students using qualitative
measures such as interviews and classroom observations. Participants from
six schools volunteered to be part of this study to explore if students hold
multiple goals in school settings. The investigators proposed eight distinct
goals that students adopt in the classroom. Academic goals included mastery,
performance and work avoidance (performance-avoidance) and social goals
were classified as (a) social affiliation, (b) social approval, (c) social concern,
40
(d) social responsibility, and (e) social status. One of the main findings of this
study was students’ goal structures are multi-dimensional constructs that
contain an affective, behavioral and cognitive component. In addition the
academic goals of students were connected to their social goals.
Social responsibility goals are described as the students’ willingness
to meet the social demands and role expectations in the school setting
(Wentzel, 1993). It has been suggested that when students feel obligated to
meet the social expectations of the classroom they will have a greater desire
to succeed in the class. Patrick, Hicks, and Ryan (1997) examined the role of
social responsibility goals and teachers’ communication of goal orientations
in four fifth grade classrooms. Students’ social responsibility goals were
positively related to academic efficacy.
Students’ ability to interact securely with peers and teachers is
referred to as social efficacy. Students’ belief that they can interact
successfully with their peers and teachers has been associated with increased
positive effect and decrease in depression during the transition from
elementary to middle school (Patrick, et. al., 1997). In conjunction with
students affective orientation to their classmates and peers is their feeling of
relatedness to the school community. Goodenow and Grady (1993) defined
sense of belonging as the extent to which students feel personally accepted,
41
respected, included, and supported in the school social environment.
Anderman and Anderman (1999), examined students’ feelings of school
belonging, adherence to school rules and interest in social status at school and
their endorsement of mastery and performance goals. The participants
included an economically and ethnically diverse sample of 660 adolescents
during their transition from elementary school to middle school. Students’
who reported a greater sense of school belonging and believed it was
important to follow school rules, espoused more mastery goals during the
change from elementary to middle school.
The Transition Period
The experience of encountering a new learning environment may
cause a student to change their motivation and attitude. Transition to a new
classroom or school often takes place at the end of the school year. Several
studies have found that achievement goals are somewhat stable across the
academic year (Wolters, Yu, Pintrich, 1996; Nolen & Haldyna, 1990). Less
stability exists when students move from one learning environment
(classroom, grade, or school) to another (Kaplan & Midgley, 1999). Such is
the case in the transition period from elementary to middle school.
Middleton, Kaplan and Midgley (2004) examined the change in
middle school students’ achievement goals during the transition period as
42
students move from sixth to seventh grade. The school principal reported
sixth grade classrooms used reform practices that were believed to promote a
mastery orientation but upper grade classroom did not use such practices in
the teaching of mathematics. Students were surveyed during the spring of
their sixth and seventh grade level. The Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey
(PALS) was used to measure personal task goals (mastery goals),
performance-approach goals, performance-avoidance goals and academic
efficacy. The study found students’ goal orientations to be moderately stable
over time. Task (mastery) goals in the sixth grade positively predicted
academic efficacy in the seventh grade. This finding suggests students who
espouse task goals are less likely to be affected by changes in the classroom
environment. Performance-approach goals in the sixth grade positively
predicted performance-avoidance goals in the seventh grade. This implies
adopting a performance-approach goal may influence students to adopt a
performance-avoidance goal with time. In addition, students who feel
efficacious in math while endorsing a performance-approach goal may be
vulnerable to adopting a performance-avoidance goal in a new learning
environment where mastery goals remain stable over time. Although this
research implies students with a performance-approach goal orientation may
adopt a performance avoidance orientation, it would be interesting to see if
43
qualitative data such as classroom observation or student interviews could
unearth the factors that influenced these students to adopt a performance
avoidance orientation in the seventh grade. A limitation of this study was
classroom practices were reported by the school principal rather than the
classroom teachers or the students. The principal claimed only sixth grade
teachers promoted reform practices, however it is unclear how he came to
this conclusion or what his belief of reform practices are. It would be more
effective to survey the students on classroom practices or interview the
classroom teachers about their instructional practices rather than assume such
differences exist. Additionally the study did not explore if differences in the
classroom environment were significant enough to impact students
achievement goals and academic efficacy. Classroom observation or surveys
would be beneficial in revealing how classes in the sixth and seventh grade
differed. Future studies should include teacher self-reports of their
instructional practice, student self-report of instructional practices, or
classroom observations
Anderman and Midgley (2004) investigated the relationship between
middle school students’ goal structures (mastery and performance) and
academic cheating during the transition period to high school. Surveys were
used to self-report students cheating behavior and classroom goal structure in
44
mathematics. Data was collected in the fall and spring of students eight grade
year and again during the spring of students ninth grade year. Self-reported
cheating did not change from the fall to the spring of students’ eight grade
year, however cheating did increase during their ninth grade year, and was
more common in classrooms where performance goals were salient. This
finding suggests changes in the classroom environment such as an emphasis
on competition or evaluation, may promote cheating behavior. If the
emphasis of learning is to perform rather than understand, students will strive
to avoid failure rather than master the task.
In summary, research has shown elementary and middle schools to be
different learning environments. Elementary schools tend to emphasize
mastery goals whereas middle schools stress performance goals.
Performance-approach goals have been associated with maladaptive
behaviors such as cheating and school failure, whereas mastery goals are
associated with adaptive behaviors such as academic efficacy and task
engagement. Social goals play an important role in the kinds of goals students
adopt, as well as their achievement and engagement in class. Students who
feel a sense of school belonging, and have healthy relationships with peers
and teachers, tend to do better at school and are at less risk for school failure.
Change in the school environment during the transition period can impact the
45
goals students espouse. Research suggests students who adopt a mastery goal
maintain this goal over time, whereas students who adopt a
performance-approach goal may adopt a performance avoidance goal during
the transition period.
Goal Orientation and Minority Students
The majority of research on personal achievement goals has focused
on White middle-class students. Research has yet to explore the goal
orientation of Latino English language students however with the growing
rate of Latino English learner students in the classroom there is a dire need.
Although several studies have examined differences among minority students
and their non-minority peers, additional research is needed to examine how
culture and ethnicity influence the goals students adopt in the classroom.
Fugili and Witkow (2007), examined if ethnic differences exist in
relation to students’ goal orientation among a sample of Latino, Asian and
European American students in high school. The study used a four goal
framework (performance-approach, performance avoidance, and
mastery-approach and mastery avoidance) to measure students’ achievement
goal orientation in school in general. Overall more similarities were found
than differences. The authors did not find differences between the
relationship of achievement goals and GPA and intrinsic value of school.
46
However, Asian students reported higher levels of performance-approach
goals than Latino and European American students and Latino and Asian
students reported higher levels of mastery-avoidance goals than European
American students. This finding suggests that Asian and Latino students
perceive a more competitive and individualistic classroom environment
which may cause them to adopt an avoidance orientation. Latino students’
may value mastery goals but the fear of being judged or appearing
incompetent in a performance oriented classroom may lead to adopting
avoidance behaviors. Interestingly, mastery-avoidance goals were found to be
negatively associated with GPA, whereas mastery-approach and
performance-approach goals were positively associated with GPA. Latino
students were also found to have lower grades than European Americans.
This finding implies Latino students who received lower grades had higher
mastery avoidance goals. Although the author did include a large sample size
(n=700), the grouping of students into each of the four types of goal
orientation was not shared. It would be interesting to see how students were
distributed in each group based on their ethnicity. In addition students’ goal
orientation was assessed for the school in general, whereas examining
students’ goal orientation for subject matter may view ethnic differences quiet
differently .
47
Strage (2000) examined Hispanic college students’ goal orientation in
comparison to Asian American and Caucasian peers. A diverse population of
students from a large metropolitan university in California participated.
Hispanic students represented 25% of the subjects, Asian 27% and White
students represented 48% of the population. The majority of the 150
participants were female (n=130) and Child Development majors (n=120).
Students completed the Student Attitudes and Perceptions Survey (SAPS) and
self-reported their academic achievement in school. Although Hispanic
students reported relatively poor grades, these students appeared to espouse
mastery goals. A MANOV A was performed to examine the differences
between ethnicity, grades and the indices of motivation. The only significant
relationship was found between students’ ethnicity and grades, however this
finding is stymied by the fact students self-reported their grades thus grades
may be inflated based on how the student would want to be perceived. An
interesting finding of the study was the greater the ratings of perceived
parental emotional support the higher the level of confidence, persistence and
task involvement of the student.
Stevens and colleagues (2007) examined if Hispanic students’ school
belonging is influenced by their perception of their White teachers’ mastery
goals and academic press. Hispanic students in fifth (n=179) and sixth
48
(n=255) grade participated in this study. Students self-reported their mastery
goal orientation, perceptions of their teachers’ mastery orientation, sense of
school belonging and perception of the amount of academic press (pressure
created by the teacher).Findings revealed students’ sense of school belonging
was positively influenced by teachers who were perceived to promote a
mastery goal orientation in the classroom. Students’ who perceived their
teacher as emphasizing learning goals felt like they belonged. Students who
reported a higher sense of school belonging also reported adopting more
mastery-oriented goals. However the relationship between teachers’ goal
orientation was not found to be statistically significant in predicting students’
goal orientation. One of the major shortcomings of this article is students
were surveyed by their teacher. Students who are surveyed by their teacher
may be more inclined to respond positively about their teacher out of fear.
Although numerous cultural differences exist between Latino and
African American students, it is of value to review literature concerning
African American students to highlight how differences between minority
and non-minority groups support the need for research with other cultural and
ethnic groups. Midgley and her colleagues (1996) surveyed 8
h
grade White
and African American students on their personal achievement goals in
mathematics and the relationship to self-handicapping. Self-handicapping is a
49
“proactive attempt to manipulate others’ perception of the causes of
performance outcomes (Freeman, Gutman, and Midgley, 2002: 179).
Self-handicapping involves the use of self-presentation strategies for such as
not studying for an exam, which may be used to explain low academic
performance. Purposefully not studying for an exam is used an excuse to
explain poor performance. Performance goals were found to be a significant
predictor of self-handicapping strategies for African American middle school
students, but had no effect on the self-handicapping strategies of White
students. This finding suggests classrooms which evoke a performance goal
orientation may be damaging to minorities, as they may be more likely to
adopt self-handicapping strategies.
Gutman (2006) studied the effect of African American students and
their parents’ goal orientations and perceived classroom goal structure on
grades and self-efficacy during the high school transition. The study found
African American students who perceived a mastery goal structure in the
classroom environment experienced more positive changes in their
mathematics self-efficacy across the high school transition as compared to
other students. In addition, African American students who perceived a
performance goal structure experienced more negative changes in their
mathematics self-efficacy during the high school transition. The author
50
suggests that teachers may be able to ease the transition into high school for
African American students by emphasizing mastery goals as opposed to
performance goals in the class.
Ryan and Patrick (2001) examined how students’ perceptions of the
social environment related to changes in motivation and engagement as
students transitioned from seventh to eight grade. Over 200 students, 45%
European-American and 55% African-American were surveyed in the fall of
seventh grade and in the spring of eighth grade on four dimensions of the
social environment: teacher support, promoting interaction, promoting mutual
respect, and promoting performance goals. Students’ perception of the
teacher promoting interaction, mutual respect, and teacher support were
positively related to changes in their motivation and engagement, whereas
students’ perceptions of the teacher as promoting performance goals were
negatively related to changes in student’s motivation and engagement.
Students that perceived their teacher as supportive engaged in more
self-regulated learning and engaged in less disruptive behavior when they
believed their teacher tried to understand them and was available to help
them. Interestingly, when students felt their actions would be compared
directly to others in the class, (characteristic of a performance oriented
environment), they expressed less confidence in their ability to relate well to
51
the teacher and exhibited more disruptive behavior. This study supports the
belief the classroom teacher is related to students’ motivation and
engagement in the learning environment. Since this study used survey data
from thirty different mathematics classrooms, it is unclear what teaching
practices were used that promoted student engagement and motivation.
Future studies should examine these dimensions using qualitative methods so
students’ perceptions and teachers’ instructional practices could be linked.
In summary, additional research is needed to explore the achievement
goal orientation of minority students, specifically Latinos and English
language learners. Research supports the view that Latino students espouse
mastery goals however these goals are coupled with low academic
achievement. Fulgini & Witrok (2007) believe Latino students can hold
multiple goals in the classroom. Mastery-avoidance goals focus on
developing task-mastery, while simultaneously avoiding a negative outcome
which leads to avoidance behaviors. The exploration of multiple goals may
explain why Latino students who have high mastery goals also have low
achievement. However additional research with Latino students is needed to
explore how achievement goals relate to students behaviors, beliefs, and
achievement in the classroom.
Research with African-American students explores how classroom
52
goals can impact the motivation and engagement of students in the classroom.
Classrooms that promote performance goals have been associated with
negative outcomes such as self-handicapping, lack of confidence and more
disruptive behaviors whereas classrooms that promote mastery goals lead to
self-regulated learning and more positive changes in mathematics
self-efficacy across the high school transition. The goals of the teacher
influence minority students’ engagement and motivation in the classroom as
well. This will be further examined in the next section. Although the
research discussed here includes African-American students, the research
findings substantiate the argument that students from different racial and
cultural backgrounds perceive the classroom environment differently than
non-minority peers.
Goal Orientation and Classroom Environment
Teachers convey messages to students about the purposes for
achievement behaviors through verbal and nonverbal communication. For
example, when a teacher post grades on the bulletin board, the reasons for
engaging in a task is based on ability and competition (i.e. performance goal
structure). However when a teacher allows a student to retake a test, the
emphasis of learning is on improvement and understanding, which makes
mastery goals salient in the classroom. Instructional practices shape students’
53
perception of their achievement goals. The student may perceive performance
as well as mastery goals based on how they interpret the messages convey by
the teacher and their choices of instructional practices. Since the classroom
environment is multifaceted, elements related to instructional practices and
specifically standard-based teaching practices are explored in this section.
The following areas will be discussed in relation to the classroom
environment: (1) instructional practices, (2) TARGET, (3) standard-based
teaching practices, (4) cooperative learning, and (5) minority students and
teacher-centered instruction.
Instructional Practices.
Several studies have examined how instructional practices influence the
goals students’ adopt in the classroom. Constructivist approaches to teaching
emphasize students as the creator of knowledge, and teachers are facilitators
as students work autonomously. Traditional classes emphasize lecture
controlled by the teacher and students as passive recipients of information.
Nicholls and his colleagues (Nicholls, Cobb, Wood, Yackel, & Patashnick,
1990) surveyed second grade students who were exposed to a constructivist
approach to teaching mathematics and compared this group to five traditional
classrooms over the course of a year of instruction. Results found mastery
orientation was higher with students who experienced the constructivist
54
approach than traditional classes. This study supports the notion that different
instructional approaches may elicit different goal orientations. A limitation of
this study was the criteria to determine how the target class differed from the
traditional class, and if additional differences existed among the classes prior
to surveying the students.
Meece (1991) surveyed the personal achievement goals of fifth and sixth
grade students to determine which classrooms emphasized a high or low
mastery focus. Observations were conducted in each of the classrooms to see
how the instructional practices of the teacher differed. High mastery
classrooms were related to greater teacher support for instructional activities,
promotion of intrinsic reasons for learning, adapted instruction for students,
and deemphasizing ability-related information.
The relationship between the student and the teacher also plays a
significant role in the goals students espouse in the classroom as well. Patrick,
Ryan and Kaplan (2007) examined whether 5
th
grade students’ perception of
the classroom social environment (teacher support, promotion of mutual
respect, promotion of task-related interaction, student support) were related to
their engagement in the classroom and if those relations were mediated by
personal motivational beliefs. Students from 31 classes in six elementary
schools completed surveys and achievement grades were collected from the
55
fourth and fifth grade mathematics. The classroom social environment was
found to be a strong predictor of student engagement. Students were more
likely to use self-regulatory strategies and engage in task-related interaction
when they felt supported by their teacher and peers. Patrick, Ryan and Kaplan
(2007) also found mastery goals were related to teacher emotional support,
promotion of interaction, promotion of respect, and self-regulation strategies.
A limitation of this study is the homogeneity of the students as 95% of
participants were European-American, and all students were in the fifth
grade.
Turner and colleagues (2002) conducted a longitudinal study on the
relationship between the learning environment in mathematics and students’
beliefs and behaviors across the transition from elementary to middle school.
Participants included 1,197 sixth grade elementary students that were either
European-American or African-American. Surveys were completed in the
winter and spring of the school year. The Patterns of Adaptive Learning
Survey (Midgley et al., 2000), and scales assessing the avoidance of help
seeking was used to survey students and determine if the classroom context
was related to students use of avoidance strategies. Results found the
emphasis on mastery goals in the classroom was positively related to lower
reports of avoidance strategies. Qualitative analysis of classroom
56
observations and audiotape of discussion revealed different patterns of
instructional and motivational discourse in high-mastery/low-avoidance and
low-mastery/high-avoidance classrooms. Results support the belief that a
mastery goal orientation may have cognitive and affective components.
Teachers of high-mastery goal structures have been found to display
cognitive and affective support, whereas low-mastery classroom teachers
showed one type of support but not both (Patrick et al. 2001).
TARGET
Epstein (1989) identified six classroom dimensions that impact
students’ achievement motivation: task, authority, recognition, grouping,
evaluation, and time. Ames (1992) coined the acronym TARGET to
categorize what each of these six dimensions would look like in a mastery
and performance classroom environment. Task refers to the design and
implementation of learning activities; authority is the amount of student
involvement in classroom decision making; recognition is the teachers use of
rewards, praises and incentives in the classroom; grouping is the way in
which students are grouped and the amount of time they work together;
evaluation is the way students are evaluated or judged and the feedback they
receive; and the time structure concerns the pace of instruction, as well as the
suitability of the workload and the amount of time given to complete a task.
57
Using this framework, a classroom environment that espouses
mastery goals may include a variety of interesting tasks that allow students to
work in groups, make decisions, receive positive feedback and include
evaluations that are more concerned with what students have learned than
how they perform. A performance classroom environment may include
activities that are not engaging, emphasize ability rather than improvement
and use evaluation to socially compare students. Classrooms often contain
elements of performance and mastery orientations; using TARGET as a tool
can be an effective way for educators to design classroom environments with
a mastery or performance climate. Researchers can use this tool to identify
dimensions of the classroom environment that may influence students to
adopt a mastery or performance goal orientation.
In summary the classroom environment is a complex network of
teacher-student relationships, peer interactions, and instructional practices.
The way in which the classroom environment influences students’ goal
orientation has been examined through multiple lenses. Research has found
that students’ mastery goals are related to the teachers’ display of cognitive
and effective support, self-regulation strategies, and positive feedback from
the teacher. Constructivist approaches that emphasize elementary students as
active participants in the construction of knowledge have been found to foster
58
mastery goals with elementary students. The TARGET framework is a tool
to design or evaluate the classroom environment as emphasizing a mastery or
performance goal orientation. Six dimensions and their related behaviors
were identified as promoting mastery or performance goals in the classroom.
Teachers and administrators can use this framework to create a learning
environment that fosters a specific goal orientation.
Standard-based Teaching Practices
Students and teachers come together in the classroom to create a
contextual environment for learning in which each individual brings specific
goals and expectations that reciprocally influence their behavior and
environment (Bandura, 1989). The contextual environment is influenced by
teaching practices selected by the classroom teacher. Current trends in
teaching may direct the choices teachers make. The National Council of
Teaching Mathematics (NCTM, 1989) has been striving to change teaching
since the 1980’s. Their recommendations for instructional strategies and
curriculum standards for students were established to reform schools and
teaching. As instructional standards and standard-based teaching practices for
k-12 classrooms emerged from the councils’ proposals, teachers reported
commonly using standard-based teaching practice in everyday mathematics
instruction (Beck, et. al., 2002).
59
The instructional strategies favored by the council deviate from
teacher-directed instruction, which is maintained and controlled by the
teacher, to a learner-directed approach which provides autonomy to the
student and the ability to interact and learn from classmates. In addition,
teachers are recommended to use more conceptual approaches to teaching
and less traditional procedures and strategies such as memorization and rote
problem solving (NCTM, 1989). The belief is this approach to teaching will
foster more active participation on the part of the student and greater
understanding of the underlying principles that make algorithms and
procedures accurate. These reform practices in mathematics include problem
solving, communication, and cooperative learning.
Problem-solving is a valuable tool for engaging students in the real
life process of solving problems. The focus of problem-solving is on
underlining facts and procedures. Traditional mathematics instruction
requires participants to be passive recipients of information where algorithms
and procedures are explained before the students has the chance to explore.
This approach to problem-solving requires students to actively discuss with
their peers strategies and techniques to solving problems and requires an
active discussion which students test and retest theories in a process of
learning the strategies to solving without being shown by the instructor.
60
Communication in mathematics includes having students actively
discuss with their peers how to solve problems in mathematics, and respond
to questions in which they are challenged to think and expand on their
reasoning. The teacher may ask the student how they found their solution to
provide the student with an opportunity to articulate the process, which will
aid in recall and increase their cognitive understanding. Communication can
also take part by having the students write about how they solved the problem
or discuss with a classmate their solution.
Cooperative learning techniques give students the opportunity to interact
with each other and assist one another in ways the teacher cannot. For
English language learners’ cooperative learning may promote classroom
discussion in their native language which may increase student
comprehension of subject matter. A plethora of research has been conducted
on this instructional strategy in a variety of subject domains with a diverse
group of students. Roseth, Johnson, and Johnson (2008), conducted a
meta-analysis to review 148 studies on cooperative, competitive and
individualistic goal structures and the effect on early adolescents’
achievement and positive peer relationships. Cooperative goal structures had
a greater effect on students’ achievement and promoting positive peer
61
relationships than individualistic or competitive goal structures. Motivational
benefits such as increased self-esteem and positive attitude toward learning
have been found with cooperative learning (Lazarowitz, Baird, & Bolden,
1996). Numerous researchers have also found an increase in student
achievement (Davidson, 1989; Johnson & Johnson 1989; Reid 1992; Slavin,
1990) and social benefits such as on task behavior and assisting group
members as a result of cooperative learning (Burron, James, & Ambrosio,
1993; Gilles & Ashman, 1998; McManus & Gettinger, 1996).
Several studies have examined minority students’ preferences with
regards to the learning environment. Johnson (2006) investigated African
American elementary students’ perceptions of learning preferences for
individualistic, competitive, cooperative, and communal learning. Findings
reveal students prefer group learning compared to individualistic and
competitive learning. Ellison and her colleagues (Ellison, Boykin, Tyler, &
Dillihunt, 2005) examined students’ preferences for cooperative, competitive
and individualistic classroom learning environments. The Social
Interdependence Scales (Johnson, & Norem-Hebeisen, 1979) was used to
survey a heterogeneous group of students in the fifth and sixth grade. Overall,
students preferred cooperative learning environments, however African
American students had a higher preference than White students for
62
cooperative learning than competitive or individualistic learning
environments. Individualistic and competitive goal structures do not allow
students the opportunity to discuss information or establish relationships with
students in the classroom. In individualistic and competitive goal structures
students work independently which may foster a performance orientation. In
a performance oriented classroom grades determine your rank in the class as
students are compared to one another. Students who do not feel efficacious
toward a particular subject may adopt a performance-avoidance orientation.
An adoption of this type of orientation may lead to activities associated with
behavioral disengagement such as poor performance in school, cutting class
and even dropping out.
Teachers may report using standard-based teaching practices with
their class, however it is probable this may not be accurate. The TIMMS
study found teachers from the United States reported understanding and
implementing reform practices, but observations of the classrooms revealed
such strategies are infrequently used (Hiebert & Stigler, 2000). This may be a
result of reform practices being utilized with a select group of students rather
than a whole class, strategies being deployed incorrectly, or not used
consistently. For example, the teacher may feel comfortable asking
open-ended questions or using cooperative learning with students who they
63
believe are “capable” and refrain from using such reform practices with
students who they believe do not possess the language ability. In addition, the
teacher may believe they are using cooperative learning strategies by pairing
a high ability student with a low ability peer however a tenant of cooperative
learning is for homogenous students to work together so learning is
reciprocated. With regard to questioning the teacher may only question
students when they answer incorrectly, rather than asking students who
answered correctly how they found their answer, in hope to save valuable
instructional time. In this study rather than ask the teacher about their
instructional practices, students reported the teacher’s use of standard-based
teaching practices as this maybe a more accurate reflection of how
instructional practices are used with a diverse group of students.
Standard-based teaching practices contain several teaching practices
that have been examined for some time now, however few studies have
examined how such practices impact students’ motivation, engagement, and
achievement. Kahle, Meece, and Scantlebury (2000), examined the impact of
standard-based teaching practices on African-American middle school
science students’ achievement. Science teachers who received training in a
professional development program on standard-based teaching practices were
compared with teachers who had not received the training. Students
64
completed a questionnaire about their attitudes toward science and rated their
teacher’s use of standard-based teaching practices in science. Achievement
was measured by science tests of release questions from the national science
test (NAEP) rather than classroom curriculum and standards. Students of
teachers who participated in the professional development training had
greater achievement and rated their teacher more frequently used
standard-based practices. However since students’ achievement was not
correlated to a test linked to classroom instruction, it is likely that
achievement could be due to extraneous factors. Pretests were not use to
examine differences among classrooms and science achievement was not
found to be a significant predictor of standard-based instructional practices.
Additionally, teachers who participated in the professional development
program volunteered thus they may be oriented toward improving their
practice and be more prepared in the classroom which could impact student’s
achievement more so than the teachers’ use of standard-based teaching
practices. Another limitation of this study is surveys were administered by the
classroom teacher which may create bias in the results, as students of teachers
who participated in the professional development program may be aware of
the teachers’ participation and more likely to report the use of such practices.
Fraser and Kahle (2007) examined the effect of classroom, home and
65
peer environmental influences on student outcomes in science and
mathematics. The classroom environment was defined in terms of the
students’ report of the frequency of standard-based teaching practices used in
their classroom. Middle school students’ responses to questionnaires were
examined from a secondary analysis of large databases collected throughout
the United States. This data was collected as part of the systemic reform
effort in mathematics and science during the years 1995 through 1997. The
sample of students included over 6,000 students in mathematics and science
classrooms. Standard-based teaching practices were found to be the strongest
independent predictor of achievement and attitude scores. Hierarchical linear
modeling found 15% of the variance in students’ achievement scores was due
to teacher differences in the use of standard-based teaching practices. These
findings suggest frequency of standard-based teaching practices can create
positive attitudes and greater achievement in mathematics and science.
Minority students and Teacher-centered Instruction
Teacher-centered approaches include instruction where the teacher's role
is to present the information that is to be learned and to direct the learning
process of students (Shuell, 1996). In urban schools the teacher-centered
approach is the most common instructional model (Brookhart & Rusnak,
1993). Direct instruction is a teacher-centered approach that includes four
66
components: (1) introduction and review, (2) presentation of new information,
(3) guided practice, and (4) independent practice. This approach to teaching
emphasizes basic skills rather than critical thinking and problem solving.
Helmke, Schneider, and Weinert (1986) found direct teaching produced gains
in achievement on standardized tests, but developed poor attitudes in
mathematics. Haberman (1991) contends this form of teaching constitutes a
“pedagogy of poverty” creating a classroom atmosphere of student
compliance with passive resentment, teacher burn out, and the ranking of
students, which in turn produces students who are underdeveloped and
unemployable. Numerous studies have found schools serving disadvantaged
or lower-achieving students often devote less time and emphasis to higher
order thinking skills than do schools serving more advantaged students
(Allington & McGill-Franzen, 1989; Coley & Hoffman, 1990; Padron &
Waxman, 1993).
Telese (1999) surveyed 226 Mexican-American high school students’
about their attitudes toward mathematics and their perception of mathematics
teaching in their math class. Classroom surveys revealed a majority of
students perceive mathematics instruction to be teacher-centered and overall
students’ attitude toward mathematics regardless of their gender was
generally unfavorable. Of the 20 mathematics classrooms surveyed, reform
67
practices such as cooperative learning did not take place. Qualitative data
such as observation and interviews would be beneficial to identify the role of
the teacher and the type of tasks that impacted students’ attitudes in the
classroom. It would be beneficial to see if Mexican-American students’
attitudes would be different in a student-centered environment. The National
Council of Teaching Mathematics (2000) encourages reform mathematics
practices that emphasize students as active participants working
cooperatively.
In summary, standard-based teaching practices are reform practices
supported by the National Council of Teaching Mathematics that move away
from teacher-directed instruction, which is maintained and controlled by the
teacher, to a learner-directed approach which provides autonomy to the
student and the ability to interact and learn from classmates. Questioning,
problem solving and cooperative learning are strategies supported by the
council to promote critical thinking, active participation and a greater
understanding of the underlying principles in mathematics. Few studies have
examined how these practices impact student engagement and motivation in
the classroom, however cooperative learning has been thoroughly examined
and found to be linked to students’ achievement, preference for learning, and
positive attitude in class. In addition minority students prefer cooperative
68
learning as opposed to competitive and individualistic learning environments.
Research has shown minority students are often taught in teacher-centered
environments which can have a negative effect on their attitude toward
mathematics. This study will examine how Latino English language students’
perception of standard-based teaching practices impact their motivation and
engagement in mathematics.
Motivation and Engagement
Motivation is the psychological framework that is the antecedent to
students’ behaviors and interactions. Goal orientation is one component of
motivation from which students draw upon to make choices of behavior.
Affective components such as belief in oneself and confidence in one’s
ability also influence students’ motivation. Engagement on the other hand, is
the intensity and quality of students’ involvement in initiating and carrying
out learning activities (Wellborn, 1991). In essence motivation is why we do
what we do, and engagement is how we do it. Although motivation and
engagement are in many ways related, they are distinct concepts that
influence one another. A student may be highly motivated to learn however if
class work is dull and uninteresting they may become disengaged with
classroom activities. As a result, achievement is effected and behaviors such
as cutting class or failing to complete work may be exhibited by the student
69
who has the capability to be successful. Thus classroom factors that affect
student engagement are important to examine.
The more students are engaged in school, the greater their chance of
school success. Students who drop out are twice as likely to say they left for
school-related reasons as for family or personal circumstances and this was
found to be true for all demographic subgroups (Jordan & Nettles, 1999).
Student engagement has been linked to academic achievement, school
retention, and student resiliency (Fredricks, et al., 2004). Understanding the
role of student engagement in the school and classroom environment may
clarify why school failure among Latino English language learners is so high.
Three types of engagement were identified by Fredricks (2004) to encompass
school and classroom engagement. Behavioral engagement involves
participation in academic and social activities. Emotional engagement
includes positive and negative reactions to people and activities at school,
and cognitive engagement involves reflective thinking as well as students’
effort to grasp complex ideas and skills.
Behavioral Engagement
Behavioral engagement includes actions associated with student
dropout such as cutting class, and actions associated with school success such
as participation in classroom discussion. Finn and Rock (1997) found Latino
70
minority youth typically exhibit more behavioral problems than White youth
and typically miss more school than African American students. According to
the National Center for Education Statistics (2002), the dropout rate for
Latinos in the United States (27.8%) is more than double the rate of African
Americans (13.1) and four times higher than White students (6.9%).
Emotional Engagement
Emotional engagement includes positive and negative reactions to
teachers, classmates, academics, and school. It is presumed to create ties to
the institution and influence willingness to do the work (Connell, 1990; Finn,
1989). According to the Hispanic Dropout project (1998) non-parental adults
are important assets in Latino students’ success specifically supportive
teachers who have high expectations play a vital role.
Cognitive Engagement
Cognitive engagement includes being thoughtful and willing to exert
the necessary effort for comprehension of complex ideas and mastery of
difficult skills (Corno & Mandinach, 1983). Research shows students who
use strategies associated with cognitive engagement are more successful in
school and classroom tasks.
Behavioral, emotional and cognitive, engagement, are three major
indexes of engagement. Measurements of school engagement may include
71
attendance records, grades, teacher reports and results from student
engagement surveys. Engagement can be seen as a lens for interpreting
students’ motivation in the learning environments. The research on classroom
engagement is extensive therefore only studies pertaining to Latino students
were reviewed.
Minority Students and Engagement
Brewster and Bowen (2004) examined the role of teacher support on
student engagement of Latino middle and high school students. Data was
compiled from surveys administered to over 5,016 students in middle and
high schools across the nation. The Latino sample consisted of 633 students
from the larger dataset who were identified as at risk of school failure by
school personnel. The School Success Profile survey (Bowen & Richman,
2001) was used to assess students’ perspectives about themselves, their
families, schools and neighborhoods. School engagement was measured by
students’ problem behaviors in school and their perception of school
meaningfulness. Teacher support and parent communication were the
independent variables in the study. Hierarchical linear regressions were used
to investigate the order of importance among the variables in this study.
Teacher support was found to significantly affect both problem behavior and
perception of school meaningfulness. When the level of student perceptions
72
of teacher support increased, the mean level of problem behavior decreased
and the mean levels of perceived school meaningfulness increased. This
finding suggests that for Latino youth who are identified as at-risk of school
failure teacher support is a strong predictor of student engagement. Students
who feel supported by their teachers in middle and high schools have greater
levels of school meaningfulness and decreased problem behaviors, such
factors are necessary for Latino’s success in school. Future research should
examine if Latino’s who are classified as English Language Learners are
influenced by teacher support as well, since Latino youth with lower levels of
English proficiency are more likely to drop out (Rumberger & Larson, 1998).
In a study conducted by Finn and Rock (1997) the behaviors of 1,803
African American and Hispanic students were examined to determine which
factors were related to student resiliency. Students were classified into three
groups based on their grades, test scores and persistence from grade 8
through grade 12. Students identified as “resilient”, were academically
successful school completers; “nonresilient completers” finished school with
poorer academic performance and; “noncompleters” dropped out of school.
Achievement test scores, measures of psychological characteristics, and
indices of engagement were used as the primary measures in this study.
Multivariate analyses of covariance were conducted to measure differences
73
between groups. Statistically significant engagement behaviors of resilient
students included coming to class and school on time, being prepared for and
participating in class work, expending the effort needed to complete
assignments in school, and avoiding being disruptive in class. Significant
differences were found between groups with regard to engagement behaviors,
even when background and psychological characteristics were controlled for,
thus supporting the belief that engagement in school is necessary to promote
academic resilience in at-risk youth. Connell (1994) recommended student
engagement to increase minority students’ academic achievement.
Reyes and Jason, (1993) examined characteristics associated with
Hispanic students identified as high and low risk of school dropout.
Forty-eight tenth grade students were selected to participate in the study.
Students were identified based on their attendance and course failure.
Students had similar backgrounds No group differences were found with
respect to family data, such as parent level of education, socioeconomic
status and parental support. Structured interviews were conducted with each
participant during their study period. High-risk students reported more
dissatisfaction with school faculty and unfair treatment such as put-downs of
their abilities. Low-risk students were significantly more satisfied with their
school than high-risk students and they criticized teachers who treated their
74
peers unfairly. Significant differences were also found with respect to
students’ friends. High-risk students reported more gang-affiliated friendship
than low-risk students. The study proposes some interesting findings however
results are unclear as to what factors are attributable to school satisfaction for
low-risk students. Future studies should examine low and high-risk students
using a larger sample (only 48 students in this study). In addition, it would be
interesting to examine if students perceived goal orientation differs with high
and low-risk students and if certain instructional practices foster engagement
for high and low risk students.
In summary engagement in the classroom contains an affective,
behavioral and cognitive component. Behavioral engagement includes
following the classroom rules and participation in classroom activities,
emotional engagement includes positive and negative reactions to teachers,
classmates, academics, and school. Cognitive engagement includes
expending the necessary effort to understand complex ideas and tasks.
Engagement is an important predictor of student success for Latino students.
Examining the behavioral, emotional and cognitive engagement of Latino
English language learners revealed the importance of the student-teacher
relationship in school engagement. Thus teachers of Latino students should
foster positive relationships with their students. There are numerous elements
75
of the classroom environment which impact students’ engagement the next
section will address social psychological factors that may impact Latino
students’ engagement as well.
Cultural Influences of Latino’s School Experience
Cultural and ethnic groups see themselves and others differently,
making research which fails to include minority students difficult to
generalize beyond the majority. As schools in our nation become increasingly
diversified it is imperative research extends beyond the majority and
resembles our multiethnic classrooms. Several sociocultural theorists have
explored how culture impacts the school experience.
Broffenbrenner developed the “Ecological Systems Theory” as a way
to explore how relationships in the child’s life influence their development.
Broffenbrenner’s model includes four nested environmental systems: the
microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem and macrosystem. Each layer can be
considered the child’s perception of their environment with bi-directional
influences between and within the system that shapes the child’s development.
School, family, and peers are part of the microsystem, which has direct
contact with the child thus being one of the most powerful influences in a
child’s life. The interactions between those who are part of the child’s
microsystem impact the beliefs and behaviors of the child throughout their
76
life. The mesosystem is the connections between environments in the child’s
life (i.e. a child’s home and church) and the exosystem consists of external
environmental settings which indirectly impact their development. Finally the
macrosystem is the cultural context, which represents the largest and most
remote set of influences in a child’s life.
Although culture does not have direct contact with the child, culture
has the power to impact all systems in the model, including the child’s
behavior, emotion and cognition. According to Seifert (1999), cultural beliefs
become the basis for one’s sense of self. Therefore this structure has a
profound impact on the child’s life. Research in achievement goal orientation
has explored how features of the microsystem (family, peer and teacher
relationships) influence the motivation and engagement of students in the
classroom. Although cultural influences may be difficult to quantify, it is
important to understand when examining student engagement and motivation
in the classroom. The following areas are discussed in relation to Latino
culture: (a) cultural capital, (b) self-definitions, (c) stereotypes, and (d) group
dynamics.
Cultural Capital
Cultural capital refers to the types of knowledge, skills, and
opportunities that a person has to obtain a high social status in society.
77
Bourdieu and Passeron (1973) coined this term to explain differences in
educational outcomes. Parents provide their child with the knowledge and
beliefs needed to succeed in the education system. For Latino students of
immigrant families, a lack of cultural capital, may impact their achievement
and access to educational opportunities. Goldenberg and Gallimore (1995)
found immigrant families may highly value education however this does not
lead to success for their children. Without having the experience of being
educated in the American education system, immigrant parents do not have
knowledge of how our education system works. In addition, they may also
lack the ability to communicate effectively with those within the education
system who have the power to help their child succeed. For example, the No
Child Left Behind Act, gives parents the opportunity to transfer their child to
a non-program improvement school if their home school is classified as
“program improvement” (not meeting state and federal target goals), however
immigrant families may not be aware of their rights, know what “program
improvement” means and realize this is an opportunity for a better school and
future.
Self-Perceptions
The culture of the students in many ways defines not only how students
see themselves but how they choose to interact and engage in the classroom
78
context. Latino cultures are often associated with a collectivist sense of self
(Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999). The collectivist defines oneself as a member
of a larger in-group. Latino students may adopt the behaviors and attitudes of
the larger group in an attempt to become part of that group, however if a
Latino student does assimilate into the larger group this may lead to
disengagement from the school and the adoption of avoidance behaviors.
Thus students in the same classroom may have similar experiences, but the
achievement goals they adopt may be quiet dissimilar. Self perception can
impact the goals students adopt in the classroom as well. Garcia (1992)
suggests Latin American students may prefer collaborative classroom
activities and dislike competition in the classroom, due to the collectivist
orientation of their cultures. Competitive or individualistic classroom
environment may have a negative effect on Latino students as this type of
classroom environment has students work independently of one another.
Fulgni and colleagues (2005) examined the attitudes toward family
obligations among high school students from a multiplicity of backgrounds.
Asian and Latin American adolescents had greater expectations than other
groups with regard to their family. Family obligations were associated with
more positive family and peer relationships and academic motivations. This
finding suggests that for Latino students a sense of belonging to the
79
classroom and school culture may be highly valued. If students value the
relationships in the classroom and feel supported by their group then they
may be more likely to adopt a mastery goals orientation as understanding and
learning will be highly valued. Students who lack the emotional connection
may withdraw from school and adopt a performance-avoidance orientation.
Performance goals includes components such as competition and
outperforming others, which may be valued in one culture differently than
another, therefore it is possible the effect of performance goals on motivation
and achievement may produce different outcomes with Latino students.
Ibanez and colleagues (2004) examined the associations between
achievement motivation and school experience with Latino students.
Participants were from a large public high school of which 28% were Latinos.
Subjects included 129 students who were either immigrants (n=96) or U.S.
born children of immigrants (n=33). This study sought to examine if
differences in the achievement motivation of immigrant students and Latino
youth born in the United States were significant. No significant subgroup
differences were found, however Latino students importance of schooling
was positively correlated with academic competence, school belonging and
parental involvement. Latino students who felt school was important had
greater academic achievement, parents who were involved and a greater
80
sense of belonging to the school. This finding supports the notion that Latino
culture reflects a collectivist sense of self. The microsystem of school and
family relationships (Broffenbrenner, 1979) may be a key component to
motivate Latino students in the classroom. Creating a classroom environment
that emphasizes relationships and high expectations among group members
would resemble the collectivist culture of Latino families and may be
motivating to Latino students.
Stereotypes
“The mere existence of a devaluing stereotype means that anything
one does, or any of one’s features that conform to it, makes the stereotype
more plausible as a self-characterization, in the eyes of others, and perhaps
even in one’s own eyes.” (Aronson, 2003, p.401) The label “English
Language Learner” implies one is deficient in English. Such a stereotype may
add a psychological burden on the student and impact their performance in
the classroom. The fear that one’s behavior will confirm an existing group
stereotype is referred to as the “stereotype threat”. When an English
Language learner is called upon in class, is the fear of public speaking a
result of the label applied to them, or an actual impairment in their language
development. According to Steele and Aronson (1995) culturally shared
stereotypes suggesting poor performance of certain groups can when made
81
salient in a context involving the stereotype, disrupt performance of an
individual who identifies with that group.
Students are classified as “English Language Learners” based on
language spoken at home and proficiency on a language exam. The idea of
“test bias” comes into play considering a language exam is only given to
minority students. Students who are not reclassified as “English only” remain
labeled as an “English Language Learner” as they transition to middle and
high school. Such a label may impact the students’ engagement, and sense of
belonging, as middle and high schools are heterogeneous environments
which often classify students by their performance and achievements.
Additionally identification as an “English language learner” can impact the
student’s performance by placing them on a track of low-level classes and
low demand instruction which may fail to engage the student in a cohesive
way. This negative label may lead teachers to underestimate the potential of
students (Ferguson, 1998) and produce a style of instruction that is
teacher-directed, with compliant students who cannot think critically
(Cummins & Sayers 1990).
Group Dynamics
Providing students with the opportunity to discuss ideas cooperatively
enhances their ability to make sense of what they are learning. Long (1996)
82
found group work promotes language acquisition “because it connects input
(what learners hear and read); internal learner capacities, particularly
selective attention; and output (what learners produce) in productive ways”
(Long, 1996, pp. 451-452). Small group work allows for comprehensible
input to be adapted as there is an opportunity to negotiate meaning with the
teacher or a classmate. Comprehensible output takes place when a student has
the chance to orally practice content information, which may not occur in a
whole group setting of thirty students. According to Mackey (1999)
interaction increases the pace of language acquisition. Students can discuss in
small groups and receive feedback from their peers. English language
learners may use their first language to fill in the gaps of unfamiliar words
and concepts. In addition, they can build upon their prior knowledge and be
able to discuss concepts in their second language. Florez and Burt (2001)
note activities that are done in pairs and small groups can provide learners
with opportunities to share information and build a sense of community.
Masgoret & Gardener, (2003) examined factors that affected second
language learners acquiring the language of the other community. Findings
support the theory that integrative motivation, the desire to learn a language
in order to identify with the community that speaks the language can promote
second language acquisition. However if English language students are
83
regulated to classroom with their English language learning peers, the
opportunity to integrate with non-minority students and acquire the language
of the dominant community may not surface. Delpit (1988) suggested that
school success is dependent upon the acquisition of White middle class
culture, as White students are members of the culture of power.
In summary culture plays an important role in how students see
themselves, interact with the classroom environment, and succeed in their
education. Self-perceptions are influenced by students’ culture and may play
a role in the goals they adopt and how they engage in the classroom. Latino
cultures are associated with a collectivist sense of self, thus Latino Ell’s may
define oneself as a member of a larger in-group, and collaborative classrooms
may be preferred over competitive or individualistic. Stereotypes may also
limit Latino English learners’ ability to become part of the larger in-group as
students labeled “English language learner” are often designated to lower
tracks and separated from non-minority peers who may grant access to the
culture of power. Finally, group dynamics can enhance students’ opportunity
to learn English through practice and motivation, but only if students are
given the opportunity to interact with non-minority peers.
84
Framework for Understanding the Impact of the Classroom
Environment
A theoretical perspective for understanding how students’ external
variables influence internal variables such as motivation is necessary to
understand how these variables can impact school engagement. Connell and
colleagues (Connell, 1990; Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Skinner, Wellborn, &
Connell, 1990) developed a process model of motivation that integrates
contextual variables (external influences) and self-variables (internal
influences) into a framework. Using Connell’s process model of motivation
as applied to student achievement, students’ perception of the classroom
environment (context variable) directly influences their personal achievement
goal orientation (the self-variable), which can lead to student action,
(behavioral, emotional and cognitive indices of engagement in learning) and
student engagement will affect their academic achievement. Support for this
model has been found in several studies with students of different ages and
ethnicities. Connell et al. (1994) examined the validity of this model in a
study with three independent samples of African American youth who ranged
in ages 10-16. Correlation and path analysis supported the empirical validity
of the model as indicators of context, self, and action, were related to the
measure of the outcome in the study (risk and resiliency). Data also supported
85
a reciprocal path from action to context. Youth who showed disaffected
patterns of behavior and emotion in school (action) received less support
from their families (context) than students who reported more engaged
patterns of action.
Applied to this study, Connell’s model of motivation as well as the
existing related research suggests that (a) the context-variables grade level
and standard-based teaching practices in mathematics may influence (b) the
self-variables, personal achievement goal orientation and may influence (c)
the action variables: cognitive, emotional and behavioral engagement and
academic achievement outcomes in Latino English language learners in
mathematics. The purpose of this study is to examine how grade level,
gender, and standards based teaching practices impact the personal goal
orientation, level of engagement and achievement of Latino English learners.
Questions Unanswered by the Literature Review
Latino English language learners are one of the fastest growing
populations of students in today’s public schools. Understanding what
motivates and engages these students is of the utmost importance, as this
group of students is at high risk of school failure and dropout. Very few
studies have examined the impact of the learning environment on Latino
English language students and no studies to date have examined students’
86
achievement motivation. Engagement is another variable that can help us
understand the behaviors and actions of Latino English language learners in
relation to their culture and the goals they adopt. Research with
African-American students, shows minority students perceive the classroom
environment differently than White peers. Solutions to problems such as
school disengagement can emerge once we understand what motivations this
population of students and what type of learning environment is most
engaging.
Purpose of Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to examine the goal orientation of Latino
English language students’ in elementary and middle school students and
determine whether the relationship between engagement and perception of
standard-based teaching practices varies as a function of students’ academic
achievement in mathematics, grade level and gender. The following research
questions are proposed to achieve these goals:
1. Is there a difference between students reported goal orientation, level
of engagement, perception of standard-based teaching practices, and
mathematics achievement among school levels?
2.Is there a difference between students reported goal orientation, level of
engagement, perception of standard-based teaching practices, and
87
mathematics achievement among elementary and middle school students?
3. Is there a difference between students reported goal orientation, level
of engagement, perception of standard-based teaching practices and
mathematics achievement among gender?
4. What is the relationship between Latino English language learners’
academic achievement in mathematics and their reported goal orientation,
level of engagement, and perception of standard-based teaching
practices?
88
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter includes (1) an overview of the methodological design of
this study, (2) description of the participants and setting, (3) the data
collection procedures, (4) the instruments used in this study, and (5) the data
analysis procedures.
Overview
This descriptive correlation study compares Latino English language
learners’ goal orientation, and engagement, in elementary and middle school
mathematics classrooms and examines the effect on achievement. In addition,
students’ perception of standard-based teaching practices in mathematics was
examined in relation to their achievement, motivation and engagement.
Survey questions were on a Likert-scale. The use of surveys allowed the
researcher the opportunity to investigate the student’s beliefs with a large
number of students. Elementary and middle school students were selected as
study participants because research suggests students experience a decline in
motivation with each increase in grade after elementary school (Cauley &
Jovanovich, 2006; Pintrick & Schunk, 2002).
Personal achievement goal orientation is the reason or purpose for
89
engaging in academic behavior. Goal orientation predictor variables include:
(a) mastery, (b) performance-approach, and (c) performance-avoidance.
Engagement predictor variables included: (a) behavioral, (b) emotional, and
(c) cognitive. Standard-based teaching practices included four items
individually analyzed: (1) My teacher asks me to give reasons for my
answers, (2) I talk with my classmates about how to solve problems, (3) My
teacher encourages me to ask questions, and (4) I learn from my classmates.
Academic achievement was based on students’ cumulative test scores in
mathematics for the fall semester of the current school year.
A conceptual model of the proposed study was influenced by
Connell’s Process Model of Motivation (see Figure 1). The path model begins
with the context variables: (a) grade level, (b) gender, and (c) teaching
practice. This influences the self-variable of perception of personal
achievement goal orientation which includes: (a) mastery, (b)
performance-approach, and (c) performance-avoidances. The personal
achievement goal orientation affects the action variable engagement which
includes: (a) behavioral, (b) emotional, and (c) cognitive engagement. The
path model ends with the outcome variable academic achievement. Academic
achievement was based on formative assessments of grade-level standards in
mathematics administered by the classroom teacher.
Figure 1: Motivational Profile Model
Based on Connell’ s (1990) Process Model of Motivation
Teaching
Practices
Gender
Grade
Level
Context
Variables
Mastery
Self
Variables
Action
Variables
Outcome
Variables
Math
Achievement
Behavioral
Engagement
Emotional
Engagement
Cognitive
Engagement
Performance
Approach
Performance
Avoidance
Personal Achievement
Goal Orientation
90
9 1
formative assessments of grade level mathematics standards administered by
the teacher throughout the fall semester.
Participants and Setting
The participants for this study were taken from a sample of students
who were Latino English language learners in upper elementary (grade 4) and
middle school (7-8) mathematics classrooms. Two districts in Central
California and Monterey County were selected because a majority of the
students were Latino students with a high percentage of English language
students.
Profile of the Participating School District and Schools
School District. The first district consisted of 13 elementary schools
(K-6) in 2008. The district contains about 7,744 students of which 70% are
Hispanic or Latino and 50% are English learner. About 80% of the students
received free or reduced-priced lunch program. According to the 2007-2008
Accountability Progress Reporting (APR), the district did not meet the
federal accountability measure of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for the
percent of students who are proficient in English and math. The district is in
year 3 of program improvement status. Two elementary schools participated
from the district. The school were similar in status and student population.
92
The second district selected to participate consisted of 9 schools; 5
elementary schools (k-6), 1 middle school (7-8) and 3 high schools (9-12).
There were about 4,245 students in this district of which 91% are Hispanic or
Latino. About 49% of the students are English language learners and 89% of
the students received free and reduced-priced lunch program. According to
the 2007-2008 APR) the district did not meet the federal accountability
measure of AY P for the percent of students who are proficient in English and
math. The district is in year three of Program Improvement (PI) status.
Elementary school. The elementary schools in this study were from
the same district and located in a suburban city in Central California.
Students at both sites were identified as predominately Hispanic and more
than half of the student population was English language learners whose
primary language is Spanish. The schools are Title One schools, and in 2008
were ranked 1 out of 10 statewide. In addition, both schools are in year 5 of
Program Improvement and did not meet federal accountability measures in
2008 of AYP.
The first school referred to as School A, consisted of 742 students,
98% were Hispanic or Latino and 75% were English learners whose primary
language was Spanish. Approximately 20% of English language learners at
this elementary school were reported as proficient or above in English
93
Language Arts, and 39% were proficient or above in mathematics on the
California Standards Test (CST). Information for the CST is made available
for all public schools by the California Department of Education.
The second elementary school referred to as School B, had 671
students enrolled, 90% were Hispanic and 65% of the population were
English learners whose primary language is Spanish. Approximately 15% of
English language students at this school site were proficient or above in
English language arts and 40% were proficient or above in mathematics on
the California Standards test (CST).
Middle School. The middle school referred as School C was a Title
One school that did not meet federal accountability measures of AY P in 2008.
The school received a state-wide rank of 2 out of 10 and was in year 5 of PI.
There were approximately 627 students enrolled, 92% were Hispanic and
over 50% were English learners whose primary language is Spanish. Classes
designated as gifted or self-contained special education students were not
included. On the most recent state test (CST), 15% of English learners scored
proficient or advanced in English, and 40% of English learners scored
proficient or advanced in mathematics
Teacher Selection. Teachers were given the option to participate in
the study by the school principal. Teachers who elected to have students in
94
their class participate in the survey were also given the option to take a
survey for teachers. Teachers received a consent form and a copy of the
survey in their mailbox. At the elementary school site only fourth grade
teachers were given the option to participate in the study.
Students Selection. Student information such as ethnicity and
academic performance is available for all public schools by the California
Department of Education (Ed-Data, 2009). This information was used to
target schools that contained a high percentage of students who were Latino
English language learners. The majority of the students (greater than 90%) at
the selected sites were Latino and greater than half of these students were
English learners whose first language is Spanish.
All students in the participating classes were given an information
packet to take home regarding the survey. Information packets were
distributed in English and Spanish. A cover page of the invitation packet was
used to prescreen candidates. The cover page indicates the study is restricted
to only Latino English language learners who can read English. Since
information such as the students’ English language development level is
confidential and requires the parent’s consent the cover letter was used as a
screening process as it allows the student and parent to determine if they are
eligible and would like to participate. In addition there is two questions on
95
the survey to determine if the students meet the requirements of the study
(see Appendix S). Students who did not report on the survey they were Latino
and their first language was Spanish were not included in the results.
A home language survey is given to parents upon school enrollment
of their child. If a language other than English is spoken at home the student
is assessed in English and the home language, as required by law. Parents are
given the choice of instructional programs for their child. Students in upper
elementary and middle school were selected as participants because
researchers have suggested that students’ achievement and motivation
declines as they transition to middle school (Anderman & Midgley, 1997;
Eccles et. al., 1993).
Data Collection Procedures
Permission to Participate. Approval for this study was obtained from
the University of Southern California’s University Park Instructional Review
Board (UPIRB). After obtaining permission from the UPIRB, consent was
obtained from the participating schools. During the fall of 2008, the
researcher visited the participating schools and discussed the proposed study
with the principal, teachers, and students before the investigation.
Teacher Permission. Teacher participants were recruited by the
principal investigator who visited the school site and read aloud the survey
96
proposal (see Appendix I) and informed the teachers that participation is
voluntary, personal data will remain confidential and they can withdraw from
the study at any time. Teachers received the information packet which
contained two items: (1) letter of consent, and (2) teacher survey (see
Appendix G & J). Teachers were asked not to discuss the survey items prior
to taking the survey, and were encouraged to answer the survey honestly as
there is no right or wrong answer. As an incentive teachers received a Target
gift card to take the survey.
Teacher Survey Administration. Participating teachers returned the
required consent form and were asked to complete the survey during the
nutrition break. Teachers were asked if they had any questions regarding the
survey. The survey consisted of six questions which took less than five
minutes to complete. Once the teachers completed the survey they were
asked to place the survey in an envelope in the main office.
Student Permission. Prior to distributing an information packets, the
principle investigator read a recruitment speech (see Appendix H) and
informed the students that participation is voluntary, personal data will
remain confidential and students can withdraw from the study at any time.
Participants were recruited from the principal investigator through an
information packet in English and Spanish brought home to parents by
97
potential student participants (see Appendix A-F). Information packets
contained three items: (1) cover letter, (2) letter of consent for parents, and (3)
letter of assent for students. Packets were distributed to the students in the
caregivers preferred language English or Spanish. In addition to requesting
permission to participate, the letter also requested permission to access the
students’ identification number and mathematics assessment scores for the
fall semester.
Participants were asked to not discuss survey items prior to taking the
survey. They were encouraged to answer the survey honestly as there is no
right or wrong answer. As an incentive students received a USC pencil to take
the survey. All students’ names were entered into a drawing regardless if they
participate in the survey and a total of three music devices (IPOD Shuffle)
were given away in a random drawing.
Student Survey Administration. Participating students who returned
the required consent forms with their parents’ permission were asked to
complete the survey during their nutrition break. Students who were not
participating resumed their regular class break. One class of 20-25 students
was administered the survey during the break. Students in the elementary
school met in the school computer lab to take the survey, whereas students in
the middle school met at the school library. Prior to administering the survey
98
the researcher read aloud the scripted letter attached to the students’ survey
(Appendix R). Participants were asked if they have any questions regarding
the study. The principal investigator completed a sample question with the
participants to ensure they understood how to answer the Likert-scale
questions. The survey took about 15 minutes to complete. Once the students
completed the survey they were asked to place their survey in a covered box.
Data was collected by the principal investigator.
Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria. Participants were purposefully sampled
from school sites in which greater than 90% of students were Latino and
more than half of the population was English learners whose primary
language is Spanish. Students were selected for participation in two ways: (1)
coversheet was used to prescreen students, the letter indicated “study is
restricted to Latino English learners.”, and (2) questions on the survey asked
“Choose the group that describes you “and “Is Spanish the first language you
learned to speak when you were a child?” Students who did not report they
were “Hispanic or Latino “ and/or responded “No” with regard to was
Spanish the first language you learned to speak were not included in the
results of this study. The cover sheet and survey are shown in the Appendix.
At the elementary schools, 87 participants met the criteria and 27 students did
not meet the criteria. There were a total of 334 participants at the middle
99
school site however 86 of the participants did not meet the criteria nd were
excluded from the study. There were a total of 153 participants who met the
criteria in the seventh grade and 85 participants who met the criteria in the
eighth grade. In total 335, 4th 7
th
and 8
th
graders met the criteria for
participating in this study.
Instruments
Teacher Survey. Demographic data including the teachers’ ethnicity,
gender and years teaching was measured by teachers self-report on a survey.
This scale includes six items. A sample of the survey item includes “The
number of years you have been teaching.” All items appear in the Appendix.
Student Achievement. Achievement was measured by point values
obtained on cumulative tests from summative assessments administered by
the teacher in mathematics throughout the fall semester. At the elementary
school summative assessments were created by an outside contractor and
required by the district for all elementary teachers to administer in
mathematics. Approximately 4 assessments were given in the fall semester.
At the middle school teachers worked together to create 2 summative
assessments aligned with state standards for each mathematics course in 7
th
and 8
th
grade. Student final grades were not used since additional measures
such as effort or homework may be included in the final grade.
100
Student Survey. The survey consisted of 12 personal achievement
goal orientation items, from the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS),
Midgley et al. (2000), 4 teaching practices items from the Standard-based
Teaching Practices Questionnaire (Kahle, et al., 2000), 4 engagement items
from the Student Engagement Instrument (SEI), (Appleton, et al., 2006) and
8 engagement items from the Feelings About School Survey (Fredricks, et al.
2005). The twelve survey items from the PALS personal achievement goal
orientation instrument consists of four mastery items, four
performance-approach items and four performance-avoidance items. The four
survey items adapted from the Student Engagement Inventory, consists of
items to measure students’ cognitive engagement in school and the 8 survey
items adapted from the Feelings About School Survey measured behavior (4
items) and emotional engagement (4 items). Items from the Standard-based
teaching practices questionnaire consisted of four items to measure students’
perception of teaching practices in the mathematics classroom. All items on
this survey used a five point Likert-type scale with responses ranging from
Very True (5), through Somewhat True (3), to Not At All True (1). The survey
items used in this study appear in the appendix (see Appendix L-Q) and
reliability for each construct along with the original non-adapted version are
shown below.
101
Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales: (PALS) Personal Achievement
Goal Orientation.
Students’ perceptions of their achievement goals were measured with
12 items from the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS): Perception
of Personal Achievement Goals Survey. The PALS instrument was originally
published in 1997 and found to be reliable and valid (Midgley et al., 1998) a
revised version was published to focus on goals as frameworks (Midgley et
al., 2000). The trichotomous goal structure: (a) mastery goals, (b)
performance-approach goals and (c) performance-avoidance goals were
reliable and valid with fourth grade students (Ross et al., 2002). Validation of
the scales for personal achievement goals were shown to fit the data well with
Goodness of Fit indices of GFI=0.97, and AGFI=0.95 (Midgley et al., 2000).
Personal Mastery Goal Orientation. Students’ perceptions of their
personal mastery goal orientation in mathematics were measured using the
revised scale of mastery goals (Midgley et al., 2000). The internal
consistency reliability (coefficient alpha) of scores for the personal mastery
goal scales was 0.85 (Midgley et al., 2000). This scale included four items
from the revised scale, “One of my goals in class is to learn as much as I
can.”; “One of my goals is to master a lot of new skills this year.”; “It is
102
important to me that I thoroughly understand my class work.”; and “It is
important to me that I improve my skills this year.” Items were revised for
domain specificity an example of the adapted form of this scale is, “One of
my goals in math class is to learn as much as I can.” Mastery items are shown
in full in the Appendix. In this study the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was
0.86.
Personal Performance-Approach Goal Orientation. Students’
perception of their personal performance-approach goal orientation in
mathematics was measured using the PALS revised scale. Midgley and
colleagues (2000) found the internal consistency to be 0.89. This scale
included four items from the revised scale, “It’s important to me that other
students in my class think I am good at my class work.”; One of my goals is
to show others that I’m good at my class work”; “One of my goals is to show
others that class work is easy for me.”; and “It is important to me that I look
smart in compared to others in my class.” An example of the adapted form of
this scale is, “It’s important to me that other students in my math class think I
am good at my math work.” Performance-approach items are shown in the
Appendix. In this study the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.83.
Personal Performance-Avoid Goal Orientation. Students’ perception
of their personal performance-avoidance goal orientation in mathematics
103
were measured using the revised scale of performance-avoidance goal
orientation (Midgley et al., 2000) The internal consistency reliability
(coefficient alpha) of scores for the personal mastery goal scales was 0.74
(Midgley et al., 2000). This scale included four items from the revised scale,
“It’s important to me that I don’t look stupid in class.”; One of my goals is to
keep others from thinking I’m not smart in class”; “It’s important to me that
my teacher doesn’t think that I know less than others in class”; and “One of
my goals in class is to avoid looking like I have trouble doing the work”.
Items were adapted for domain specificity. An example of the adapted form is
“It’s important to me that I don’t look stupid in math class.” Items are shown
in full in the Appendix. In this study the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was
0.67.
Engagement. Two separate instruments measured students’
behavioral, cognitive and emotional engagement. The Student Engagement
Instrument (Appleton, et al., 2006) measured participants’ cognitive
engagement. The Feelings About School (Fredrick, et al. 2005) scale
measured participants’ emotional and behavioral engagement. The Feelings
About School scale (Fredricks, et al., 2005) contains a cognitive scale,
however items reflected home activities rather than classroom activities
104
therefore, the Student Engagement Instrument by Appleton and colleagues
(2006) was selected for this survey.
Student Engagement Instrument. The first instrument, The Student
Engagement Instrument (Appleton, et al., 2006) measured participants’
cognitive engagement. The Student Engagement Instrument was validated
with an ethically and economically diverse sample of ninth grade students
(Appleton, et al., 2006) This measure includes a six-factor structure to
measure cognitive and psychological engagement. Only items from Factor 2
(Control and Relevance of School Work) were used to assess students’
cognitive engagement. The internal consistency reliability (coefficient alpha)
for Factor 2 was found to be 0.80 (Appleton, et al., 2006). The four items
from this scale were: “the tests in my classes do a good job of measuring
what I’m able to do.”, “the grades in my class do a good job of measuring
what I am able to do.”; “After finishing my work I check it over to see if it’s
correct.”; and “When I do my work I check to see whether I understand what
I’ m doing.”. Items were revised for domain specificity. An example is “the
test in my math class do a good job of measuring what I’m able to do”. Items
appear in the Appendix. In this study Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.79.
School Engagement Scale. The second instrument, Feelings About
School (Fredrick, et al. 2005) measured participants’ emotional and
105
behavioral engagement in the classroom. The Feelings about School
instruments was validated over two waves of data collection. The sample
includes a racially diverse group of students in third through fifth grades.
Reversed items were switched to a higher number as a higher score indicates
a greater level of engagement.
Behavioral Engagement. The behavioral engagement scale was
comprised of four items. The internal consistency reliability (coefficient
alpha) for the behavioral engagement scale was found to range from .72
to .76 (Fredricks et al., 2005). Items were changed for domain specificity.
Four items were used from this scale: “I follow the rules at school”; “I pay
attention during math class.”; “During class I just act as if I am working.” and
“I get in trouble during class.” All items were revised for domain specificity,
a sample items is “In math class I follow the rules”. Items appear in the
Appendix. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .755.
Emotional Engagement. The emotional engagement scale comprised
four items. The internal consistency reliability (coefficient alpha) was found
to range from .83 to .86. (Fredricks et al., 2005). The items: “I feel excited by
the work in this class”; “I like being at school during this class”; “I am
interested in the work in class.”; and “My class is a fun place to be.” Items
were revised for domain specificity a sample item includes “I feel excited by
106
the work in math class”. Items are shown in the Appendix. In this study the
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.87.
Standard-based Teaching Practices. Standard-based Teaching
Practices scale was developed by a team of experts including educators in
Mathematics and Science, and administrators and teachers from Ohio school
district. The scale was based on the ideas of the national science and
mathematics education standards (National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics, 1989; National Research Council 1998) and was originally
used to determine how often students perceive standard-based teaching
practices in the science classroom. In its original form, several questionnaires
were developed to assess support for mathematics and science education
among teachers, parents, student attitudes, and the classroom environment.
Items were validated by a panel of science and mathematics experts and the
scale was field-tested in schools. Items were analyzed using an oblique,
varimax rotation technique and factor analysis. For the Standard-based
teaching scale reliability factors range was 0.50 to 0.74 and Cronbach’s Alpha
was reported as 0.75 (Kahle, Meece, and Scantlebury, 2000).
Students’ perception of teachers’ instructional practices in mathematics
was measured with items from the Standard-based Teaching Practices scale
(Kahle, Meece, and Scantlebury, 2000). Items from the original form of this
107
scale included, “In this science class, my teacher asks me to give reasons for
my answers.”; “In this science class, I talk with my classmates about how to
solve problems.”; “In this science class, my teacher encourages me to ask
questions.”; and “In this science class, I learn from my classmates.” An
example of the adapted form of this scale is “In this math class, my teacher
asks me to give reasons for my answers.” Adapted items appear in the
Appendix. In this study the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.53 and it was
determined to use the items as single item indicators rather than drop items
from the analysis.
Data Analysis
Summative assessments in mathematics measured students’ mathematics
achievement. This information was contained on the school database at
participating school sites. Participants were asked to record their student
identification number so mathematics scores of participants could be
retrieved from the school database. The office staff received a copy of all
participating student permission forms and compiled a list of participating
students’ identification numbers with their mathematics score. Data from the
completed survey was matched to the assessment score by student
identification number. The data was then compiled on a statistical program,
SPSS for Windows version 17.0.
108
Data Analysis Procedures. Data was collected and analyzed using
SPSS Windows version 17.0. Data consisted of surveys on personal
achievement goal orientation, engagement, and standard-based teaching
practices. Data also consisted of students’ scores in mathematics and
responses to demographic questions on the student survey. Survey data was
analyzed to examine and compare the motivational profiles of Latino English
language students in the elementary and middle school.
Statistical techniques were conducted to explore the differences among and
between the groups. Means and standard deviations, among scores on survey
items and scales were computed for each group. Cronbach’s alpha was
calculated to measure internal reliability of scores on survey items.
Zero-Order Pearson Product Correlation was computed for all measured
variables, and among grade level and gender. Simple linear regression and
multiple regressions were calculated to assess the degree to which
independent measures are related to dependent measures. The independent
measures in this study are personal achievement goal orientation, engagement,
grade level, and standard-based teaching practices and the dependent measure
was mathematics achievement. Multiple linear regression analysis was
computed to show the prediction of the independent variables to the
dependent variable of mathematics achievement in the study.
109
The first analysis was a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOV A).
This statistical technique examined the effect of gender and grade differences
(4
th
, 7
th
, and 8
th
grade). Follow up univariate analysis of variance (ANOV A)
with post hoc comparison was conducted with significant variables. Tukey’s
HSD was calculated to determine the nature of the differences between the
grades. Pearson zero-order correlation was conducted to determine group
differences (elementary and middle school) and gender differences (boys and
girls) with the variables in this study.
110
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to examine Latino English language
learners’ motivation, engagement, and perception of teaching practices in
mathematics and discuss the impact on mathematics achievement in
elementary and middle school. Chapter 4 includes: (1) overview of
participants, (2) descriptive statistics for variables in this study, (3) analysis
of the results, (4) statistical comparison between groups, and (5) overall
motivational findings
Participants
Teacher Participants. Fourth grade elementary school teachers from
two schools elected to participate in the study (n=7). Middle school 7
th
and
8
th
grade math teachers from one school chose to participate (n=6). The
ethnicity of the teacher participants varied at each site. The characteristics of
teacher participants in this study are shown in Table 1 below.
School A elementary teacher participants were 75% Hispanic (n=3)
and 25% White (n=1) and 50% were male (n=2) and 50% were female (n=2).
School B elementary school teachers contained 100% White 4
th
grade
teachers (n=3) of which 66% were male (n=2) and 33% were female (n=1).
Overall elementary school teacher participants were 43% Hispanic (n=3) and
57% Caucasian (n=4). At the middle school 7
th
and 8
th
grade participating
111
teachers, were 50% White (n=3), 33%, Asian (n=2), and 17% Native
American (n=1). Of the middle school teachers 50% were female (n=3) and
50% were male (n=3). Only male teacher participants taught seventh grade
and female teachers taught eighth grade.
Table 1. Teacher Participants by Gender, Grade, Ethnicity and Experience
4
th
Grade 7
th
Grade 8
th
Grade
N P N P N p
Gender
Female 3 43% 0 0% 3 100%
Male 4 57% 3 100% 0 0%
Title One School
Yes 7 100% 3 100% 3 100%
No 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Ethnicity
Hispanic 3 43% 0 0% 0 0%
Caucasian 4 57% 2 67% 1 33.3%
Native American 0 0% 0 0% 1 33.3%
Asian 0 0% 1 33% 1 33.3%
Number of Years
Teaching
0-3 1 14% 2 67% 1 33.3%
4-6 2 29% 0 0% 1 33.3%
7-10 1 14% 0 0% 1 33.3%
More than 10 3 43% 1 33% 0 0%
Coursework on
Motivation
None 2 29% 1 33% 0 0%
1 class 2 29% 0 0% 0 0%
2-3 classes 1 14% 2 67% 2 67%
More than 3 classes 2 29% 0 0% 1 33%
All teachers identified their school site as a Title One school (n=13). The
number of new teachers (0-3 years of teaching) was higher in the 7
th
grade
(n=3), 66%, than in the 8
th
grade, with 33% (n=3) and the 4
th
grade with 14%
112
(n=7). Teachers with the most experience (more than 10 years) were found in
the 4
th
grade (n=3) with 43% of participants, and teachers with the least
experience were found in the seventh grade with 67% (n=2). Table 2 displays
the overall teacher demographics for this study.
Table 2. Overall Teacher Participation
N P
Gender
Female 6 46%
Male 7 54%
Title One School
Yes 13 100%
No 0 0%
Ethnicity
Hispanic 3 23%
Caucasian 7 54%
Native American 1 8%
Asian 2 15%
Number of Years Teaching
0-3 5 38%
4-6 3 23%
7-10 1 8%
More than 10 4 31%
Coursework on Motivation
None 3 23%
1 class 2 15%
2-3 classes 5 38%
More than 3 classes 3 23%
As shown in Table 2, the teachers in this study represent a diverse group of
participants with a range of experience. Of the 13 teachers that were included
in this study, males (n=7) represented 54% and females (n=6) represented
46% of participants. All of the participants teach at a Title One school
(n=13). Approximately 62% of the participants have less than six years of
teaching experience (n=8). The ethnicity of teacher participants show most
113
teachers (n=7) identify themselves as Caucasian, and represent 54% of the
participants. Approximately 23% of teachers (n=3) have not taken a course
on motivation and 15% (n=2) have taken one class on motivation.
Participants who have taken 2-3 courses with regard to motivation represent
38% (n=5) of the teachers and 23% (n=3) of the teacher participants in this
study have taken more than 3 classes on motivation.
Student Participants. Table 3 displays the student demographic data
by grade, gender, place of birth, and participation in the school lunch
program.
Table 3. Student Participants by Gender, Grade and Country of Origin
4
th
Grade 7
th
Grade 8
th
Grade
N P N P N P
Gender
Female 44 51% 83 54% 60 63%
Male 43 49% 70 46% 35 37%
Free And Reduce School
Lunch
Yes 79 92% 145 95% 87 92%
No 7 8% 8 5% 8 8%
Student’s Place of Birth
United States 76 87% 135 88% 76 80%
Mexico 10 12% 17 11% 17 18%
Unknown 1 1% 1 1% 2 2%
Mother’s Place of Birth
United States 13 15% 25 16% 9 10%
Mexico 66 76% 123 81% 77 82%
Unknown 8 9% 5 3% 8 8%
Father’s Place of Birth
United States 12 14% 22 14% 10 11%
Mexico 66 76% 119 78% 78 82%
Unknown 9 10% 12 8% 7 7%
114
Analysis of student surveys revealed participants are from three
grades, 4
th
grade students (n=87) represent 26% of the participants, 7
th
grade
students (n=153) 46% of the participants and 8
th
grade students (n=95) 28%
of the students. By gender, girls in the fourth grade (n=44) represented 50.6%
and boys (n=43) represented 49.4%. In the 7
th
grade boys (n=70) represented
45.8% of the sample and girls (n=83) represented 54.2%. In the 8
th
grade
boys (n=35) represented 36.8% of the sample and girls (n=60) represented
63.2%. Greater than 90% of all participants received the Free and Reduced
School Lunch program.
Table 4. Overall Student Participants by Gender, Grade
and Country of Origin
N P
Gender
Female 187 56%
Male 148 44%
Free And Reduce School Lunch
Yes 311 93%
No 23 7%
Student’s Place of Birth
United States 287 86%
Mexico 44 13%
Unknown 4 1%
Mother’s Place of Birth
United States 47 14%
Mexico 266 80%
Unknown 21 6%
Father’s Place of Birth
United States 44 13%
Mexico 263 79%
Unknown 28 8%
115
Overall boys in this study (n=148) represented 44% of the participants
and girls (n=187) represented 56% of the participants. Students who were
born in the United States (n=287) consisted of 86% of the participants,
whereas students born in Mexico (n=44) consisted of 13% of the participants
and only 1% of the participants did not know, or failed to report (n=3) where
they were born. Students also reported their parents’ place of birth. 15% of
the participants reported their mother was born in the United States (n=47),
80% reported their mother was born in Mexico (n=266) and 5% of the
participants (n=16) did not know where their mother was born. The place of
birth of students’ father reveal 13% of the participants reported their father
was born in the United States (n=44), 79% of fathers were born in Mexico
(n=263) and 8% of the participants did not know (n=28). Results of overall
student participants appear in Table 4.
Descriptive Statistics
Goal orientation was chosen to examine student motivation in the
mathematics classroom. Goal orientation consists of three domains: (1)
mastery, (2) performance-approach and, (3) performance-avoidance.
Engagement was chosen to examine how goal orientation influences
students’ engagement and achievement in mathematics. Engagement contains
three indices: (1) behavioral, (2) emotional and (3) cognitive. In this study
116
standard-based teaching practices were selected because they are widely
known, recognized by the National Council of Teaching Mathematics and
commonly used in mathematics classrooms. This study sought to examine if
such practices are associated with student motivation, engagement, and
achievement in mathematics. Standard-based teaching consists of the
following practices: (1) my teacher asks me to give reasons for my answers,
(2) I talk with my classmates about how to solve problems, (3) my teacher
encourages me to ask questions, and (4) I learn from my classmates.
Table 5 displays the overall descriptive statistics for variables
including the means, standard deviations and reliability for the responses to
the survey questions in this study. The survey format was a five point
Likert-type scale with forced responses ranging from Not At All True (1),
through Somewhat True (3), to Very True (5). Cronbach’s alpha was
calculated to analyze the internal consistency for the goal orientation and
engagement subscales. An alpha score of 0.65 was used as the minimum cut
score to indicated strong reliability of the items within the scale. The variable
selected by the student as highest for goal orientation is mastery goal
orientation with a mean of 4.28 (SD=.837) and an alpha score of 0.86.
Performance-approach and performance-avoidance had a mean of 3.08 which
117
indicates students’ performance goal-orientations are somewhat true.
Performance-avoidance had the lowest reliability of all the scales with an
alpha score of 0.67. Behavioral engagement had the highest mean among the
engagement scales with a mean of 4.02, followed by cognitive engagement
with 3.67 (SD=.953) and 3.34 mean score for emotional engagement.
Table 5. Overall Descriptive Statistics for Variables (N=335)
Variables Mean Standard
Deviation
Cronbach’s
Alpha
Goal
Orientation
Mastery 4.28 .837 0.86
Per-App 3.08 1.10 0.83
Per-Avo
3.08 1.01 0.67
Engagement
Behavior 4.02 .831 .755
Emotional 3.34 1.11 0.87
Cognitive
3.67 .953 0.79
Standard-based
Teaching
Reasons 4.00 1.10 **
Talk 3.54 1.25 **
Questions 3.61 1.30 **
Classmates 3.4 1.33 **
**Note: Reliability not measured with Standard-based
teaching practices. Mastery=Mastery goal orientation;
Per-App=Performance-approach goal orientation;
Per-Avo=Performance-avoidance goal orientation;
BEH=Behavioral engagement; EMO=Emotional
Engagement; COG=Cognitive Engagement; Reasons= my
teacher asks me to give reasons for my answers; TALK=
During math I talk with my classmates about how to solve
problems; Questions= my teacher encourages me to ask
questions; Class= I learn from my classmates
118
The teaching practice with the greatest mean score was “my teacher
asks me to give reasons for my answers” with a mean score of 4.00 (SD=1.1).
This indicates students perceive the teacher asking them for reasons to their
answers overall Very True. The teaching practice with the lowest mean score
is “I learn from my classmates” with a mean score of 3.40, although this
score indicates the teaching practices was perceived by the students to be
Somewhat True.
Table 6 shows the descriptive statistics of the goal orientation and
engagement scales with the complete list of the 24 items used in the survey
and the mean and standard deviation for each item. As depicted in the table
the mean scores was highest among mastery goal orientation, and the item “It
is important to me that I improve my skills in math this year” had the highest
mean of 4.45 (SD=.914) indicating that it is Very True to True that students
strive to improve their skills in mathematics. The item “it is important to me
that I don’t look stupid in math class” had the highest mean among the
performance scales with a mean of 3.80 (SD=1.324) indicating that it is
Somewhat True to True that students do not appear to others as incompetent
in mathematics. Overall items in the behavioral engagement scale were
highest among the engagement measures with the item “I follow the rules
during math class” having the highest mean score of 4.11 (SD=.935).
119
Table 6. Descriptive Statistics of the Goal Orientation and Engagement Scales
Student Variables Mean SD
Mastery Goal Orientation
It is important to me that I improve my skills in math this year. 4.45 .914
One of my goals in math class is to learn as much as I can. 4.31 1.020
It is important to me that I thoroughly understand my math work. 4.24 .995
One of my goals is to master a lot of new math skills this year. 4.10 1.059
Performance-Approach Goal Orientation
It is important to me that other students in my math class think I
am good at math.
3.16 1.311
One of my goals is to show others that math is easy for me. 3.09 1.358
One of my goals is to show others that I'm good at my math work. 3.29 1.303
It is important to me that I look smart compared to others in math
class.
2.78 1.431
Performance-avoidance Goal Orientation
It is important to me that I don't look stupid in math class. 3.80 1.324
One of my goals is to keep others from thinking I'm not smart in
math.
2.62 1.467
It's important to me that my teacher doesn't think that I know less
than others in math.
3.24 1.429
One of my goals in math is to avoid looking like I have trouble
doing the work.
2.65 1.468
Behavioral Engagement
I follow the rules during math class. 4.11 .935
I pay attention during math class. 4.03 .952
During math I just act as if I am working (reversed). 3.88 1.263
I get in trouble during math (reversed). 4.06 1.191
Emotional Engagement
I feel excited by the work in math. 3.14 1.335
120
Table 6: Continued
I like being at school during math. 3.35 1.313
I am interested in the work during math. 3.51 1.243
My math class is a fun place to be. 3.37 1.327
Cognitive Engagement
The tests in my math class do a good job of measuring what I am
able to do.
3.84 1.127
The grades in my math class do a good job of measuring what I am
able to do.
4.01 1.096
After finishing my math work I check it over to see if it’s correct. 3.15 1.391
When I do math work I check to see whether I understand what I’m
doing.
3.67 1.216
Overall the item with the lowest mean score appeared in the
performance-approach scale. The item “One of my goals is to keep others
from thinking I’m not smart” had a mean score of 2.62 (SD=1.467) indicating
that it is Not True to Somewhat True that students keep others from thinking
they are not smart.
Intercorrelations
The correlation coefficients are between -1.0 and +1.0 thus
coefficients close to 0.0 are weak whereas coefficients close to 1.0 or -1.0 are
strong. Correlations less than positive or negative 0.30 are weak. Table 3
displays the correlations among variables in this study. The means and
standard-deviations are presented as well.
121
The correlation matrix of all measured variables revealed a significant
positive relationship between mastery, performance-approach, the
engagement variables (behavioral, emotional and cognitive) and
achievement. Specifically, students who scored high on the mastery and
performance-approach goal orientation and placed high on the engagement
scales (behavioral, emotional, and cognitive) also earned higher cumulative
mathematics scores. Achievement in mathematics was found to be correlated
with several engagement variables, behavioral (r=.31, p<.01), emotional
(r=.28, p<.01) and cognitive (r=.28, p<.01). Mastery goals were weakly
correlated to achievement in mathematics (r=.22, p<.01). The mean
achievement in mathematics (score) was quiet low with a mean of 65.27,
where as the average mastery goals was high with a mean of 4.27 on a scale
of 5. This suggests although Latino students may espouse high mastery goals,
this does not necessarily result in high achievement in mathematics.
The teaching practice “My teacher asks me to give reasons for my
answers.” had the greatest mean indicating the most frequently used practice,
but a negatively significant relationship with math achievement (r=-.145,
p<.01) indicating high achieving students are not asked for reasons for their
122
answers. This practice was reported more frequently with low achieving
students. A significant negative relationship was found between higher
mathematics scores and the standard-based teaching practices “My teacher
asks me to give reasons for my answers” (r= -.145, p<.01) and “I learn from
my classmates”(r= -.24, p<.01). High achieving students were less likely to
report learning from their classmates or asked for reasons to answers.
A significant positive correlation was found between mastery and
performance-approach goal orientation (r=.42, p<.01), performance-approach
and performance avoidance goal orientation (r=.36, p<.01) and mastery and
performance-avoidance goal orientation (r=.18, p<.01). In other words,
students who demonstrated a mastery goal orientation also held
performance-approach and performance-avoidance perspectives as well.
Although achievement goal orientation was described as a trichotomous
model, with mastery, performance-approach and performance-avoidance goal
orientation, recent research in this area calls for a multiple goal orientation
approach with mastery goals partitioned as mastery-approach and
mastery-avoidance goal orientation. A possible explanation for this
correlation could be Latino English language learners do espouse multiple
goals in the classroom. In addition mastery and performance-approach goal
123
orientation were also found to have a positive and significant relationship to
mathematics score as well as the engagement variables (behavioral,
emotional and cognitive) and the teaching strategies “I talk with my
classmates about how to solve problems”, “my teacher encourages me to ask
questions” and “I learn from my classmates”. This finding implies mastery
and performance-approach oriented students not only had high mathematics
achievement, but were highly engaged and more often perceived the teachers’
use of standard-based teaching practices.
The relationship however between mastery and engagement variables
was much higher than between performance-approach and engagement
variables. With respect to mastery orientation, a significant positive
correlation was found with behavioral (r=.56, p<.01), emotional (r=.55,
p<01), and, cognitive engagement (r=.64, p<01). Performance-approach goal
orientation and behavior (r=.23, p<01), emotional (r=.38, p<01), and
cognitive engagement (r=.37, p<01), was moderately significant, but not as
strong. In addition to being positively correlated to goal orientation, the
engagement variables were also found to be significantly correlated among
each other. Behavioral engagement was significantly correlated to emotional
(r=.50, p<01), and cognitive (r=.55, p<01) engagement, and emotional
engagement was significantly correlated to cognitive engagement (r=.68,
124
p<01). The engagement variables were also significantly correlated to the
teaching practice “I talk with my classmates about how to solve problems”
with behavioral (r=.41, p<01), emotional (r=.39, p<01) and cognitive
engagement (r=.37, p<01) having a significantly positive relationship. This
was the only teaching practice that was significantly correlated to all three
engagement variables and this practice was also significantly correlated to
mastery and performance-approach goal orientation. Students who talk with
their classmates about how to solve problems have higher behavioral,
emotional, and cognitive engagement, and espouse higher mastery, and
performance-approach goals. A positive and significant relationship was
found between performance-avoidance goals and the teaching practices “My
teacher asks me to give reasons for my answers” (r=.13, p<01) and “I learn
from my classmates” (r=.15, p<01). Since performance-avoidance goals are
characterized by negative outcomes it is important to note such practices may
cause students to espouse performance-avoidance goals.
Since numerous variables in this study were correlated the next
analysis determines which variables were most significant. The multivariate
analysis of variance (MANOVA) was measured among grade levels to
examine the effect of grade differences (4
th
, 7
th
, and 8
th
grade) on student
achievement goals, engagement and standard-based teaching practices.
Table 7. Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-Order Pearson Product Correlations for Measured Variables
Variables M SD
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.Score 65.27 19.2
--
.22** .12* -.05 .31** .28** .39** -.145** .03 -.18 -.24**
2. Mastery 4.27 .84
-- .42** .18** .56** .55** .64** .14* .40** .16** .11*
3. Per-App 3.08 1.1
-- .36** .23** .38** .37** .09 .27** .11* .22**
4. Per-Avo 3.07 1.0
-- .02 .12* .11* .13* .09 .01 .15**
5. BEH 4.02 .83
-- .50** .55** -.02 .41** .03 .03
6. EMO 3.34 1.1
-- .68** .08 .39** .15 .10
7. COG 3.67 .95
-- .12* .37** .09 .11
8. REA 4.0 1.1
-- .18** .27** .06
9. Talk 3.5 1.2
-- .25** .35**
10. QUE 3.6 1.3
-- .20**
11. Class 3.4 1.3
--
Note. All scores are scaled scores.1.Score=cumulative assessment in mathematics; 2. Mastery=Mastery Goal Orientation;
3.Per-App=Performance-Approach Goal Orientation; 4.Per-Avo=Performance-avoidance Goal Orientation; 5.BEH=Behavioral
Engagement; 6.EMO=Emotional Engagement; 7.COG=Cognitive Engagement; 8.REA= My teacher asks me to give reasons for my
answers; 9.TALK= During math I talk with my classmates about how to solve problems; 10.QUE= My teacher encourages me to ask
questions; 11.CLASS= I learn from my classmates.
*p<.05; **p<.01
125
126
Research Question 1: Grade Differences
Is there a difference between students reported goal orientation, level of
engagement, and perception of standard-based teaching practices among
school levels?
The first analysis was a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
to examine the effect of grade differences (4
th
, 7
th
, and 8
th
grade) on student
achievement goals, engagement and standards’ based teaching practices. A
significant effect was found for grade (Lambda (22,614) =7.361, p=.00).The
next analysis was a one-way ANOVA, to determine if differences were
significance among grade levels. Tukey’s HSD determined the effect of
differences between fourth, seventh and eighth grade classes.
Differences in Goal Orientation. Significant differences were found
between students’ personal achievement goal orientation in the three school
levels. Differences in students’ mastery goals were found to be significant F
(2,332) = 9,416 p<.05. Tukey HSD revealed 4
th
grade students had a higher
mean score of 4.6 (SD=.54) than 7
th
graders mean of 4.2, (SD=.93) and 8
th
grade students mean score of 4.2, (SD=.832). There were no significant
differences between 7
th
and 8
th
grade students. Differences in
performance-approach goals were also found between groups F (2,332)
=13.765, p=.00. The 4
th
grade students had a higher mean of 3.6 (SD=1.11)
127
than 7
th
graders mean of 2.8 (SD=1.1) and 8
th
graders mean of 3.1(SD=.1)
however no significant differences were found between 7
th
and 8
th
grade
students. Although 4
th
grade students had a higher mean (M=3.30) for
performance-avoidance goals the differences were not statistically
significant. Table 8 displays the means and standard deviations among grade
levels.
Table 8. Means and Standard Deviations of Goal Orientations for Elementary and
Middle School Students
4
th
Grade 7
th
Grade 8
th
Grade
(n=87) (n=153) (n=95)
M SD M SD M SD
Mastery 4.60 0.54 4.15 0.93 4.18 0.83
Performance-Approach 3.56 1.11 2.80 1.08 3.08 0.99
Performance Avoidance 3.30 1.07 3.02 0.93 2.96 1.04
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
4th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade
Goal Orientation
Figure 2: Goal Orientation: 4th, 7th and 8th Grade Groups
Mastery
Performance Approach
Performance Avoidance
128
Figure 2 illustrates the mean differences of the goal orientation subscales for
4
th
, 7
th
and 8
th
grade. The subscales include: mastery, performance-approach
and performance-avoidance goal orientation. Overall 4
th
grade students had
higher mean scores for mastery, performance-approach and
performance-avoidance goal orientation than 7
th
and 8
th
grade participants.
Motivation in mathematics was higher in elementary school than middle
school.
Reliability Statistics. The Cronbach’s alpha was measured for the
internal consistency of the goal orientation subscales: (1) mastery, (2)
performance-approach, and (3) performance-avoidance. The alpha scores for
this study were 0.86 for mastery scales, 0.83 for performance-approach
scales, and 0.668 for performance-avoidance scales. The alpha scores show
the data is reliable and similar to the reliability of the alpha scale from the
revised version of the personal achievement goal orientation of PALS
(Midgley et al., 2000).
Differences in Student Engagement. The ANOVA also revealed
significant effect among grade-levels in engagement. There was a significant
effect found in students’ behavioral engagement F (2,332) = 6.434, p<.05.
Students in the fourth grade (M=4.26, SD=.803) had higher behavioral
engagement than students in the 7
th
grade (M=3.87, SD=.087), however no
129
significant difference was found between 4
th
and 8
th
grade students (M=4.03,
SD=.087) and 8
th
grade and 7
th
grade students. Significant differences were
also found among the grade levels emotional engagement F (2,332) = 31.110,
p<.05. Students in the fourth grade had higher emotional engagement
(M=4.07, SD=1.01) than 7
th
(M=3.15, SD=1.02) and 8
th
(M=2.97, SD=1.03)
grade students. Significant differences were also found among the grade
levels cognitive engagement F (2,332) = 30.264, p<.05. The 4
th
grade
students had higher cognitive engagement (M=4.29, SD=.08) than 7
th
(M=3.43, SD=.927) and 8
th
(M=3.47, SD=.866) grade students. Table 9
displays the means and standard deviations among grade levels.
Table 9. Means and Standard Deviations of Student Engagement for Elementary and
Middle School Students
4
th
Grade 7
th
Grade 8
th
Grade
(n=87) (n=153) (n=95)
M SD M SD M SD
Behavioral 4.26 0.75 3.87 0.84 4.03 0.85
Emotional 4.07 1.01 3.15 1.02 2.97 1.03
Cognitive 4.29 0.80 3.43 0.93 3.47 0.87
Figure 3 illustrates the mean differences of engagement subscales for 4
th
, 7
th
and 8
th
grade. The subscales include: behavioral, emotional and cognitive
engagement. Overall 4
th
grade students had higher behavioral, emotional and
cognitive engagement than 7
th
and 8
th
grade students.
130
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
4th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade
Engagement
Figure 3. Engagement: 4th, 7th & 8th Grade Groups
Behavioral Engagement
Emotional Engagement
Cognitive Engagement
Reliability Statistics. The Cronbach’s alpha was measured for the
internal consistency of the engagement subscales: (1) behavioral, (2)
emotional, and (3) cognitive. The alpha scores for this study were 0.75 for the
behavioral scales, 0.874 for emotional scales, and 0.79 for cognitive scales.
The alpha scores show the data is reliable and similar to the reliability of the
alpha scale from the instruments Feelings About School (Fredricks et. al.,
2005) and Student Engagement Instrument (Appleton, et al., 2006).
Differences in Standard-based Teaching Practices. Table 10 displays
the means and standard deviations for standard-based teaching practices
among grade levels. The ANOVA revealed a significant effect among the
instructional practice “My teacher asks me to give reasons for my answers” F
(2,331) = 4.188, p<.05. The students in the fourth grade (M=4.23, SD=1.008)
had higher responses than students in the 8
th
grade (M=3.77, SD=1.231),
131
however no significant difference was found between 4
th
and 7
th
grade
students. 7
th
grade students had a mean of 4.01 (SD=1.019). There were no
differences between 8
th
grade and 7
th
grade participants. Standard-based
teaching practices were perceived in the classroom moderately. Standard
deviations for items were quite large indicating a greater range of student
responses.
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
4th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade
Mean
Standard-based Teaching Practices
Figure 4. Standards-based Teaching Practices: 4th, 7th and
8th Grade Groups
Reasons
Questions
Problems
Classmates
Table 10. Means and Standard Deviations of Teacher Practices for Elementary and
Middle School Student
4
th
Grade 7
th
Grade 8
th
Grade
(n=87) (n=153) (n=95)
M SD M M SD
Reasons 4.23 1.01 4.01 1.02 3.77 1.23
Questions 3.66 1.43 3.54 1.30 3.67 1.12
Solve Problems 3.62 1.31 3.50 1.24 3.53 1.19
Classmates 3.31 1.53 3.31 1.31 3.62 1.13
132
Figure 4 illustrates the mean differences of teaching practices subscales for
4
th
, 7
th
and 8
th
grade. The subscales include: My teacher asks me to give
reasons for my answers, My teacher encourages me to ask questions, I talk
with my classmates about how to solve problems, and I learn from my
classmates. The teaching practice “My teacher asks me to give reasons for
my answers” was reported the greatest among all students regardless of their
grade levels. The teaching practice “I learn from my classmates” was
reported the least among 4
th
and 7
th
grade students and the teaching practice
“I talk with my classmates about how to solve problems” was reported the
least by 8
th
grade students.
Research Question 2: Elementary and Middle School Differences
Is there a difference in the relationship between goal orientation, level of
engagement, and perception of standard-based teaching practices among
elementary and middle school students?
In the preliminary analysis a multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) found differences between 4
th
grade, and 7
th
and 8
th
grade
students only. Significant differences were not found between 7
th
and 8
th
grade students therefore this group was combined (n=248) to compare and
examine the relationship among variables between middle school and
elementary school. Pearson zero-order correlation coefficient was used to
133
examine the relationship among motivation, engagement, perception of
standard-based teaching practices and achievement among elementary and
middle school participants. The results of the Pearson zero-order correlation
can be found in Table 11. The similarities among school levels will first be
examined, prior to examining the differences.
Middle and elementary school achievement (score) was positively and
significantly correlated with behavioral and cognitive engagement.
Achievement was found to be negatively correlated to the teaching practice
“My teacher asks me to give reasons for my answers” in the elementary level
(r=.23, p<0.01) and middle school level (r=.21, p<0.01) Students with low
scores in mathematics assessments were more likely to perceive the teacher
asking questions for how they found their answer. Achievement was
negatively correlated to the teaching practice “During math, I learn from my
classmates” for middle school (r =.21, p<0.01) and elementary students
(r=.32, p<0.01). Students who had low achievement in mathematics were
more likely to report learning from their classmates than high achieving
students. At the middle school level, analysis of the relationship between
student achievement and the teaching practice “My teacher encourages me to
ask questions” (r= -.23, p<0.01) showed a small negative correlation between
the two variables, indicating middle school students with lower achievement
134
in mathematics were more likely to feel the teacher encourages asking
questions in the classroom. This teaching practice was also negatively
correlated with achievement at the elementary level, however the relationship
was not significant (r= -.15).
As shown in Table 11 across samples mastery goals were
significantly correlated to behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement.
For elementary school behavioral (r=.41, p<0.01) emotional (r=.46, p<0.01)
and cognitive (r=55, p<0.01) engagement was positively correlated to
mastery goals. For middle school students behavioral (r=.57, p<0.01)
emotional (r=.54, p<0.01) and cognitive (r=63, p<0.01) engagement was
positively correlated with mastery goals as well, however the relationship
was slightly stronger with middle school than elementary school students.
Across samples students who demonstrate behavioral, emotional and
cognitive engagement are likely to espouse mastery goals as well. Mastery
goals were not significantly correlated to any of the teaching practices in this
study. Analysis of the relationship between performance-approach goals and
other predictors showed a small positive and significant correlation between
performance-approach goals and emotional engagement. This relationship
was positive and significant for elementary students (r=.28, p<0.01) and
middle school students (r=.33, p<0.01).These values indicate that students
135
who espouse performance-approach goals reported higher levels of emotional
engagement in the classroom. No significant relationship was found among
performance-avoidance goals and the other variables in this study with
elementary and middle school students. In the next section, the differences
among middle school and elementary school students will be discussed.
Middle School and Elementary School Differences. At the middle
school level the teaching practice “I talk with my classmates about how to
solve problems” was positively related to achievement (r=.07) whereas at the
elementary school level this relationship was negative (r= -.11). At the
middle school level as achievement increased students were more likely to
report this practice being used in the classroom whereas at the elementary
level as achievement increased, fewer students were likely to report using this
practice. This finding implies middle school high achieving students were
more likely to report talking with their classmates about how to solve
problems whereas, high achieving elementary students were less likely to
report talking with their classmates about how to solve problems. Mean
scores in response to this question was similar across grade levels with fourth
grade mean of 3.31(SD=1.53), seventh grade mean of 3.31 (SD=1.31) and
eighth grade mean of 3.62 (SD=1.13). This finding implies high-achieving
middle school students may be more successful discussing with their peers
Table 11. Zero-order correlations for Elementary and Middle School Sample
Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.Score -- .36*` .06 .04 .44** .20 .33** -.23** -.11 -.15 -.32**
2. Mastery .09 -- .16 .08 .41** .46** .55** -.02 .03 .13 -.17
3. Per-App .05 .44** -- .18 .02 .28** .15 .07 .12 .10 .10
4. Per-Avo -1.3** .18* .41** -- -.03 -.11 -.14 .05 -.08 -.16 .08
5. BEH .21* .57** .25** .01 -- .20 .42 -.13 .11 -.06 -.10
6. EMO .12 .54** ..33** .14* .57** -- .52** -.03 .14 .08 .01
7. COG .26** .63** .35** .13* .56** .65** -- .06 .14 .08 -.05
8. REA -.21** .14 .06 .14* -.02 .05 .08 -- .19 .21 -.05
9. Talk .07 .50** .36** .15* .51** .50** .47** .18* -- .25* .24*
10. QUE -.23** .17** .11 .08 .05 .17 .09 .30** .25** -- .04
11. Class -.21** .21* .31** .19 .09 .18** .20 .11 .41** .28* --
Note. Elementary sample (n=87) is shown above the diagonal; Middle school sample (n=248) is shown below the
diagonal. Score=cumulative assessment in mathematics; Mastery=Mastery goal orientation;
Per-Ap=Performance-approach goal orientation; Per-Av=Performance-avoidance goal orientation;
BEH=Behavioral engagement; EMO=Emotional Engagement; COG=Cognitive Engagement; REA= my teacher
asks me to give reasons for my answers; TALK= During math I talk with my classmates about how to solve
problems; QUE= my teacher encourages me to ask questions; CLASS= I learn from my classmates.
*p<.05; **p<.01
136
137
about how to solve problems in mathematics than high-achieving elementary
students.
At the middle school level students’ goal orientation was correlated to
several variables not found at the elementary level. Students’ mastery goals
and their performance-approach goals showed a medium, positive and
significant correlation between the two variables (r= .44, p<0.01) and
mastery goals showed a small significant correlation to
performance-avoidance goals as well (r= .18, p<0.05). This finding implies
middle school students with high mastery goals also espoused high
performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals as well. Since this
finding was only at the middle school level, middle school students were
more likely to espouse multiple goals than elementary students.
Additionally, middle school mastery goals were correlated to several
teaching practices, “talking with classmates” (r=.50, p<0.01), “asking
questions” (r=.17, p<0.01) and “learn from classmates” (r=.21, p<0.05).
These findings indicate that students who espouse mastery goals were more
likely to perceive the following standard-based teaching practices: (1) I learn
from my classmates, (2) I talk with my classmates about how to solve
problems, and (3) My teacher encourages me to ask questions.
138
. Performance-approach goals were correlated to several variables with only
middle school level. Behavioral, (r=.25, p<0.01), emotional (r=.33, p<0.01)
and cognitive engagement (r=.35, p<0.01) showed a medium positive and
significant relationship. This finding suggests performance-approach goals
may have adaptive patterns of behavior for Latino English language students
in the middle school only. A significant positive relationship was also found
between performance-approach goals and the teaching practice “talk with
classmates” (r= .31, p<0.01) and “learn from classmates” (r=.36, p<0.01).
This implies students who perceive these teaching practices may be
influenced to adopt performance-approach goals. Examination of the
relationship between performance-avoidance goals and
performance-approach goals showed a moderate, positive and significant
correlation between the two variables (r=.41, p<0.01). This finding suggests
at the middle school level students who espouse performance-approach goals
are also likely to espouse performance-avoidance goals. Overall, middle
school students may espouse multiple goals in the classroom.
At the elementary school level student achievement was found to be
correlated with mastery goals. This was not found at the middle school level.
The relationship between mastery goals and achievement showed a medium,
positive and significant correlation (r= .36, p<0.01). This finding
139
suggests at the elementary school level mastery goals are positively
correlated with academic achievement. Unlike the middle school, elementary
students did not show significant relationships between goal orientations.
Although the relationship between goals was positive it was not significant.
This finding suggests elementary students are more likely to perceive
one-dimensional goals where as middle schools goals are multidimensional.
A point of interest was a negative correlation was found between
performance-avoidance goals, engagement and standard-based teaching
practices with elementary school students. Behavioral engagement (r= -0.03),
emotional engagement (r= -0.11), and cognitive engagement (r= -0.14) were
negatively correlated with performance-avoidance goals. This finding
suggests performance-avoidance goals may have maladaptive patterns of
learning for elementary school students. The relationship between
performance-avoidance goals and engagement for middle school students
was positive and significant for emotional (r=0.14, p<0.05) and cognitive
engagement (r=0.13, p>0.05), but not significant for behavioral engagement
(r=0.01).
In addition, at the elementary level performance-avoidance goals were
negatively correlated with the teaching practice “I talk with my classmates
140
about how to solve problems” (r= -.08) and “My teacher encourages me to
ask questions” (r = -.16). Although these findings are not significant it does
suggest elementary and middle school students perceive teaching practices
differently and strategies that are effective with elementary students may not
have the same effect with middle school students.
Research Question 3: Gender Differences
Is there a difference between students reported goal orientation, level of
engagement, perception of standard-based teaching practices among
gender?
In this analysis, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was
conducted to examine the effect of gender differences on student
achievement goals, engagement, and standards’ based teaching practices. A
significant effect was found for gender (Lambda (11,307) =1.976, p=.03).
Follow up One-Way ANOVA and independent-sample t-test were used to
compare the means of the two groups. Gender differences were first
measured overall, with males in one group and females in another regardless
of their grade level, followed by male and female differences examined by
grade level. An independent-sample t-test and One-way ANOVA compared
the mean scores of males and females and found a significant difference
between the means of mastery goals (p=.011). As shown in Table 12, female
141
participants (M=4.38, SD=.74) had higher mastery goals than male
participants (M=4.14, SD=.933). No significant differences (p>.05) were
found for the performance-approach and performance-avoidance variables
between males and females, although females reported higher levels of
performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals than males.
Table 12.Overall Descriptive Statistics for Variables by Gender (n=335)
Differences in males and females were also found in student
engagement. Statistically significant differences were found with cognitive
engagement (p=.01). Female students demonstrated higher cognitive
engagement than male students. Female students had a mean of 3.79
(SD=.94) and male students had a mean of 3.51 (SD=.95). No significant
differences (p>.05) were found for behavioral and emotional variables,
Female Male
(n=188) (n=147)
M SD M SD
Goal Orientation
Mastery 4.38 .74 4.14 .933
Per-App 3.18 1.1 2.96 1.1
Per-Avo 3.16 .95 2.98 1.1
Engagement
Behavior 4.10 .82 3.92 .84
Emotional 3.32 1.14 3.37 1.1
Cognitive 3.79 .94 3.51 .95
Teaching
Reasons 4.04 1.1 3.95 1.1
Questions 3.7 1.2 3.34 1.3
Solve Problems 3.63 1.3 3.58 1.3
Classmates 3.58 1.3 3.16 1.4
142
although females had higher levels of behavioral engagement, and emotional
engagement was slightly higher for males than females.
Students’ perception of teaching practices showed significant gender
differences in the variable “I learn from my classmates”. Female students
indicated a higher rate of learning from classmates than male students
(p=.004). Females had a higher mean of 3.58 (SD=1.26) as compared to
males mean of 3.16 (SD=1.4). The variable “I talk with my classmates about
how to solve problems” was also significant between gender (p=.009).
Females students indicated higher rate of talking with classmates to solve
problems (M=3.7, SD=1.2) than male students (M=3.34, SD=1.3). No
differences were found between the variables “My teacher encourages me to
ask questions” and “My teacher asks me to give reasons for my answers”.
Pearson correlation coefficient measured the strength of the linear
relationship between the predictor variables in this study (achievement goals,
engagement and standard-based teaching practices) with male and female
participants. Table 14 shows the relationship between predictor variables for
males and females. Differences between males and females are consistent
with those found in ANOVA and t-test. Correlations among variables are
consistent with previous findings, however significant differences will be
discussed in relation to males and females.
143
The relationship between performance-approach goals and mastery
goals was significant regardless of gender however the relationship was much
stronger with males (r=0.56) than female participants (r= 0.26). This suggests
males are more likely to adopt mastery and performance-approach goals
concurrently. Male participants showed a small positive and significant
relationship among performance-avoidance goals and emotional engagement
(r=0.22, p<0.01) and cognitive engagement (r=0.18, p<0.05). No significant
relationship was found between performance-avoidance goals and
engagement variables among females. Although the relationship to
performance-avoidance goals was small, it shows a difference in how male
perceive goals and how those goals relate to their engagement. Generally
speaking performance goals may be more adaptive for males than females.
Although performance-approach goals were positively related to
emotional, behavioral and cognitive engagement across samples, the
relationship was stronger with males than females. The correlation between
performance-approach goals and student achievement was higher with males
(r=0.16) than females (r=.09).Achievement was negatively correlated with
performance-avoidance goals for females (r= -.14) but positive for males
(r=.04). This finding suggests performance goals may be more adaptive for
males than females.
Table 13. Zero-order Correlations for Girls and Boys
Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1.Score -- .22*` .16 .04 .30** .24** .44** -.16 .02 -.33** -.30**
2. Mastery .21** -- .56** .18* .55** .63** .66** .17* .47** .20* .18*
3. Per-App .09 .26** -- .41** .24** .49** .46** .18* .33* .20* .18*
4. Per-Avo -.14 .16* .30** -- -.051 .22** .18* .16 .11 .01 .15
1. BEH .32** .56** .20** .07 -- .48** .53** -.07 .37** -.001 .05
2. EMO .33** .52** .31** .04 .53** -- .69** .19** .44** .16* .16*
3. COG .36** .60** .28** .02 .55** .69** -- .16 .40 .09
4. REA -.13 .10 .01 .09 .01 -.01 .08 -- .21 .44** .28**
5. Talk .04 .31** .21** .04 .43** .36** .32** .15* -- .25** .28*
6. QUE -.04 .11 .04 .00 .04 .13 .08 .13 .25** -- .25*
7. Class -.18** .00 .24** .13 -.02 .06 .12 .03 .40** .16* --
Note. Male sample (n=147) is shown above the diagonal; Female sample (n=188) is shown below the diagonal. Note:
All scores are scaled scores. Score=cumulative assessment in mathematics; Mastery=Mastery goal orientation;
Per-Ap=Performance-approach goal orientation; Per-Av=Performance-avoidance goal orientation; BEH=Behavioral engagement;
EMO=Emotional Engagement; COG=Cognitive Engagement; REA= my teacher asks me to give reasons
for my answers; TALK= During math I talk with my classmates about how to solve problems; QUE= my teacher
encourages me to ask questions; CLASS= I learn from my classmates.
144
145
Gender Differences by Grade Levels. Table 13 shows descriptive
statistics for measures by level of school and gender. Although differences in
mastery goals were significant between male and female participants overall,
with females espousing higher level of mastery goals than males, descriptive
analysis by grade level showed fourth grade males mastery goals (M=4.61,
SD=.45) were slightly higher than female fourth grade students (M=4.58,
SD=.63) and this difference was not significant. Higher mastery goals were
only significant at the middle school level.
At the elementary level, females performance-approach goals
(M=3.54, SD=1.2) was slightly lower than males (M=3.57, SD=1.1). The
same is true of performance-avoidance goals with females having a lower
mean of 3.26 (SD=1.1) than males mean of 3.34 (SD=1.1). However at the
middle school level, females espoused higher performance goals than males,
this finding suggests that during the transition period of elementary to middle
school females adopt more performance goals than males. This may be due to
the changes in the school environment as well as social and cultural
influences that may impact the goals females adopt in the classroom. In the
4
th
grade statistically significant difference was found between males and
females among the teaching practice “I learn from my classmates” T (85)
=2.296, p<.05, with females having a higher mean of 3.67 (SD=1.4) than
Table 14. Descriptive Statistics for Measures by Level of School and Gender
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Goal Measure
Mastery 4.61 .45 4.58 .63 3.91 1.0 4.34 .755 4.02 .91 4.27 .78
Per-Ap 3.57 1.1 3.54 1.2 2.68 1.1 2.91 1.09 2.75 1.1 3.27 .89
Per-Av 3.34 1.1 3.26 1.1 2.97 .91 3.06 .95 2.53 1.2 3.2 .88
Engagement
BEH 4.23 .71 4.29 .78 3.72 .84 3.99 .817 3.93 .88 4.08 .84
EMO 4.20 .83 3.95 1.2 3.19 .97 3.11 1.06 2.7 .90 3.12 1.1
COG 4.28 .60 4.31 .96 3.25 .92 3.58 .92 3.12 .84 3.67 .82
Teaching
practices
REA 4.21 1.0 4.24 1.0 3.97 .98 4.05 1.1 3.59 1.3 3.87 1.2
Talk 3.48 1.4 3.76 1.2 3.39 .1.2 3.6 1.2 3.09 1.2 3.78 1.1
QUE 3.60 1.5 3.71 1.4 3.61 1.3 3.48 1.3 3.49 1.3 3.78 1.0
Class 2.93 1.6 3.67 1.4 3.14 3.1 3.45 1.3 3.49 1.2 3.7 1.1
Score 78.60 16.2 78.5 16.0 59.5 22. 62.23 17.53 59.0 17.01 59.95 13.4
Note: All scores are scaled scores. Score=cumulative assessment in mathematics; Mastery=Mastery goal orientation;
Per-Ap=Performance-approach goal orientation; Per-Av=Performance-avoidance goal orientation; BEH=Behavioral
engagement; EMO=Emotional Engagement; COG=Cognitive Engagement; REA= my teacher asks me to give reasons for my
answers; TALK= During math I talk with my classmates about how to solve problems; QUE= my teacher encourages me to
ask questions; CLASS= I learn from my classmates.
Measure
4
th
Grade 7
th
Grade 8
th
Grade
Males(n=42) Female (n=45) Males (n=70) Females (n=83) Males (n=35) Females (n=60)
146
147
males mean of 2.93 (SD=1.6). No significant differences were found between
goal orientation, engagement or achievement in mathematics among fourth
grade males and females.
In the 7
th
grade statistically significant differences were found
between males and females with regard to goal orientation and engagement.
A statistically significant difference was found with mastery goals T (151)
=2.895, p<.05, with females having a higher mean of 4.34 (SD=.76) than
males mean of 3.91 (SD=1.0). No differences were found between
performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals. Statistically
significant differences were found with behavioral engagement between
males and females T (151) =2.004, p<.05, females had a higher mean of 3.99
(SD=.82) than males mean of 3.72 (SD=.84). In addition a statistically
significant difference was found with cognitive engagement between males
and females T (151) = 2.225, p<.05, females had a higher mean of 3.58
(SD=.92) than males mean of 3.25 (SD=.92). No significant differences were
found between emotional engagement, teaching practices, or mathematics
achievement among seventh grade students.
In the 8
th
grade statistically significant differences were found
between males and females with regard to goal orientation, engagement, and
148
teaching practices. Statistically significant differences were found in
performance-approach goals T (93) =2.539, p<.05, females had a higher
mean of 3.27 (SD=.89) than males mean of 2.75 (SD=1.1). In addition a
statistically significant difference was found with performance-avoidance
goals between males and females T (93) =3.204, p<.05, females had a higher
mean of 3.21 (SD=.88) than males mean of 2.53 (SD=1.2). No significant
differences were found between mastery goals among males and females in
the eighth grade. With regards to engagement a statistically significant
difference was found with cognitive engagement between males and females
T (93) = 3.114, p<.05, females had a higher mean of 3.58 (SD=.92) than
males mean of 3.25 (SD=.92). No significant differences were found between
emotional or behavioral engagement. The teaching practice “I talk with my
classmate about how to solve problems” was found to have a statistically
significant difference between males and females T (93) = 2.853, p<.05,
females had a higher mean of 3.39 (SD=1.2) than males mean of 3.25
(SD=1.2). There were no differences in achievement among males and
females in the eighth grade.
As shown in Figure 5 there were differences at the middle school
level between males (n=105) and females (n=143) across grades by gender.
overtime girls’ mastery goals decrease slightly whereas mastery goals drop
149
Figure 5. Gender & Goal Orientation: 4th, 7th and 8th Grade
Groups
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5
4th 7th 8th
Mean
Mastery Male
Mastery Female
Per-Ap Male
Per-Ap Female
Per-Av Male
Per-Av Femal
As shown in Figure 5 there were differences at the middle school
level between males (n=105) and females (n=143) across grades by gender.
Overtime girls’ mastery goals decrease slightly whereas mastery goals drop
sharply for males from the fourth to the seventh grade. Performance-approach
goals drop in the seventh grade and increase in the eighth grade for both male
and females. Males performance-approach goals decrease more than females
in the seventh grade, and females performance-approach goals increase more
than males in the eighth grade. Performance-avoidance goals remain
somewhat stable over time for female participants. Males
performance-avoidance goals drop from the 4
th
to the 7
th
grade and continue
150
to decrease by the 8
th
grade. These findings contradict research findings that
suggest middle school students espouse higher performance goals (approach
and avoidance) than elementary students.
Figure 6 shows how the level of engagement shifts across the
transition from elementary to middle school. Emotional engagement had the
biggest decline from 4
th
grade to 8
th
grade among male students (-1.5). Male
students in the fourth grade had a mean of 4.2 (SD=.83), seventh grade mean
was 3.19 (SD=.97) and eighth grade mean reached a low of 2.7 (SD=.90).
Figure 6. Gender and Engagement: 4th, 7th and 8th Grade Groups
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.1
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.1
4.3
4.5
4th 7th 8th
Mean
Beh Males
Beh Female
Emo Male
Emo Female
Cog Male
Cog Female
In addition, cognitive engagement also declined similarly to
emotional engagement for male participants. This is important because
151
zero-order Pearson product correlation found a significant and positive strong
correlation between emotional and cognitive engagement (r= .68, p<.01).
Among male participants in the fourth grade cognitive engagement was
highest with a mean of 4.28 (SD=.60) by seventh grade the mean score was
3.25 (SD=.92) and by eight grade the mean was 3.12 (SD= .84). Behavioral
engagement seems somewhat stable for females across grade levels, however
emotional and cognitive engagement drops sharply among females across
grades. Statistically significant difference was found between behavioral
engagement for males and females in the middle school F(1,246) = 4.904,
p=.028. As shown in Figure 6, females in the middle school had higher
behavioral engagement (M=4.03, SD= 823) than male students (M=3.79,
SD=.852).
Overall Motivational Findings
Is there a relationship between Latino English language learners’ academic
achievement in mathematics and their reported goal orientation, level of
engagement, and perception of standard-based teaching practices?
To answer this question the following measures were conducted: (1)
simple linear regression, was calculated for each individual variable, (2)
cluster liner regression was measured for all dimensions of goal orientation
and levels of engagement, and (3) multiple regression was calculated to
152
examine the relationship between the dependent variable of achievement in
mathematics and the predictor variables of grade levels (4
th
, 7
th
, and 8
th
),
gender, mastery, performance-approach and performance-avoidance goal
orientation, behavioral, emotional and cognitive engagement, and
standard-based teaching practices.
Linear Regression Model. In the first analysis a simple linear
regression was calculated for each grade level to show the prediction of one
variable from another. Each predictor variable was entered individually as the
independent variable to explain the dependent variable of mathematics
achievement. In addition the goal orientation dimensions of (a) mastery, (b)
performance-approach, and (c) performance-avoidance were combined to
examine the impact of goal orientation on student achievement. The
engagement levels of (a) behavioral, (b) emotional, and (c) cognitive were
combined to determine how much variance is a result of engagement in class.
Standard-based teaching practices were not combined as early analysis of the
Cronbach’s alpha found this scale to be weakly correlated. Each
standard-based teaching practice was measured as an individual item. The
results are reported as R Square the correlation coefficient, because it
explains the amount of variance in the dependent variable (mathematics
153
achievement) with the predictor variables (independent variable) in the
model.
Elementary School Linear Regression. Among 4
th
grade students, overall R
square value was shown the greatest with combined engagement predictors
which accounts for 19% of the variance. Table 15 shows the linear regression
model summary for all predictors and the predicted variable.
Table 15. 4
th
Grade Linear Regression Model Summary Findings for all Predictor
Variables for Mathematics Achievement
Predictor Model R
R
Square
Adjusted
R Square
Std.
Error of
the
Estimate
Goal Orientation Predictors:
Mastery .332
a
.110 .100 16.35
Performance-Approach .074
a
.005 -.006 16.30
Performance-Avoid .017
a
.000 -.011 16.35
Combined Goal Orientation Predictors (a) .359 .129 .097 15.44
Engagement Predictors:
Behavioral .412
b
.170 .160 14.90
Emotional .183
b
.034 .022 16.10
Cognitive .304
b
.092 .082 15.57
Combined Engagement Predictors (b) .434 .189 .159 14.90
Standard-based Teaching:
Reasons .173
c
.030 .018 16.10
Talk .118
c
.014 .002 16.23
Questions .122
c
.015 .003 16.22
Classmates .325
c
.106 .095 15.46
All Predictors: Combined Goal Orientation,
Combined Engagement and Practices (c) .569 .324 .235 14.22
Note. (a) Predictors: Mastery, Performance-Approach, Performance-Avoid, (b) Predictors:
Behavioral, Emotional, Cognitive, (c) Predictors: Mastery, Performance-Approach,
Performance-Avoid, Behavioral, Emotional, Cognitive and Reasons for Answers, Talking
with Classmates, Asking Questions and Learn from Classmates.
Dependent Variable: Mathematics Achievement
154
Behavioral engagement accounted for 17% of the variance and
combined goal orientation predictors accounted for 13%, followed by
mastery goals with 11% and Learn from Classmates with 11% of the
variance. Cognitive engagement explained 9% of the variance and emotional
engagement explained 3% of the variance. Combined goal orientation
(mastery, performance-approach and performance-avoidance) explained 13%
of the variance. Overall the predictors in this study explained 32% of the
variance in mathematics achievement with an adjusted R square of 24%. The
adjusted R Square is used because R Square may overestimate the true
variance, therefore the model accounts for 32-24% of the variance. Linear
regression R Square value for all of the predictor variables among 4
th
grade
students in this study is shown in Figure 7.
Middle School Linear Regression: 7
th
Grade. Among 7
th
grade
students, overall R square value was shown the greatest with the teaching
practice “Learn from classmates” which accounts for 9% of the variance.
Table 16 shows the linear regression model summary for all predictors and
the predicted variable. Cognitive engagement accounted for 8% of the
variance followed by “Asking Questions” accounted for 7%, “Reasons for
answers” with 6% and behavioral engagement with 4% of the variance.
Figure 7: 4
th
Grade Regression R Square Values for All Predictor Variables for Mathematics Achievement
.09
.01
.03
.11 .02
.00
.17
.03
.01
.11
Reasons
Talk
Behavioral
Goal
Orientation
Performance
Avoidance
Mathematics
Achievement
All Predictor
Variables
Engagement
Variables
Performance
Approach
Classmates Questions
Emotional
Mastery
Cognitive
.19
.13
.32
155
156
Performance-avoidance goal orientation accounted for 2% of the variance
and mastery goals explained 1%. Combined engagement explained 8%,
whereas combined goal orientation predictors explained 4% of variance.
Overall the predictors in this study explained 26% of the variance in
mathematics achievement with an adjusted R square of 21%, the model
accounts for 26-21% of the variance. Linear regression R Square value for all
of the predictor variables in this study is shown in Figure 7.
Table 16. 7
th
Grade Linear Regression Model Summary Findings for all Predictor
Variables for Mathematics Achievement
Predictor Model R
R
Square
Adjusted
R
Square
Std.
Error of
the
Estimate
Goal Orientation Predictors:
Mastery .093
a
.009 .002 19.66
Performance-Approach .026
a
.001 -.006 19.74
Performance-Avoid .156
a
.024 .018 19.50
Combined Goal Orientation Predictors (a) .209 .044 .024 19.44
Engagement Predictors:
Behavioral .199
b
.040 .033 19.35
Emotional .148
b
.022 .015 19.54
Cognitive .280
b
.079 .072 18.95
Combined Engagement Predictors (b) .290 .084 .065 19.02
Standard-based Teaching:
Reasons .243
c
.059 .053 19.15
Talk .008
c
.000 -.007 19.74
Questions .265
c
.070 .064 19.04
Classmates .303
c
.092 .085 18.82
All Predictors: Combined Goal Orientation,
Combined Engagement and Practices (c) .513 .263 .209 17.50
Note. (a) Predictors: Mastery, Performance-Approach, Performance-Avoid, (b) Predictors:
Behavioral, Emotional, Cognitive, (c) Predictors: Mastery, Performance-Approach,
Performance-Avoid, Behavioral, Emotional, Cognitive and Reasons for Answers, Talking
with Classmates, Asking Questions and Learn from Classmates. Dependent Variable: M
Dependent Variable: Mathematics Achievement
Figure 8: 7
th
Grade Regression R Square Values for All Predictor Variables for Mathematics Achievement
.08
.00
.06
.09
.07
.02
.04
.02
.00
.01
Reasons
Talk
Behavioral
Goal
Orientation
Performance
Avoidance
Mathematics
Achievement
All Predictor
Variables
Engagement
Variables
Performance
Approach
Classmates Questions
Emotional
Mastery
Cognitive
.08
.04
.26
157
158
Middle School Linear Regression: 8
th
Grade As shown in Figure 8,
among 8
th
grade students, overall R square value was shown the greatest with
combined engagement predictors which accounts for 12% of the variance.
Table 17 shows the linear regression model summary for all predictors and
the predicted variable. Behavioral engagement accounted for 6% of the
variance and cognitive engagement accounted for 5%, followed by talking
with classmates with 4%, and reasons for answers with 3%.
Table 17. 8
th
Grade Linear Regression Model Summary Findings for all Predictor Variables
for Mathematics Achievement
Predictor Model R
R
Square
Adjusted
R Square
Std. Error
of the
Estimate
Goal Orientation Predictors:
Mastery .092
a
.009 -.003 14.80
Performance-Approach .117
a
.014 .003 14.76
Performance-Avoid .094
a
.009 -.002 14.80
Combined Goal Orientation Predictors (a) .199 .039 .006 14.75
Engagement Predictors:
Behavioral .239
b
.057 .046 14.44
Emotional .052
b
.003 -.009 14.85
Cognitive .228
b
.052 .041 14.47
Combined Engagement Predictors (b) .342 .117 .086 14.13
Standard-based Teaching:
Reasons .180
c
.032 .021 14.68
Talk .200
c
.040 .029 14.57
Questions .135
c
.018 .007 14.73
Classmates .056
c
.003 -.008 14.84
All Predictors: Combined Goal Orientation,
Combined Engagement and Practices (c) .467 .218 .118 13.95
Note. (a) Predictors: Mastery, Performance-Approach, Performance-Avoid, (b) Predictors:
Behavioral, Emotional, Cognitive, (c) Predictors: Mastery, Performance-Approach,
Performance-Avoid, Behavioral, Emotional, Cognitive and Reasons for Answers, Talking
with Classmates, Asking Questions and Learn from Classmates.
Dependent Variable: Mathematics Achievement
159
Combined goal orientation explained 4% of the variance, with each goal
orientation accounting for only 1% of the variance. Overall the predictors in
this study explained 22% of the variance in mathematics achievement with
an adjusted R square of 12%. Therefore the model accounts for 22-12% of
the variance. Linear regression R Square value for all of the predictor
variables in this study is shown in Figure 9.
Multiple Linear Regression Model. Multiple linear regression (MLR)
was used to determine the ability of goal orientation, engagement, teaching
practices, grade level, and gender to predict Latino English learner students’
mathematics achievement. This study analyzed the three domains of goal
orientation (mastery, performance-approach, and performance avoidance),
three levels of engagement (emotional, cognitive, and emotional) the four
types of teaching practices (my teacher encourages me to ask questions, I
learn from my classmates, I talk with classmates about how to solve
problems, and my teacher asks me to give reasons for my answers), the three
grade levels (fourth, seventh, eighth) and gender, as they predicted the
dependent variable of mathematics achievement. The dummy variable was
entered for male thus female was used as the reference category. The results
of the model are reported with R Square, to explain the amount of variance in
the dependent variable that is explained by the independent variables.
Figure 9: 8
th
Grade Regression R Square Values for All Predictor Variables for Mathematics Achievement
.05
.04
.03
.00 .02
.01
.06
.00
.01
.01
Reasons
Talk
Behavioral
Goal
Orientation
Performance
Avoidance
Mathematics
Achievement
All Predictor
Variables
Engagement
Variables
Performance
Approach
Classmates Questions
Emotional
Mastery
Cognitive
.12
.04
.22
160
161
Standardized and un-standardized beta coefficients report the amount of
change in the dependent variable with a unit of change in the independent
variable. A multiple linear regression was conducted at each grade level with
the enter method used to simultaneously input all variables.
Elementary School Multiple Linear Regression. Table 18 shows the
predictor variables entered into the model and presents the results of the
regression analysis. Among 4
th
grade students a significant model emerged:
F(11,74)=4.089, p<.000. The global significance is evaluated using the F test
(ANOVA). The F statistic was highly significant.
Table 18. 4
th
Grade Multiple Regression Analysis.
Model Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig
Regression 8238.344 11 748.940 4.089 .000*
Residual 13555.110 74 183.177
Total 21793.453 85
The model adequacy was measured using the R square value. Table 19
displays the significance of regression coefficients using the t-test. The
regression coefficients with p value (observed significance) less than 0.05 are
considered significant. Thus gender, mastery, performance-approach, and
performance-avoidance goal orientation, emotional and cognitive
engagement and the teaching practices, talk with classmates, give reasons,
and ask questions do not show a significant influence upon the dependent
162
variable in this study. Significant regression coefficients were found for
behavioral engagement, and learning from classmates. The B score shows the
direction of the relationship and the value of change for mathematics
achievement with an increase of unit by the predictor variable. Therefore
with a unit increase in behavior, mathematics achievement will increase be
6.212 units. Mathematics achievement will decrease by 2.823 with a unit
increase in the teaching practice, I learn from my classmates.
Table 19. 4
th
Grade Multiple Regression Coefficient Findings for all Predictor
Variables for Mathematics Achievement
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Predictor Model B Std. Error Beta T Sig.
(Constant) 51.733 16.657 3.106 .003*
Mastery 4.323 3.837 .144 1.127 .263
Performance-Approach -.945 1.420 -.066 -.665 .508
Performance-Avoid -.071 1.512 -.005 -.047 .963
Behavioral
Engagement 6.212 2.335 .287 2.660 .010*
Emotional Engagement .704 1.864 .045 .377 .707
Cognitive Engagement 2.226 2.577 .112 .864 .390
Give Reasons -2.867 1.548 -.181 -1.852 .068
Talk with Classmates -.720 1.239 -.059 -.581 .563
Ask Questions -1.006 1.109 -091 -.908 .367
Learn from Classmates -2.823 1.052 -.270 -2.683 .009*
Dummy Male -1.813 3.081 -.057 -.588 .558
Note. Dependent Variable: Mathematics Achievement; Female was taken as the reference
category.
* p < .05.
Table 20 shows R square value of 0.378, thus 37.8% variability in the score
can be explained by the model. The Adjusted R Square for this model is
163
0.286 or 28.6%, therefore this model explains between 38%-29% of variance
in mathematics achievement.
Table 20. 4
th
Grade Multiple Regression Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted
R Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .615 .378 .286 13.53
Middle School Multiple Linear Regression: 7
th
Grade. Table 21
shows the predictor variables entered into the model and presents the results
of the regression analysis. Among 7
th
grade students a significant model
emerged: F(10,137) = 4.894, p < .000. The global significance is evaluated
using the F test (ANOVA). The F statistic is highly significant. The
suggested model was able to explain the variability in the dependent variable.
Table 21. 7
th
Grade Multiple Regression Analysis
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F
Sig.
Regression 14978.296 10 1497.830 4.894
.000*
Residual 41930.643 137 306.063
Total 56908.939 147
The model adequacy was measured using the R square value. Table 22
displays the significance of regression coefficients using the t-test. The
regression coefficients with p-value (observed significance) less than 0.05 are
considered significant. Thus gender, mastery, performance-approach, and
performance-avoidance goal orientation, emotional and behavioral
engagement and the teaching practices, talk with classmates, and ask
164
questions do not show a significant influence upon the dependent variable in
this study. Significant regression coefficients were found for cognitive
engagement, give reasons, and learn from classmates. The B score shows
the direction of the relationship and the value of change for mathematics
achievement with an increase of unit by the predictor variable. Thus among
the significant variables with a unit increase in cognitive engagement,
mathematics achievement will increase by 6.184 units. Mathematics
achievement will decrease by 3.408 with a unit increase in the teaching
practice, give reasons for my answers, and achievement will decrease by
4.151 with a unit increase in the teaching practice, learn from my classmates.
Table 22. 7
th
Grade Multiple Regression Coefficient Findings for all Predictor Variables
for Mathematics Achievement.
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Predictor Model B Std. Error Beta T Sig.
(Constant) 74.112 10.088 7.347 .000*
Mastery -1.469 2.523 -.068 -.582 .561
Performance-Approach 1.704 1.745 .094 .977 .331
Performance-Avoid -1.953 1.784 -.093 -1.094 .276
Behavioral Engagement 1.597 2.538 .068 .629 .530
Emotional Engagement -.115 2.041 -.006 -.056 .955
Cognitive Engagement 6.184 2.364 .291 2.616 .010*
Give Reasons -3.408 1.581 -.175 -2.155 .033*
Talk with Classmates .294 1.542 .018 .191 .849
Ask Questions -1.836 1.296 -.121 -1.417 .159
Learn from Classmates -4.151 1.287 -.277 -3.224 .002*
Dummy Male -1.674 3.082 -.042 -.543 .588
Note. Dependent Variable: Mathematics Achievement; Female was taken as the reference
category.
* p < .05.
165
Table 23 shows R square value of 0.263, thus 26.3% variability in the score
can be explained by the model. The Adjusted R Square for this model is
0.209 or 20.9%, therefore this model explains between 26%-21% of variance
in mathematics achievement.
Table 23. 7
th
Grade Multiple Regression Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted
R Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .513 .263 .209 17.495
Middle School Multiple Linear Regression: 8
th
Grade. Table 24
shows the predictor variables entered into the model and presents the results
of the regression analysis. Among 8
th
grade students a significant model
emerged: F(11,77) = 1.956, p < .05. The global significance is evaluated
using the F test (ANOVA). The F statistic is highly significant. The
suggested model was able to explain the variability in the dependent variable.
Table 24. 8
th
Grade Multiple Regression Analysis
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F
Sig.
Regression 4231.998 11 384.727 1.956
.045
Residual 15146.249 77 196.705
Total 19378.247 88
The model adequacy was measured using the R square value. Table
25 displays the significance of regression coefficients tested using the t-test.
The regression coefficients with p-value (observed significance) less than
166
0.05 are considered significant. Thus gender, mastery,
performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goal orientation, and
behavioral engagement and the teaching practices do not show a
significant influence upon the dependent variable in this study. The variables
cognitive and emotional engagement, were significant for achievement in the
eighth grade. The B score shows the direction of the relationship and the
value of change for mathematics achievement with an increase of unit by the
predictor variable. Therefore with a unit increase in cognitive engagement,
mathematics achievement will increase be 5.695 units. Achievement will
decrease by 4.826 with a unit increase in emotional engagement.
Table25. 8
th
Grade Multiple Regression Coefficient Findings for all Predictor
Variables
for Mathematics Achievement
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Predictor Model B Std. Error Beta T Sig.
(Constant) 54.121 10.088 4.147 .000*
Mastery -1.174 2.523 -.066 -.505 .615
Performance-Approach 2.131 1.745 .140 1.192 .237
Performance-Avoid -2.095 1.784 -.148 -1.277 .205
Behavioral Engagement 2.620 2.538 .152 1.043 .300
Emotional Engagement -4.826 2.251 -.337 -2.144 .035*
Cognitive Engagement 5.695 2.706 .339 2.104 .039*
Give Reasons -2.123 1.309 -.177 -1.621 .109
Talk with Classmates 3.051 1.933 .242 1.578 .119
Ask Questions -1.636 1.422 -.126 -1.150 .254
Learn from Classmates -715 1.646 -.054 -.434 .665
Dummy Male .025 3.415 .001 .007 .994
Note. Dependent Variable: Mathematics Achievement; Female were taken as the reference
category.
* p < .05.
167
Table 26 shows R square value of 0.218, thus 21.8% variability in the score
can be explained by the model. The Adjusted R Square for this model is
0.107 or 10.7%, therefore this model explains between 22%-11% of variance
in mathematics achievement.
Table 26. 8
th
Grade Multiple Regression Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted
R Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
1 .467 .218 .107 14.025
Although goal orientation was not found to be a significant predictor
of achievement among grade levels, it is of interest to note the direction of
the relationship upon the dependent variable of achievement in this study. In
fourth grade achievement in mathematics shows a positive increase of 4.323
with a unit increase of mastery goal orientation, however in seventh grade
mathematics achievement will decrease by 1.469 units and1.174 units in the
eighth grade. Across grade levels mathematics achievement shows a decrease
with performance-avoidance goals, with .71 in the fourth grade, 1.953 in the
seventh grade and 2.095 units in the eighth grade. However among
performance-approach goals, fourth grade mathematics achievement shows a
decrease of .945 with a unit increase performance-approach goals, but
seventh and eighth grades show an increase in achievement with
168
performance-approach goals. In the seventh grade mathematics achievement
will increase by 1.704 units and 2.131 units in the eighth grade.
In summary, mathematics achievement represented the outcome
variable in this study. Predictor variables for mathematics achievement
include goal orientation (mastery, performance-approach, and
performance-avoidance) engagement (behavioral, cognitive, and emotional)
and standard-based teaching practices (reasons, questions, classmates, and
talking). MANOVA results did not find statistically significant differences
between 7
th
and 8
th
grade middle school students (p>.05) Overall differences
in achievement, mastery goals, performance-approach goals, behavioral,
cognitive and emotional engagement and the practices “My teacher asks me
to give reasons for my answers” was found to be significant between
elementary and middle school students. Gender differences were found
between elementary and middle school students, yet these differences were
more salient between genders in middle school with girls espousing higher
levels of mastery, performance-approach and performance avoidance goals
and behavioral engagement than boys. Multiple and linear regression
calculations found differences in grade levels with regards to the greatest
predictor of mathematics achievement for Latino English language students.
In the fourth grade behavioral engagement showed a significant increase in
169
mathematics achievement, whereas cognitive engagement was significant in
both 7
th
and 8
th
grade.
170
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to provide empirical data that would
examine the motivation, engagement, and perception of standard-based
teaching practices of Latino English language learners in elementary and
middle school mathematics classrooms. Motivation was defined as students’
personal achievement goal orientation and was categorized as mastery,
performance-approach and performance-avoidance. Engagement was
comprised of three indices: (1) behavioral, (2) emotional, and (3) cognitive.
Standard-based teaching practices consisted of four common teaching
practices in mathematics that included: (1) my teacher asks me to give
reasons for my answers, (2) I talk with my classmates about how to solve
problems, (3) my teacher encourages me to ask questions, and (4) I learn
from my classmates.
This study examined the degree to which Latino ELL students in the
elementary school compared and contrasted with Latino ELL middle school
students’ engagement, goal orientation, and perception of standard-based
teaching practices. Achievement scores on mathematics assessments were
examined in relation to students’ motivation, engagement and perception of
teaching practices at each grade level. Achievement was not compared
between grades since different tests were used.
171
Presently there is a gap in the literature as to how Latino ELL students
perceive their personal achievement goals in the classroom. A second literary
gap addressed in this study was to examine if gender differences exist among
students goal orientation. To date very little research has examined gender
differences in achievement goal orientation (Eccles, Wigfield, and Schiefele,
1998).Finally, the third gap in the literature explores if students’ perception of
standard-based teaching practices influences their achievement, motivation,
and engagement in mathematics. These teaching practices are frequently used
by mathematics teachers yet current research has not examined how these
practices impact students’ motivation and engagement.
This study began by analyzing demographic data of teachers and
students at participating school sites. Next, overall profiles of Latino Ell
students were examined in relation to the variables in this study. Students
were compared by grade level and gender with regard to the variables in this
study. Finally, regression analysis was conducted to determine how each
variable influenced academic achievement at the grade level. This chapter
includes: (1) research findings, (2) research limitations, (3) future research,
and (4) implications for policy and practice.
172
Motivational Profile of Latino English Language Learners in
Elementary and Middle School Mathematics Classrooms
Teacher surveys were collected at participating school sites to
determine if common demographic characteristics existed among participants
in this study. The teacher participants in this study ranged in years of
experience teaching, courses taken related to motivation, and teacher
ethnicity. Overall the results from the teacher demographic survey show a
diverse representation of teachers. All teacher participants identified their
school as a Title One School. The majority of teacher participants reported
they were Caucasian, however at the elementary level, Hispanic teachers
represented almost half of the teacher population, whereas no middle school
teachers identified themselves as Hispanic at the middle school level.
Although the ethnicity of the teacher participants were not examined in
relation to students’ motivation and engagement, future research should
examine if the ethnicity of the teacher impacts students’ motivation and
engagement in the classroom.
Student surveys were collected at two elementary middle schools and
one middle school. The school sites were selected because the majority of the
student population identified as Hispanic and at least half were English
173
language learners whose first language was Spanish. Demographic questions
on the student survey were used to identify common characteristics among
student participants and ensure only students who identified themselves as
Latino, and Spanish speaking were included in the results.
Greater than 90% of all student participants reported they were
recipients of the Free and Reduced Lunch program at their school site. This
finding indicates student participants were from low-income families.
Additionally, the majority of participants reported they were born in the
United States, and their parents were born in Mexico. Therefore the majority
of student participants were first-generation United States citizens from
immigrant families. This finding is important as results from this survey can
be generalized to students with similar characteristics.
Findings Support Mastery Goal Orientation
The goal orientation of Latino English language learners were
measured using a trichotomous framework of mastery, performance-approach
and performance-avoidance goals. Mastery goals are characterized by the
students desire to learn for understanding, improvement, and to master skills.
Mastery goals are associated with positive outcomes such as persistence,
effort, and achievement. Performance goals were divided into
performance-approach and performance-avoidance. Performance-approach
174
goals are characterized by the students need for positive feedback regarding
their ability. Negative outcomes such as challenge avoidance and positive
outcomes such as achievement and academic efficacy have been associated
with performance-approach goals (Midgley et al., 2001).
Performance-avoidance goals are characterized by the students desire to
avoid looking incompetent to their peers and teacher, and have consistently
been associated with negative outcomes such as work-avoidance and self
handicapping (Midgley & Urdan, 2001).
Descriptive statistics including mean and standard deviation
determined mastery goals were greatest among the goal orientation scales.
Literature reviewed for this study found students who adopt mastery goals
have the desire to learn and master a subject for understanding. Adaptive
patterns of learning are associated with mastery goal orientation, such as
persistence, understanding, and enjoyment for learning new things (Ames,
1992; Midgley et al., 2001).This finding implies Latino English language
learners’ who espouse mastery goals strive to improve their skills, learn as
much as they can, and develop their understanding of mathematics.
Pearson chi-square results showed mastery goals were significantly
correlated with behavioral, emotional and cognitive engagement. This finding
supports the belief that a mastery goal oriented classroom will lead to
175
increased levels of engagement. One can conclude that Latino ELL students
who espoused high mastery goals are also likely to exhibit higher levels of
behavioral, emotional and cognitive engagement in the classroom. Research
with mastery goals supports the finding that higher mastery goals are
associated with deeper cognitive processing, utilizing self-regulated
strategies, greater persistence and effort, and teacher support and interaction
(Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Meece, et al., 1998; Patrick
et al., 2007).
Additionally, mastery goals were significantly related to the teaching
practice “During mathematics I talk with my classmates about how to solve
problems”. This finding suggests students who frequently practice solving
problems with their classmates are more likely to espouse mastery goals. This
finding is supported by Epstein (1989) who identified six dimensions of the
classroom environment that are salient in a mastery oriented classroom. This
classification was coined TARGET (Ames, 1992) and includes grouping of
students to promote mastery orientation. Thus solving problems with
classroom peers was effective in promoting mastery goals among Latino
English language learners. Additionally, this teaching practice was found to
be positively correlated to behavioral, emotional and cognitive engagement.
Thus students who experience a high frequency of problem solving with their
176
classmate are likely to demonstrate higher engagement as well. Research has
suggested Latino cultures may prefer collaborative activities due to the
collectivist orientation of their culture (Garcia, 1992). In addition, the
literature reviewed for this study found students who work cooperatively
have a better attitude about learning and are more engaged in their work
(Johnson, 2008).
Performance-Approach Goals and Latino English Language learners
The results from this study demonstrate Latino ELL students do
espouse performance-approach goals in the classroom. Although the
performance-approach goals were not as strong as mastery goals, these goals
were moderately reported by participants in this survey. The literature
reviewed for this study found adaptive and maladaptive patterns of learning
associated with a performance-approach goal orientation. Some research
suggests positive outcomes such as achievement and academic efficacy are
associated with performance-approach goals (Midgley et al., 2001; Urdan,
1997), whereas other research suggests performance-approach goals are
associated with negative outcomes such as low motivation (Ames, 1992).
Although the research is unclear as to whether adaptive or maladaptive
patterns of learning are related with a performance-approach goal orientation,
the data for this study shows a significantly relationship between
177
performance-approach goals and emotional and cognitive engagement. This
finding supports the research suggesting performance-approach goals have
positive outcomes and students of different cultures and ethnicities have
different responses to performance goals. (Witkow & Fuligni, 2007; Elliot &
McGregor, 2001)
Competition and evaluation make performance-approach goals salient
in the classroom environment (Epstein, 1989). Classroom observations would
be the best method for determining if the students in this survey were
exposed to a competitive or evaluative classroom environment which is
indicative of a performance-approach environment. This survey examined
standard-based teaching practices in relation to students’ goal orientation in
hope to identify which teaching practices were associated to a specific kind
of goal orientation. Several standard-based teaching practices were found to
have a weak positive and significant relationship with performance-approach
goals. The teaching practices “I talk with my classmates about how to solve
problems”, “my teacher encourages me to ask questions”, and “I learn from
my classmates” were weakly correlated to performance-approach goals.
Since these practices were also correlated to mastery goals, it is difficult to
ascertain which practices are more influential in the adoption of goals in the
178
classroom. Future research should use qualitative measures such as
observations to determine how practices are implemented in the classrooms
and interviews to discover how students perceive these practices in relation to
their goal orientation.
Performance-avoidance Goals and Latino English Language Learners
Performance-avoidance goals have been consistent in predicting
negative patterns of learning. This type of goal orientation focuses on
avoiding negative feedback, in an attempt to avoid looking incompetent to
others. Students in this study did report somewhat moderately the adoption of
performance-avoidance goals in the classroom. This study did not find a
moderate or strong significant relationship (positive or negative) between
performance-avoidance goals and other variables in this study.
Performance-avoidance goals were not related to other variables in this study,
which may lend support to the belief that Latino ELL students’ goals are not
one-dimensional but multidimensional. Since all three types of goal
orientations were reported moderately to high by Latino Ells, this suggests
Latino Ells’ adopt multiple goals in the classroom.
Latino English Language Learners and Multiple Goals
The data from this study supports Latino ELL students adopt multiple
goals in the classroom setting. While this gives us insight into the motivation
179
of Latino students, the trichotomous goal orientation framework in this study
of mastery, performance-approach and performance avoidance goals may not
be best suited to identify the goals of Latino ELL students. Mastery goal
orientation was significantly correlated to performance-approach goals,
suggesting students who espouse mastery goals were also likely to espouse
performance-approach goals as well. Mastery goals were also positively
correlated to performance-avoidance goals. Performance-approach goals and
performance-avoidance goals were significantly correlated as well. Overall,
these findings provide some evidence that Latino English language students
adopt multiple goals in the classroom. Several studies have found a multiple
goal model to be a better predictor of student behaviors and achievement in
the classroom (Pintrich, 2000; Witkow & Fuligni, 2007).
This outcome was not surprising, as the researcher has experienced as
an elementary mathematics coach and middle school mathematics teacher,
multiple goals are emphasized to the classroom teacher and students.
Although teachers may espouse strong beliefs of effective mastery goal
orientation strategies, district and state mandate testing, administrator
expectations for accountability, as well as additional pressure at “Program
Improvement” schools, emphasize evaluation and competitive approaches to
instruction, making performance goals salient in the classroom. The goals of
180
the school and classroom teacher impact the students’ perception of
classroom goals as well.
Teachers are pressured to ensure student achievement is quantifiable
through formative and summative assessments, thus teaching to the test may
be a common practice. Teaching to the test emphasizes test taking skills and
strategies. Since students in Program Improvement schools are judged by
whether or not students in subgroups meet their target goals, teachers of
Latino Ell students may adopt evaluative and competitive classroom practices
that focus on test taking skills and basic knowledge rather than focusing on
student individual needs and higher order thinking. Thus classroom
environments may be more performance oriented as a result of pressure to
meet federal mandates. Haberman (1991) contends teaching to the test
comprises a “pedagogy of poverty” which manifests a classroom atmosphere
of student compliance with passive resentment, teacher burn out, and the
ranking of students, which results in students who are underdeveloped and
unemployable. In short, the pressure placed on teachers impacts the practices
they adopt, the goals they set for students to achieve, and ultimately students’
motivation, engagement, and achievement in the classroom.
181
Findings Support Engagement with Latino English Language Learners
The literature reviewed for this study showed student engagement to
be a significant predictor of academic achievement among minority students
(Herman & Tucker, 2000; Finn & Rock, 1997). Similarly results from
regression analyses found engagement to be a significant predictor of
academic achievement for Latino English language learners across grade
levels. In fourth grade behavioral engagement was a significant predictor of
achievement. This finding is consistent with prior research which has shown
behavioral engagement to be positively correlated to academic achievement
for elementary students (Marks 2000: Skinner, Wellborn, & Connell, 1990).
In seventh and eighth grade cognitive engagement was a significant predictor
of achievement. Research has found cognitive engagement to be correlated
with higher achievement (Boekarts et al., 2000; Zimmerman, 1990). Studies
have not examined how engagement impacts academic achievement with
Latino English language students. This study found engagement in school
was a strong predictor of academic achievement in elementary and middle
school mathematics classrooms.
Overall, engagement was moderately reported by Latino ELL students
in this survey. Among the engagement scales, higher levels of behavioral
engagement were reported than emotional or cognitive engagement. This
182
finding implies Latino English language students desire to follow the school
rules and be part of the school community. Research suggests Latino cultures
have a collectivist sense of self as they desire to be part of the larger group
and feel as though they belong (Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999). However, the
fact that behavioral engagement was the highest among engagement
measures in a mathematics classroom suggests classroom teaching may focus
more on following directions and instruction, than understanding abstract
concepts and constructing knowledge. Students may be expected to act as
passive recipients of information rather than active participants. If instruction
was focused on higher order thinking, developing ideas or problem solving,
cognitive and emotional engagement would be higher than behavioral
engagement. Numerous studies have found schools serving disadvantaged or
lower-achieving students often devote less time and emphasis to higher order
thinking skills than do schools serving more advantaged students (Allington
& McGill-Franzen, 1989; Coley & Hoffman, 1990; Padron & Waxman,
1993).
Emotional engagement was the lowest among engagement indices.
This is important as national longitudinal survey results reveal Latino
students who dropout site school-related reasons such as “couldn’t get along
with teachers” more than any other reason (NCES, 1995). Furthermore,
183
theorists believe alienation from school and social isolation are factors
associated with school dropout (Finn 1989; Newmann, 1981). In addition,
emotional engagement showed the strongest relationship in this study to
cognitive engagement.
Research with cognitive engagement has shown to be strongly related
to achievement in school. Since this study found emotional and cognitive
engagement to be strongly correlated, classrooms which emphasize emotional
engagement may lead to an increase in students’ cognitive engagement.
Students who feel supported and cared for may be more likely to exert the
effort necessary to comprehend complex ideas and use self-regulated learning
strategies, factors associated with cognitive engagement (Patrick, et al.,
2007).
Engagement indices were strongly correlated among each other
suggesting students who have high behavioral engagement were more likely
to have high emotional and cognitive engagement as well. Engagement
indices were also significantly and strongly correlated with mastery goal
orientation, moderately correlated to performance-approach goals, and
weakly correlated with performance-avoidance goal orientation. This finding
supports the research that mastery goals lead to deeper processing, more
effective use of learning strategies, interest and sophistication in problem
184
solving and is associated with teacher support and school-belonging (Ames &
Archer, 1988; Elliot & Dweck, 1988; Ryan & Patrick, 2001).
Among the standard-based teaching practices, “I talk with my
classmates about how to solve problems” showed the highest significant
relationship with engagement overall. This is important as behavioral,
emotional and cognitive engagement were found to have a significant
relationship to achievement in this study. This finding implies that talking
with classmates about how to solve problems will enhance Latino ELL
students’ engagement and may lead to an increase in achievement in
mathematics, as achievement was significantly correlated to engagement.
Across grade levels achievement was found to be negatively
correlated to several teaching practices. The practices “My teacher asks me to
give reasons for my answers” and “During math, I learn from my classmates”
were negatively correlated to achievement for elementary and middle school
students. Students with higher achievement in mathematics were less likely to
report learning from their classmates and being asked reasons for answers in
mathematics, whereas students with lower achievement in mathematics were
more likely to report learning from their classmates and being asked reasons
for their answers in mathematics.
185
Since students with higher achievement were less likely to report
“During math I learn from my classmates” this finding implies students may
not be grouped with equal ability peers, rather they work with peers they
must tutor or help to accomplish a task. Cooperative learning practices
emphasize students are grouped homogenously to ensure students learn from
one another and share strategies in a challenging and cooperative
environment (Johnson, 2008). With heterogeneous grouping peer tutoring
may occur as high achieving students must assist low achieving students to
accomplish tasks. Peer tutoring may also promote performance goals since
students who are perceived as competent tutor, and students who lack ability
listen, thus in this type of setting students perceive intelligence as fixed and
unalterable and outcomes are attributed to one’s ability rather than effort. In
addition, low achieving students may be less inclined to engage in classroom
activities since they do not believe they can master a skill with hard work and
effort.
Low achieving students were also more likely to report “My teacher
asks me to give reasons for my answers” than high achieving students. This
finding suggests teachers use this practice to evaluate students thinking when
they answer incorrectly, rather than as a way to promote classroom
discussion and deepen students’ understanding. If high achieving students
186
reported they were asked reasons for their answers this would suggest the
teacher uses this practice to enhance students understanding of mathematics
and promote higher-level thinking. Furthermore, teachers should ask students
how they found their answer, not to evaluate what they know, but to model
metacognitive strategies that promote classroom discussion about solutions,
allow students to self-correct their mistakes, and understand underlining
procedures and algorithms. In addition at the middle school level, this
teaching practice was significantly correlated to performance-avoidance goal
orientation. This suggests teachers who use this strategy promote
performance-avoidance goals. If students perceive this practice to be as
evaluative, rather than reflective, they will be discouraged from mastering the
concept and adopt performance-avoidance goals.
In summary, the motivation of elementary and middle school Latino
English learners was found to be mastery oriented as students strive to be
successful in school, master the concepts and improve their skills. High levels
of behavioral engagement shows students are willing to follow the school
rules, and pay attention in class, whereas lower levels of emotional
engagement suggest students may not feel supported by the teachers and feel
a sense of school belonging.
187
Although mastery goals were rated highest among Latino ELL’s,
performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals were also salient in
the classroom. In addition mastery goals were moderately correlated to
performance-approach goals and weakly correlated to
performance-avoidance goals suggesting the classroom environment for
Latino English language students is a dynamic environment that emphasizes
not only the importance of learning for understanding and improvement
(mastery) but a competitive environment that emphasizes outperforming
other (performance-approach) and avoiding looking incompetent to their
peers (performance-avoidance).
Among the standard-based teaching practices, Latino English learners
reported being asked the reasons for their answers the greatest, however this
practice was associated with a decrease in student achievement and was
correlated to performance-avoidance goals indicating students perceive this
practice as evaluative and may cause students to adopt
performance-avoidance goals. Among all the teaching practices examined,
the practice, “I talk with my classmates about how to solve problems” was
shown to have the strongest correlation to mastery goals as well as behavioral,
cognitive and emotional engagement. Surprisingly, students who reported “I
learn from my classmates” were more likely to have lower achievement, and
188
higher performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals. This
finding suggests students are grouped heterogeneously which may cause
low-achieving students to perceive intelligence to be based on ability, and
adopt performance goals.
Comparing Goal Orientation of Latino English Language Learners in
Grades
The data from this study found elementary students in the 4
th
grade
exhibited significantly higher mastery goals than students in the 7
th
and 8
th
grade. This finding is consistent with previous research. Linear regression R
square values found the mastery goal orientation predictor variable accounted
for approximately eleven percent variance in mathematics achievement with
fourth-grade students. At the elementary school level student achievement
was found to be significantly correlated with mastery goals. This was not
found at the middle school level as results found middle school students were
more likely to adopt multiple goals than elementary students. This finding
suggests the trichotomous goal orientation framework of mastery,
performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals, may not be a good
fit for middle school students. Elementary schools that emphasize positive
feedback, allowing students to make decisions and improvement are more
189
likely to espouse mastery goals with Latino English language learners and
increase achievement in mathematics.
Although the literature reviewed found elementary and middle school
environments to be distinctly different with middle school classrooms
exhibiting more performance oriented goals and elementary school
classrooms emphasizing more mastery goals (Midgley & Hicks, 1995;
Midgley and Urdan, 1992; Middleton, Kaplan, & Midgley, 2004), the data
for this study revealed elementary students espouse significantly higher
performance-approach goals than middle school students. Statistically
significant differences were found between fourth grade students’
performance-approach goals and 7
th
and 8
th
grade students. This finding is not
consistent with prior research, and suggests performance goals are more
salient in the elementary school environment, than previous research has
found. In this study, elementary classrooms were more likely to emphasized
ability, and used evaluation to socially compare students than middle school
classes. Significant differences were not found between
performance-avoidance goals and grade levels. Performance-avoidance goals
were moderately reported by both middle and elementary school students.
Clearly the classroom environment for elementary school students has
changed in recent years. The push toward accountability in elementary
190
schools, particularly school sites classified as “Program Improvement”, has
resulted in greater performance-oriented elementary school environment.
Although this study found performance goals were higher in elementary
schools, regression analysis revealed only mastery goals accounted for
variance in achievement in mathematics. Thus classrooms which espouse
mastery goals in the elementary school may increase students’ achievement
in mathematics.
Behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement were significantly
correlated to performance-approach goals at the middle school level. This
suggests performance-approach goals may have adaptive patterns of learning
for Latino ELL’s. Although the research reviewed for this study suggests
performance environments may be maladaptive for Latino students due to the
collectivist nature of their culture, additional research is necessary to
determine if performance environments may foster student engagement in the
mathematics classroom. Competition and striving to be the best among peers
may be an effective learning atmosphere for middle school students if it
fosters behavioral, emotional and cognitive engagement.
A significant positive relationship was found between middle school
students’ mastery and performance-approach goals and the teaching practice
“I talk with my classmates about how to solve problems” and “I learn from
191
my classmates”. This finding suggests these practices may be effective for
motivating middle school students, as students are required to interact with
their peers in the classroom setting. Social relationships are especially salient
in a young adolescent’s life and research has shown students’ social goals
were related to their academic achievement, engagement in class, and
connected to their academic goals (Patrick 1997; Dowson & McInerney,
2003; Patrick, et al., 1997). Thus teaching practices which allow minority
students to share ideas and discuss with their peers may be effective to
motivate students in the classroom. Surprisingly, standard-based teaching
practices in this study were not found to be related to elementary students’
goal orientation. Although these practices were reported moderately by the
elementary students in this study there was no correlation to any of the goals
examined in this study.
At the middle school level mastery goals were significantly correlated
to both performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals.
Performance-approach goals were also significantly correlated to
performance-avoidance goals at the middle school level. This finding implies
middle school students with high mastery goals also adopted
performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals as well, and middle
school students are more likely to espouse multiple goals than elementary
192
students. In addition middle school mastery goals and performance-approach
goals were significantly correlated to several teaching practices “I talk with
my classmate about how to solve problems”, “My teacher encourages me to
ask questions” and “I learn from my classmates”. However since mastery
goals were significantly correlated to performance-approach and performance
avoidance goals it is difficult to determine which standard-based teaching
practices may be more or less favorable to fostering a mastery goal
orientation in the mathematics classroom. Multiple regression analysis at the
middle school level did not find goal orientation predictors to be significant
for mathematics achievement. In addition the linear regression model showed
goals (mastery, performance-approach and performance-avoidance)
accounted for an insignificant amount of the variance in mathematics
achievement. A multiple goal orientation framework may be a better fit for
understanding how Latino ELLs’ goal orientation impacts their achievement
at the middle school level.
Research has found Latinas tend to outperform Latino peers (Ginorio
and Huston, 2000), however the reasons why Latinas outperform Latinos
remains unclear. Gender differences in students goal orientation may explain
how motivational differences influences achievement among male and
females. Gender differences in mastery goals were significant at the middle
193
school level. 7
th
and 8
th
grade females had significantly higher mastery goals
than male peers. This implies Latina Ell’s in the middle school are more
likely to seek mastery and understanding of academic concepts than Latino
peers. A lower mastery goal orientation also indicates that Latino Ell’s in the
middle school are less likely to develop their proficiency in mathematics than
female peers. Differences between performance-approach and
performance-avoidance goals were found to be significant as well. Females in
the eighth grade had significantly higher performance-approach and
performance–avoidance goals than males. This finding suggests that females
perceive more performance goals in the classroom than males do suggesting
it is more important for females to look competent to the teacher and peers,
and outperform others in mathematics.
Comparing Engagement of Latino English Language Learners in Grades
Significant differences were found between engagement indices and
grade levels. The students in the fourth grade expressed higher behavioral
engagement than students in the seventh grade, but not the eighth grade. This
finding was surprising as behavioral engagement was expected to decline
across grades. The fact that behavioral engagement was similar in the fourth
and eighth grade suggests behavioral engagement is malleable and influenced
by the classroom context, rather than students experience and beliefs
194
overtime. Furthermore this finding suggests teachers’ possess the ability to
shape students engagement regardless of previous experiences and beliefs.
Theorists support the position that engagement is malleable and results as an
interaction of the individual and the environment. (Fredricks, et al., 2004;
Connell, 1990; Finn & Rock, 1997).
Linear regression in the fourth grade revealed behavioral engagement
exerted a profound influence on mathematics achievement accounting for
17% of the variance. The multiple regression model also showed behavioral
engagement was a significant predictor of positive achievement in
mathematics among fourth grade. With an increase in behavioral
engagement, mathematics achievement increased by six points, thus by
following the class rules, paying attention during class, and fulfilling teacher
expectations, fourth grade Latino ELL students increase their academic
achievement in mathematics.
Finn (1989) also suggests that school disengagement may be a result
of students’ lack of interest (emotional engagement) and inattentiveness
(behavioral) in the classroom. Finn suggests over time a pattern may evolve
which can lead to disruptive behavior such as dropping out of school, truancy
or juvenile delinquency. Students who show disobedience in following the
rules and staying on task may lead to decreased motivation, decreased
195
engagement and decreased academic achievement in mathematics.
Behavioral disengagement for Latino ELL may serve to marginalize their
academic achievement in school, albeit students may possess the ability to do
well, however if they fail to follow the rules or pay attention in class they
may be stigmatized as low achieving regardless of their ability.
The finding that elementary students’ behavioral engagement is a
strong predictor of academic achievement may explain why research has
found differences in achievement among Latino and Latina students. This
study found across grade levels the decline in behavioral engagement among
7
th
grade males was synonymous with a decline in mastery goals. The
adoption of mastery goals in the fourth grade may be more dependent on
students’ willingness to follow the rules than the teachers’ ability to create a
mastery oriented classroom. This is supported by findings showing
behavioral engagement in the fourth grade was negatively correlated with the
standard-based teaching practices “my teacher asks me to give reasons for my
answers”, my teacher encourages me to ask questions” and “I learn from my
classmates”. These practices are rooted in the learner-centered approach to
teaching which is supported by theorist in the field of goal orientation to be
supportive of a mastery oriented classroom (Meece, 1991). Fourth grade
students with higher levels of behavioral engagement were less likely to
196
report the use of these teaching practices. This implies fourth grade students
in this study were more passive recipients of information than co-creators of
knowledge. If students do not feel encouraged to ask questions, give reasons
for their answers, or learn from their classmates, they become dependent on
the teacher for knowledge and understanding, instead of learning how to
think independently, regulate their learning and be open to learning from
others.
Studies have found students consider themselves more teacher
dependent in mathematics, where the teacher is the “source” of knowledge,
compared with social studies where the teacher is the “elaborator” of
knowledge (Stodolsky, Salk & Glaessner, 1991). Elementary school students
may be handicapped by having to rely on the teacher and not being taught
how to learn on their own. Difference in how teachers approach classroom
instruction may be a reason why achievement drops so dramatically in the
middle school. Future studies should use qualitative measures such as
observation of instructional practices with Latino English language learners
and interviews with students to understand how these practices influence
students’ engagement and motivation in the classroom.
Significant differences were found between elementary and middle
school students cognitive engagement. Elementary fourth grade students had
197
higher cognitive engagement than middle school students. Although
cognitive engagement was significantly higher in the elementary school than
middle school, multiple regression analysis did not find cognitive
engagement to be a significant predictor of academic achievement in fourth
grade. Linear regression analysis found cognitive engagement accounted for
9% of the variance in the fourth grade, 8% in the seventh grade and 5% of the
variance in mathematics achievement among eighth grade students. Although
this amount of variance is small, with regards to achievement, this is the
difference between an A and an A+, and a B and a B+. Thus across grades
higher cognitive engagement was related to an increase in mathematics
achievement.
Multiple regression analysis found cognitive engagement to be a
significant predictor of positive achievement in mathematics among seventh
and eighth grade students. Although cognitive engagement drops sharply
from the fourth to the seventh grade, cognitive engagement was not found to
be a significant predictor of achievement with fourth grade students. This
finding suggests mathematics achievement in elementary school may focus
more on surface processing such as memorization and recall of basic facts
and not require deeper processing and higher-level skills such as problem
solving.
198
The teaching practices examined in this study found with middle
school students cognitive engagement was positively and significantly
correlated to the teaching practice “I talk with my classmates about how to
solve problems”. Students were cognitively engaged in mathematics through
peer discussions of problem solving. The belief that conversations between
peers and teachers in mathematics will evoke deeper understanding of
mathematical concepts is supported by the National Council of Teaching
Mathematics (2000). Discussions in mathematics provide students with the
opportunity to explore ideas from multiple perspectives, deepen their
understanding of concepts, and make connections to mathematical ideas.
Students involved in discussions must justify their solutions and will gain
mathematical understanding when sharing with their peers the different
points of view (Hatano and Inagaki, 1991). In addition, research supports
students working cooperatively to promote student engagement, achievement,
motivation, and peer relationships (Davidson, 1989; Johnson & Johnson
1989; Lazarowitz et al., 1996; Reid, 1992; Roseth,et al., 2008; Slavin, 1990)
Significant differences were also found between middle school male
and females’ cognitive engagement. Female students demonstrated higher
cognitive engagement than male students. Research has found gender
differences among Latinos and Latinas with regard to academic achievement.
199
Latinas have greater academic achievement and are more likely to graduate
than males.
Differences in students’ emotional engagement were found between
elementary and middle school students. Emotional engagement was
significantly higher in the 4
th
grade than the 7
th
and 8
th
grade. Multiple
regression analysis found emotional engagement to be a significant predictor
of negative achievement in mathematics among eighth grade students. Thus
students with high academic achievement in mathematics indicated lower
levels of emotional engagement in mathematics. This finding was surprising
as several researchers have found teacher support is important for the
engagement and academic achievement of Latino youth (Ginoro & Huston
2001; Brewster & Bowen 2004).
Students in the eighth grade with higher academic achievement in
mathematics reported lower levels of emotional engagement in class and
students with low academic achievement reported higher levels of emotional
engagement in class. High achieving mathematics students in the eighth
grade may feel bored and disinterested in mathematics as a result of not
being challenged or interested in the activities. Research has attributed the
lack of engagement factors to weak instruction, low expectations, and
200
impersonal relationships with teachers and other students (Finn 1989; Marks
2000; Newmann 1989)
Research has found engagement to be a function of student
characteristics and experience (Marks, 2000). Thus it is possible that high
achieving students perform well in spite of the lack of support and sense of
belonging (emotional engagement). Disengagement has not been proven to
be fixed thus even successful students can disengage due to poor teachers,
and become re-engaged in a new classroom environment. Middle school
students emotional engagement was also positively correlated to the teaching
practice “I talk with my classmates about how to solve problems” and “I
learn from my classmates”. Students with higher engagement were more
likely to report talking with their classmates about how to solve problems.
Again these teaching practices are rooted in a cooperative philosophy of
discussing ideas and learning from peers and have been found to be
associated with positive outcomes for minority students. The fact that these
teaching practices were significantly correlated to emotional and cognitive
engagement not only substantiates the strength of the relationship between
these variables but validates the importance of teaching practices that
promote social goals, peer relationships and cooperative learning among
Latino English language students in the middle school.
201
Overall behavioral, emotional and cognitive engagement was higher
in the elementary school grade than middle school, however differences in
middle and elementary school suggests engagement is malleable and can
change throughout schooling. Behavioral engagement was found to be a
significant predictor of achievement in elementary school, whereas emotional
and cognitive engagement was significant for middle school grades. Thus
differences in the learning environment may be attributed to how schools,
students and teachers value engagement in the classroom. This study found
engagement to be significantly related to standard-based teaching in the
middle school, but not the elementary school. The relationship between
teaching practices and engagement across grade levels demonstrate
differences in how students perceive the learning environment and changes
in what students’ value over time. Engagement and achievement among
elementary students may be a result of active listening and participation
rather than a deeper understanding of mathematics. Furthermore gender
differences between males and females in middle school supports research
that Latinas outperform Latino males, and the differences in engagement
could substantiate why Latina have greater school success and attainment.
202
Comparing Perception of Standard-based Teaching Practices of Latino
English Language Learners in Elementary and Middle School Grades
Significant differences were not found among students perception of
the teaching practices “My teacher encourages me to ask questions”, “I learn
from my classmates”, and “I talk with my classmates about how to solve
problems”, suggesting across school levels standard-based teaching practices
are similarly used in elementary and middle school mathematics classrooms.
Statistically significant differences were found with the teaching
practices “My teacher asks me to give reasons for my answers” which was
found to be higher among 4
th
grade students than 8
th
grade students, but not
among 7
th
grade students. Differences in elementary and middle school
students may be the result of the mismatch between middle school students’
developmental needs and the learning environment and not the result of
changes in teachers’ instructional practices.
During middle school students experience change, friendships are
increasingly important, physical growth is occurring, and adolescents take on
new social roles. This may be why the teaching practices “I talk with my
classmates about how to solve problems” was significantly correlated to
behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement with middle school students
only. Among middle school students this practice was strongly correlated to
203
mastery and performance-approach goals as well. Research findings support
the role of peers on the engagement and motivation of students in class.
However this may not be true for elementary students, in fact the teaching
practice “I talk with classmates about how to solve problems” was negatively
related to performance-avoidance goals with fourth grade students. The
higher the performance-avoidance goals among fourth graders, the less they
indicated talking with their classmates about how to solve problems.
Although this finding was not significant, it does indicate elementary
and middle school students value different things which shape their
perceptions of the instructional environment. Among 8
th
grade students
talking with classmates about how to solve problems was significantly higher
with females than males. Females were more likely to report talking with
peers about how to solve problems than males. Social relationships with
peers may be more important with female students than males in the eighth
grade. Thus teachers who are looking to increase student engagement with
females may include cooperative problem solving.
Multiple regression analysis found among fourth grade and seventh
grade students the teaching practice “I learn from my classmates” was
significantly related to a decrease in students’ achievement. Low achieving
students were more likely to report learning from classmates. This suggest
204
low achieving students may be more likely to receive tutoring from a high
achieving students, or low achieving students may be more likely to receive
poor instruction from a classroom peer. In addition, learning from classmates
was negatively correlated to mastery goals and behavioral engagement
among fourth grade students. Although this relationship was not significant,
it further substantiates the argument that mastery goals of fourth grade
students may be more dependent on students’ complacency, than the
teachers’ promotion of a mastery oriented classroom. Although learning from
classmates was found to be negatively related to student achievement, it was
positively correlated to mastery, performance-approach goals and emotional
engagement at the middle school level. This finding suggests among middle
school students regardless of their achievement “learning from classmates”
promotes mastery and performance-approach goals, whereas among
elementary students who report learning from classmates they were less
likely to report espousing mastery goals and behavioral engagement. Students
who are low achieving and poorly behaved need the instructional guidance
and support of a qualified teacher rather than a peer. Future research should
examine why this teaching practice had a negative impact on student
achievement, motivation and engagement among Latino ELL elementary
students. Qualitative methods such as student interviews and classroom
205
observations could determine if the teaching practice is poorly implemented
or language barriers may be an impediment among students at this age.
Multiple regression also found the standard-based practice “My
teacher asks me to give reasons for my answers” to be significant in
predicting a decrease in achievement among seventh grade students. This
practice was also found to be negatively correlated to performance-avoidance
goals and achievement in the middle school grades. This finding suggest “my
teacher asks me to give reasons for my answers” may be used to evaluate
students ability rather than as an instructional technique to augment students
metacognitive awareness in mathematics. In turn the use of this practice may
cause students to disengage from the classroom, and to perceive the
classroom as judgmental and evaluative. Among fourth grade students asking
reasons for answers had a significant negative correlation to achievement in
mathematics. Thus similar to middle school, students with low achievement
in mathematics were more likely to report being asked the reasons for their
answers than high achieving students. Future studies should examine how
this teaching practice is being used in the classroom and if only students who
answered incorrectly are asked how they found their answer.
In summary, similarities existed in the students reporting of
standard-based teaching practices, but differences were found in how
206
students interpreted these practices in relation to their motivation,
engagement, and achievement in mathematics. Relationships between
variables in this study (motivation, engagement and achievement) and
standard-based teaching practices substantiate the belief that elementary and
middle school students view these practices quiet differently. Thus how
standard-based teaching practices are deployed, and the values assigned to
them may be a powerful predictor of elementary and middle school
achievement. It is still unclear if standard-based teaching practices are
effective in promoting achievement, motivation and engagement in math.
Future studies should use qualitative measures such as classroom observation
in addition to student surveys to ascertain if instructional practices are being
used the way they were intended.
Implications for Policy and Practice
As educators fine-tune and transform their teaching practices to meet
the needs of Latino English language learners, research must continue to
flourish with this group of students so best practices can be agreed examined
and established. The following recommendations are discussed for educators
to create a learning environment that positively shapes students goal
orientation, heightens students’ classroom engagement, and utilizes
standard-based teaching practices in mathematics as they were intended. The
207
recommendations will address: (1) goal orientation of Latino ELL, (2)
increasing engagement, (3) implementing standard-based teaching practices,
and (4) involving immigrant families.
Goal Orientation of Latino English Language Learners
Students pursue goals in achievement situations and these goals are
influenced by the goal-related messages and instructional practices
transmitted by the classroom teacher. When the teacher informs students,
improvement and trying are the main goals in class, mastery goals are
endorsed, however when the teacher posts a list on the wall ranking students
by achievement, performance goals become salient as well. Although mastery
goals were highest among Latino ELLs, moderate levels of
performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals were reported,
suggesting these goals are also salient in the classroom. Goal orientations
were highly correlated among each other, further supporting the finding that
Latino ELL students perceive multiple goals in the classroom environment.
When competing goals are present in the classroom environment, this can
send mixed messages to the student and make practices which are intended to
be mastery focused, disengaging, demanding, and centered on performance.
Research suggests cognitive engagement is similar to mastery goals
(Fredricks et al., 2004; Ames 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Mastery goals
208
are associated with learning strategies similar to cognitive engagement such
as increasing conceptual understanding, persistence at difficult tasks, and task
involvement. This study found mastery goals were significantly higher in
elementary students, than middle school, however behavioral engagement
was found to be significant in predicting achievement among elementary
students, whereas cognitive engagement positively predicted achievement in
mathematics with middle school students. Thus if elementary classrooms
were truly mastery oriented, cognitive engagement would be significant in
predicting achievement with elementary students as well. The fact that
behavioral engagement was found to be significantly related to achievement
in mathematics suggests the emphasis of classroom instruction is on paying
attention to the teacher and following the class rules, and not learning
strategies that increase understanding. This argument is further substantiated
by the fact that standard-based teaching practices were negatively correlated
to elementary students’ achievement, engagement and motivation in
mathematics. Although elementary students espoused mastery goals, the
presence of performance goals may have impacted their engagement and
achievement as well.
There are several ways that teachers can reduce performance goals in
the classroom, which may increase students cognitive engagement and ensure
209
classrooms are mastery oriented. In mathematics teachers should avoid tasks
that focus on memorization or rehearsal of information, as performance goals
are associated with surface-level learning strategies that do not promote
conceptual understanding (Graham & Golan, 1991; Meece et al., 1988;
Nolen, 1988). Tasks should be challenging and encourage problem solving
and understanding. This may require students to work in small groups or with
a partner to share strategies and discuss possible solution pathways. Similarly
homework should also be enriching and provide students with an opportunity
to reflect on what they have learned rather than demonstrate rote learning and
memorization through worksheets and textbooks.
Teachers should also avoid using incentives in the classroom to
motivate and reward students as research shows extrinsic rewards may
undermine motivation since the focus is on performance rather than engaging
in the activity for the sake of learning (Stipek, 1996). This argument is further
supported by Dweck (1986) whose research focuses on how one’s belief
about intelligence impacts their behavior. An entity belief views intelligence
as fixed and unaltered. This view has been associated with performance goal
orientation as outcomes are attributed to ability. Whereas an incremental
belief views intelligence as malleable and has been associated with a mastery
goal orientation as outcomes are attributed to hard work and effort. Dwecks’
210
research (1999) found entity students are less likely to take on challenging
tasks and are at greater risk for academic underachievement, however
incremental students are not threatened by challenge and seek out challenging
tasks in an effort to grow intellectually. Dweck believes parents and teachers
play an important role in determining the intelligence view students’ adopt.
When teachers praise students for their intelligence rather than effort they are
endorsing an entity view of intelligence as ability is not within the students’
control. However when teachers praise students for their effort, students are
more likely to view intelligences as malleable, thus when they encounter
failure they will not attribute this to their inability but their lack of effort. All
students should be recognized for their individual effort, accomplishments
and improvement. Even when students make mistakes acknowledging their
effort sends a message about what is valued in the classroom.
According to Ames (1992) the value students place on a goal can be
intrinsic or extrinsic. When students perceive the task as interesting or
enjoyable they become intrinsically motivated to accomplish it. When
students are extrinsically motivated they believe participation will result in
avoidance of punishment or a reward such as teacher praise. Students can be
intrinsically motivated if they are given the autonomy to make decisions.
Tasks should be challenging and enjoyable to the student as well.
211
Giving students the choice to work independently or with a partner is an
opportunity to make a decision. Feedback also increases intrinsic motivation,
whether it is positive or negative, it tells the student they are being held
accountable and that you are invested in their success. Students may be more
likely to partake in the task if it is something that creates interestt. In
mathematics, the use of computers, games, manipulatives, and projects are
ways to provide students with a new way to explore mathematics and
increase students’ intrinsic motivation.
Next, assessment data and feedback should be used as a tool to show
students’ growth and accomplishment over time, not rank students and
evaluate their weakness. Grades should not be posted and students should not
be ranked as this sends a message to students that performance goals are
valued. Ranking students can also take place when teachers recognize top
students who outperformed others. In addition school events such as honor
roll may heighten the performance environment as only the school’s top
performers are recognized. Students should be recognized based on their
individual merit and growth.
With regard to assessment and evaluation, it is recommended that
students be permitted to retake tests as this practice emphasizes the purpose
of learning is to improve and not outperform others. Students who perceive
212
improvement as attributed to effort and hard work will view intelligence as
malleable rather than fixed. This view of intelligence will likely increase
students motivation and engagement in the classroom setting as students will
be more likely to exert the effort to complete tasks. Students who see
intelligence as fixed attribute success in school to ability, thus reinforcing the
adoption of performance goals in the classroom. Furthermore teachers can
promote mastery goals by providing students with the tools to monitor their
progress and become accountable for their achievements. Portfolios allow
students to reflect on their progress, and monitor their growth. This practice
also reinforces self-regulation strategies that are associated with
metacognition and achievement in mathematics. Journals have also been used
in mathematics as a way for students to reflect on their learning and evaluate
their progress. Teachers can use journals to build student-teacher
relationships, evaluate students thinking, and increase communication
between teachers and students.
Finally, teachers can reinforce mastery goals and deemphasize
performance goals by the way in which they communicate with their
students. Teacher should acknowledge students achievements rather than
highlight their shortcomings. For example, if a student solves a problem
incorrectly on the board instead of saying, “You did this wrong, who can tell
213
me the right answer is”, the teacher should say “I see you really tried to solve
the problem, can you go through the steps you took to see how you arrived at
the answer?” Acknowledging students effort support the incremental view
that intelligence is malleable and attributed to hard work, whereas
acknowledging the student answered the question incorrectly aligns itself to
the belief that intelligence is fixed thus effort is worthless. Furthermore, it is
likely the student may self-correct their mistake if they are given the chance
to review their answer. This also reinforces cognitive strategies that the
students can use in the future to avoid errors. If the teacher just acknowledges
the answer is wrong, students may feel as though they do not have the ability
to be successful in math. Finally, teachers can gain insight into students’
misconceptions by discussing with the student how they attained the answer.
In summary, creating a classroom environment that reinforces
mastery goals and deemphasizes performance goals includes: (1) promoting
tasks that are engaging, interesting, and novel to the student, (2) sending
messages to the student that show you are interested in their improvement
more than performance and acknowledges their accomplishments, and (3)
providing feedback that is informative, allows students to reflect on their
progress and monitor their improvement. Such practices will encourage deep
cognitive and emotional engagement, and intrinsic motivation.
214
Increasing Engagement of Latino English Language Learners
This study found elementary students were more engaged than middle
school students. Among elementary students, behavioral engagement was a
significant predictor of academic achievement in mathematics, strongly
correlated to mastery goals, and negatively correlated to teaching practices
that are meant to promote a mastery goal orientation. This finding suggests
elementary students may be receiving the messages from the teachers that
mastery goals are important, but they may not be receiving the high
demanding tasks and student-centered strategies that promote student
engagement. According to Newman (1989; 1992) in order for students to
become academically engaged there needs to be a reversal of the alienating
experiences, and a sense of membership in school to replace impersonality
and isolation, and authentic academic work to replace low-level school work.
Complacency and passive attentiveness will not prepare students for
the cognitive demands in higher level mathematics courses. That is why
strategies such as questioning, reasoning, and working cooperatively were
recommended by the National Council of Teaching Mathematics to promote
students understanding, motivation, and cognition. Broffenbrenner (1979)
suggests in order for students to become engaged, schools much connect with
215
the different systems in a child’s world. These systems include the family,
culture, peers and community.
One way to integrate the world of the student into the curriculum of
the course is by including authentic work that consists of students solving
real-world problems that are meaningful to their lives. Marks (2000) found
authentic instructional work enhances students’ engagement at all grade
levels from elementary to high school. Project-based learning is another
strategy that incorporates the context of students’ lives into high-demanding
tasks in which students work cooperatively. For example instead of teachers
introducing percentage by showing students the procedure, teachers can have
students conduct school surveys in which they use real data to find the
percent of students who agree or disagree with their statements. From this
perspective students have ownership of the task and are more likely to
participate and be engaged.
In mathematical problem solving, regulation of cognition involves
such activities as selecting specific strategies, monitoring progress, assessing
results, and revising plans and strategies if necessary (Garofalo and Lester,
1985). Graphic organizers can be useful in mathematics by providing
students with a way to facilitate the regulation of such activities and provide
structure within this process. In addition, whole and small group discussion is
216
crucial for cognitive engagement, as it provides an opportunity for
metacognitive thinking to be explored and evaluated. Students validate their
thinking and receive feedback in the discussion process, and misconceptions
can be rectified as well. Finally, this forum is purposeful to explore multiple
representations of students thinking and behavior. Validating students
thinking can increase students’ emotional engagement as well. Furthermore
students are more likely to be engaged in an activity if it becomes a creative
process which they can input and shape. If mathematics is viewed as rigid
and sterile students will not see the value in learning. Thus mathematics
should be viewed as a scientific process which students explore and
hypothesize different possible solutions to problems that are related to their
life.
“Can I perform this task?” Individuals are more likely to engage in a
task if the answer to this question is “yes”. Most individuals will choose not
to engage in a task if they believe they will fail. Vygotsky (1978) believed
students need to work within their “zone of proximal development” that is
“the amount of learning possible by a student given proper instructional
support” (Cobb, 1994). Students who believe they will be successful, engage
in more metacognition (planning or modifying their thinking), use more
217
effective cognitive strategies (e.g., problem-solving approaches), persist on
tasks longer, and are more likely to academically perform better in the
classroom than students who do not believe they can perform the task
(Haywood, Brooks, and Burns, 1986; Paris and Oka, 1986; Shunk, 1985,
Shultz and Switzky, 1990). Tasks may need to modified so that it is
accessible to students on an individual level. Although curriculum is often
prepared as a “one size fits all” students in the classroom have diverse needs
and abilities. Instruction should be catered to the student and not the other
way around.
Finally, research has found non-parental adults are important assets in
Latino students’ success specifically supportive teachers who have high
expectations play a vital role (Hispanic Dropout Project, 1998). Therefore a
recommendation for teachers of Latino ELL students is to take the time to
make students feel as though they are liked and cared. If students need help in
areas beyond schooling give them assistance or provide resources. On a
personal note I will never forget the time when my high school assistant
principal told me I would never graduate from college because I just can’t
stay focused. I was completely shattered by her comments and feelings
toward me, fortunately I found very supportive teachers in college who
showed me strategies to stay organized and persist when I felt overwhelmed.
218
It is the teachers who help us overcome our personal obstacles that are most
memorable in our lives, likewise teachers who are unsupportive and caring
also make a powerful impact as well.
Another strategy to increase emotional engagement in the classroom
is to mirror student interests with classroom activities. Student surveys on
their personal interests are a great way to generate ideas for curriculum. If
students are interested in basketball, challenge them to find their favorite
basketball players average points per game, rather than practicing from
examples that have no relevance to their lives. If students believe the teacher
is interested in what is important to them, this will make students feel cared
for and more likely to comply with the teachers directions. Finally take the
time to explain to students why they are learning a concept and how it will
impact their lives. Students are more likely to engage in a task if they
understand the connection between the content and their life. This strategy is
a great way to begin a lesson on a new topic and spark students’ interest.
In summary, increasing students’ engagement in the mathematics
classroom may include the following strategies: (1) authentic work that
includes challenging real-world problems, (2) promoting metacognitive
strategies through classroom and peer discussions as well as instructional
aides, (3) individualizing instruction so tasks are cognitively demanding and
219
accessible to the student, and (4) establishing an emotional connection
between the teacher and student.
Implementing Standard-based Teaching Practices
The research from this study found standard-based teaching practices
are moderately used in elementary and middle school mathematics
classroom. Although students perceived these practices similarly across
grades, the impact of such practice on student motivation, engagement and
achievement in mathematics differed significantly in elementary and middle
school. Middle school students exhibited more positive outcomes in relation
to standard-based teaching practices and elementary students showed
negative outcomes in relation to standard-based teaching practices. These
differences suggest the practices may not be implemented with validity in the
classroom.
Cooperative grouping is a teaching practice where students work in
homogenous groups to accomplish a task and learn from one another.
Cooperative learning is believed to foster a mastery goal orientation (Midgley
& Urdan, 1992). This study found high achieving elementary students were
less likely to report learning from a classmate. This finding suggests
cooperative learning may not be implemented correctly. High achieving
students may be working with low achieving peers, thus only one student (the
220
low achieving peer) is learning from their classmate. In addition students may
be asked to work on low-demanding tasks such as a worksheet which may
fail to foster classroom discussions and critical thinking. Rather than the
teacher assigning a page in the mathematics book for students to work on
together, cooperative group work should be planned so tasks are meaningful
and engaging, and equitable between each member of the group (Cohen,
1994). Additionally, discussions should be a collective process in which ideas
are explored and talked about openly. In all grades, this type of group work
requires management and planning. To foster classroom discussions, teachers
may need to provide sentence starters for the student to reference such as “I
noticed that you…” or “why did you decide to…” as a way to promote
classroom discussion. Although the role of teacher in a cooperative group
setting may be perceived as passive, effective planning and classroom
observation is essential to make this approach meaningful. Teachers should
be actively engaged during cooperative group work and assisting students in
developing the necessary skills to engage in discussions.
Cooperative group work can be modeled through role play so students
can understand the process as well. Johnson & Johnson (1994) recommend
teachers monitor students learning process and intervene when needed to
provide assistance or model social skills for students. Teacher planning is
221
essential for cooperative learning to be successful, this means defining the
group assignments, setting clear rules and expectations, and teaching students
the necessary concepts and strategies to be successful in a task (Johnson &
Johnson, 2002). Hijzen and colleagues (2007) found effective cooperative
learning emphasized mastery and social responsibility goals whereas
ineffective teams emphasized learning for a certificate and entertainment
goals. Furthermore the type of task, group composition and
teacher support were reasons for effective and ineffective cooperative
learning.
The teaching practice “My teacher asks me to give reasons for my
answers” was found to be significant in predicting a decrease in achievement
among seventh grade students. This practice was also found to be negatively
correlated to achievement in the middle school grades. This finding suggests
students may perceive this practice to be a means of evaluation. Furthermore
teachers may be more likely to ask students how they found their answer
when their response is incorrect. This approach should not be used to
evaluate students ability but as an instructional technique to promote
metacognitive awareness in mathematics. Teachers should model the use of
this practice when demonstrating solution paths and with all students
consistently.
222
Among fourth grade students being asked the reasons for their
answers had a significant negative correlation to achievement in
mathematics. Thus similar to middle school, students with low achievement
in mathematics were more likely to report being asked the reasons for their
answers than high achieving students. The use of this practice may cause
students to disengage from the classroom, and perceive the classroom as
judgmental and evaluative. Furthermore teachers should emphasize the
conceptual understanding of mathematics rather than the procedural
application to solving problems. It is likely that students will feel frustrated
when asked how they found their answer, if they do not understand how they
arrived at the solution. Classroom observations would be the best way to
identify if these practices are being implemented correctly. Professional
development in elementary and middle school mathematics should focus on
effective approaches to implement questioning with Latino English language
learners. This approach will promote self-regulation and monition during
problem solving if students feel safe responding to the teachers’ questions.
Teacher trainings should include an opportunity for teachers to
discuss, share and practice strategies that lead to student success. Lesson
study is an effective way for teachers to become active participants and
co-constructors of teaching practices. This method of training provides an
223
opportunity for teachers to observe their colleagues and reflect on their
observations in a way that is collaborative and focused on improvement.
Several practices in this study were found to have a negative relationship
with students’ motivation and engagement. Therefore it is important to ensure
practices are being implemented as they were intended.
Meeting the Needs of Latino ELL Families
Although this study did not examine how Latino English language
students’ parents influence their motivation or achievement, it is worth noting
with parental support achievement in school is more likely to be attained.
Decades of research has supported the importance of parental support in
children’s academic motivation and performance (Connell & Wellborn,
1991). Therefore it is a recommendation of this study for schools of Latino
ELL students to bridge the gap between school and home with quality
programs that create a sense of belongingness for all stakeholders in the
school community.
This study found Latino English language learners in both elementary
and middle school possessed high mastery goals. Thus students were
motivated to learn, enhance their understanding of mathematics, and master
the skills necessary for school success. A contradiction exists as to why
Latino ELL students fail to attain school success despite their goals. Research
224
suggests the pathway to school success for Latino ELL students may not be
necessarily clear. The majority of students in this study were from immigrant
families, research shows success among students from culturally
and linguistically diverse backgrounds cannot be attributed to one factor, but
a complex process that involves societal, personal and political factors
(Huerta-Macias, 1998). Schools with populations of immigrant families need
to feel supported, and empowered to make decisions regarding their child’s
education. Programs at school sites often establish a resource center where
information is available, but not accessible to all. Such programs often
reinforce the deficiencies of minorities by revealing the practices of the
culture of power. This practice makes families feel further segregated, and
disengaged in their child’s education. Programs should be rooted in the
cultural capital of the specific group so parents feel respected, and valued.
Rueda and colleagues (2003) suggest parents should be involved in
creating school programs, so information is made meaningful, and parents are
empowered to make decisions. Establishing apprenticeship programs makes
information transferrable to one’s cultural context and supports parents in
making informed decisions that integrate their values and cultural practices.
The relationship between schools, parents, and teachers is reciprocal, thus
225
school interventions to increase motivation and engagement should involve
parents as they are a valuable asset to student success.
Limitations
A limitation of this study was examining the transition period from
elementary to middle school, with different groups of students. It would be
more effective to examine the transition period with the same group of
students so changes in students motivation and engagement could be
compared over time. Longitudinal study would be more effective in
determining if motivational profiles of students change during the transition
period. Another limitation of this study was the measure of standard-based
teaching practices. The items were changed for domain specificity thus the
measure may not be reliable. In addition, Cronbach’s alpha revealed the
reliability of the measure was low therefore the measure was used as
individualized items. The individual items were not measured for reliability
with a test-retest and this is a limitation of the study. Finally, this study
examined student achievement in mathematics with criterion-reference tests
created by the school district and teachers. Norm-referenced testing may be a
more accurate measure of student achievement since student achievement
would be measured by a single test created by one source rather than multiple
sources and tests over time.
226
Future Research
This study found Latino ELL students in elementary school adopted
higher performance-approach goals than middle school students. Future
studies should compare Program Improvement schools with non-Program
Improvement schools to determine if difference in performance goals can be
attributable to federal mandates (NCLB) or socioeconomic status. Additional
studies should also examine how Latino ELL students’ goals change when
they transition from elementary to middle school and from middle school to
high school, since this is the time when Latino ELL are most vulnerable to
dropping out. Gender differences between middle and high school students
should be further examined with Latino students. This study found
differences in the motivation and engagement of males and females in middle
school.
Differences were also found in how elementary and middle school
students perceive teaching practices and how their perception is related to
their engagement and motivation in mathematics. Studies which implement
classroom observations would be helpful in determining how standard-based
teaching practices are implemented and if these practices are being poorly
implemented. This information would be useful in determining why students
may associate these practices with positive and negative outcomes.
227
Several studies have found Latino students espouse multiple goals
however additional research is needed to support these findings with Latino
ELL learners. This study examined goal orientation of Latino ELL students
using a trichotomous model of mastery, performance-approach and
performance-avoidance goals. This study found data to support the argument
that the trichotomous goal orientation model may not be an adequate fit for
explaining students’ goals in the classroom. Furthermore, this study found
Latino ELL students in middle school may espouse multiple goals.
Performance-approach goals were associated with higher levels of
engagement with middle school students, thus futures studies should examine
performance-approach goals and behaviors to determine if these goals may
have adaptive patterns of learning for Latino ELL’s .
Conclusions
According to Wittrock, (1979) a key element directly affecting
achievement is motivation. Without motivation students interest in
mathematics will decline as they enter secondary school. Increased interest in
mathematics can challenge students to take advanced mathematics courses in
college which can lead to higher paying jobs. The National Council of
Teaching Mathematics (NCTM) has placed the motivational domains
learning to value mathematics and becoming confident in one’s own ability as
228
an impetus for students to pursue mathematics beyond the basic school
requirements (NCTM, 1989). Motivation is a key element that must be
addressed by practitioners, policy makers, curriculum designers and parents.
Ogbu (1992) argued minority youth are less motivated toward
academic achievement and educational attainment because they do not
believe they will reap the reward associated with the dominant culture due to
their experience as members of oppressed groups. However this study found
Latino English language students are motivated to achieve, yet their
motivation is not necessarily aligned with classroom teaching practices, nor
do these practices engage students in ways that promotes emotional or
cognitive engagement. Research has shown emotional and cognitive
engagement to be essential for Latino students’ success beyond elementary
school.
While there is a great deal of research examining goal orientation in
the elementary and middle school environment, there is a lack of research
with minority groups. This study examined Latino English language learners’
goal orientation, engagement, perception of standards based teaching
practices, and achievement in mathematics. The current study found Latino
ELL students are motivated and engaged in mathematics, and statistical
evidence supported differences in the motivational profiles of elementary and
229
middle school students. When the motivational profiles of elementary and
middle school students were compared, elementary students exhibited
significantly higher mean values in the areas of mastery goals,
performance-approach goals, performance-avoidance goals, behavioral,
emotional, and cognitive engagement than middle school students. Gender
differences were also found among middle school student, and middle school
students exhibited more positive outcomes in relation to standard-based
teaching practices. Multiple regression values for all predictor variables
found behavioral engagement to be the single greatest indicator of positive
academic achievement among fourth grade students, whereas cognitive
engagement was the single greatest indicator of positive academic
achievement among seventh and eighth grade students.
Goal orientation was not found to be a significant predictor of
achievement among Latino English language students. In addition, this study
found mastery goals to be significantly correlated to performance-approach
and performance-avoidance goals, suggesting students adopt more than one
type of goal in the classroom. These findings suggest the trichotomous model
used in this study may not be a good fit for the data. Witkow & Fulgini’s
(2007) examination of minority students’ goal orientation found a 2x2
achievement model which divides mastery goals into mastery-approach and
230
mastery-avoidance goals to be a significantly better fit for the data than the
trichotomous model. Furthermore researchers in the field of goal orientation
identify the need for additional research with hybrid goal combinations
(Covington, 2002: 287).
Finally, since the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act
(2001), the focus on student performance in the classroom has shifted the
values of American schools from commutative to individualistic. This study
found the teaching practice “I learn from my classmates” to be significantly
correlated to a decrease in achievement among elementary students. In
addition this teaching practice was negatively correlated to mastery and
behavioral engagement, among fourth grade students as well but positively
correlated among middle school students. Contrary to previous research, this
study found evidence that performance goals are more salient in the
elementary school environment than middle school. Since performance goals
are associated with competitive and individual learning goals, it makes sense
that elementary students would view cooperative learning as invaluable.
Since much of the research which examines elementary and middle school
differences was conducted prior to the authorization of the No Child Left
Behind Act, research must examine goal orientation synomously with school
change to examine how such reforms impact students motivation and
231
engagement. Students in this study were enrolled in Title One schools
classified as “Program Improvement” and since these schools are judged as
not meeting state and federal target goals they are under extreme pressure to
raise achievement. This may explain why performance-approach goals were
significantly higher with elementary students. The middle school students in
this study have experienced the demands of high-stakes testing since second
grade, therefore it possible that performance goals become less salient by the
time students enter middle school. Although research has shown elementary
schools to be more mastery focused and middle schools to be more
performance focused, it is evident that changes in educational policies and
practices have shifted how students and teachers perceive the learning
environment. Research shows success among students from culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds cannot be attributed to one factor, but a
complex process that involves societal, personal and political factors
(Huerta-Macias, 1998). Thus educational research must continue to stay
relevant to determine how changes in school reforms, federal mandates and
social changes, impact students motivation, engagement and achievement.
232
REFERENCES
Ablard, K., Lipschultz, R. (1998). Self-regulated learning in high-achieving
students: Relations to advanced reasoning, achievement goals and
gender. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 94-101.
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.
Allington, R., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1989) School Response to Reading
Failure: Instruction for Chapter 1 and Special Education Students in
Grades Two, Four, and Eight. The Elementary School Journal 89(5).
Ames, C., (1992). Classrooms: Goals, Structures, and Student Motivation.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261-71.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students'
learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 80, 260-267.
Anderman, L.H. (2003). Academic and social perceptions as predictors of
change in middle school students' sense of school belonging. Journal
of Experimental Education, 72, 5-22.
Anderman, L.H., & Anderman, E.M. (1999). Social predictors of changes in
students' achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25, 21-37.
Anderman, E. M. & Midgley, C. (2004). Changes in self-reported academic
cheating across the transition from middle school to high school.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 499-517.
Anderman, E., & Midgley, C., (1997). Changes in achievement goal
orientations, perceived academic competence, and grades across the
transition to middle-level schools. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 22, 269-298.
233
Appleton, J., Christenson, S., Kim, D., & Reschly, A., (2006). Measuring
cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the Student
Engagement Instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5),
427-445.
Aronson, J., Steele, C., Salinas, J., Lustina, M., (2004). The Effect of
Stereotype Threat on the Standardized Test Performance of College
Students. In E. Aronson (Eds.), Readings about the social animal (pp.
400-412). New York, NY: Worth.
Banks, J.A. (2001). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations,
curriculum and teaching. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American
Psychologist, 44 (9), 1175-1184.
Beck, C., Hart, D., Kosnik, C., (2002). The teaching standards movement and
current teaching practices. Canadian Journal of Education, 27(2),
175-194.
Boekaerts, M., & Simons, P.R.J. (1995). Leren en instructie: Psychologie van
de leerling en het leerproces [Learning and instruction: Psychology of
the learner and the learning process]. Assen, The Netherlands: Van
Gorcum.
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P.R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of
self-regulation: Theory, research, and applications. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Brewster, A., & Bowen, G., (2004). Teacher support and the school
engagement of Latino middle and high school students at risk of
school failure. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 21(1),
47-67.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development:
Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
234
Burron, B., James, L., & Ambrosio, A. (1993). The effects of cooperative
learning in a physical science course for elementary/middle level
preservice teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30,
697-707.
Capps, R., Fix, M., Ost, M., Reardon-Anderson, J., & Passel, J., (2004). The
health and well-being of immigrants. Retrieved January 24, 2009,
from the Urban Institute Web site:
http://www.urban.org/UploardedPDF/311139_ChildrenImmigrants.pd
f
Cauley, K.M. & Jovanovich, D. (2006). Developing an effective transition
program for students entering middle school or high school. The
Clearing House, 1(80), 15-25.
Church, M., Elliot, A., Gable, S., (2001). Perceptions of Classroom
Environment, Achievement Goals, and Achievement Outcomes.
Journal of Educational Psychology, V ol. 93(1) 43-54.
Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural
perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher,
23(7), 13-20
Coley, J.D., & Hoffman, D.M. (1990). Overcoming learned helplessness in at
risk readers. Journal of Reading, 33, 497-502.
Connell, J.P. (1990). Context, self, and action: A motivational analysis of
self-system processes across the life span. In D. Cicchetti & M.
Beeghly (Eds.), The self in transition: Infancy to childhood (pp.
61-97). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Connell, J.P., Spencer, M.B., & Aber, J.L. (1994). Educational risk and
resilience in African-American youth: Context, self, action, and
outcomes in school. Child Development, 65, 493-506.
Connell, J.P. & Wellborn, J. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness:
A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. Gunnar & A.
Sroufe (Eds.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Development, (V ol. 22,
pp. 43-77). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
235
Corno, L., & Mandinach, E.B. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in
classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18(2),
88-108.
Covington, M. (2002). Patterns of Adaptive Learning Study: Where do we go
from here? In Midgley (Ed.), Goals, Goal Structures, and Patterns of
Adaptive Learning (pp. 175-204). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Cummins. J., & Sayers, D. (1990). Education 2001: Learning networks and
educational reform. Computers in the Schools, 7(1/2), 1-29.
Davidson, N. (1989). Cooperative learning in mathematics: A handbook for
teachers.
Reading, MA: Addison & Wesley.
De Avila, E.A. (1988). Bilingualism, cognitive function, and language
minority group membership. In C.B. McCormick, G.E. Miller & M.
Pressley (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: From basic research to
educational applications (pp. 104-121). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Dowson, M., & McInerney, D.M. (2003). What do students say about their
motivational goals?: Towards a more complex and dynamic
perspective on student motivation. Contemporary Educational
Psychology 28, 91-113.
Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American
Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
Dweck, C.S. and Henderson, V . (1990). Motivation & Achievement. In S.
Feldman & G. Elliot (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing
adolescent (pp. 308-329). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dweck, C.S. and Leggett, E.L., (1988). A social-cognitive approach to
motivation and personality. Psychological Review 95, pp. 256–273.
236
Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally
appropriate classrooms for young adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames
(Eds.), Research on motivation in education (V ol. 3, pp. 139-186).
New York: Academic Press.
Eccles, J.S., Wigfield, A., Harold, R.D., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993). Age and
gender differences in children's self- and task perceptions during
elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830-847.
Eccles, J.S., Wigfield, A., Midgley C., Reuman, D., Mac Iver, D., Feldlaufer,
H., (1993). Negative Effects of Traditional Middle Schools on
Students' Motivation. The Elementary School Journal V ol.93 (5).
Eccles, J.S., Wigfield,A. & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W.
Damon (Series Ed.) and N. Eisenberg (V ol. Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology (5
th
ed., V ol. III, pp. 1017-1095). New York: Wiley.
Education Week (2007, June 12) Diplomas Count 2007: Ready for What?
Preparing Students for College, Careers and Life after High School.
Betheseda, MD: Editorial Projects in Education Research Center.
Ellison, C., Boykin, W. , Tyler, K., Dillihunt, M., (2005). Examining
Classroom Learning Preferences Among Elementary School Students.
Social Behavior and Personality, 33(7) 600-708.
Elliot, A., (1999). Approach and Avoidance Motivation and Achievement
Goals, Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 169-189.
Elliot, A.J., & Church, M.A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and
avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 72, 218-232.
Elliott, E.S., & Dweck, C.S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and
achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 X 2 achievement goal
framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,
501-519.
237
Epstein, J. (1989). Target: An examination of parallel school and family that
promote student motivation and achievement. (Report No. 6). Center
for Research on Elementary and Middle schools report. Washington,
DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED), (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED291504)
ETS Policy Notes, (2008). Addressing Achievement Gaps: the language
acquisition and educational achievemnet of English language
learners, 16(2).
Ferguson, R.F. (1998). Teachers' perceptions and expectations and the
Black-White test score gap. In C. Jencks & M. Phillips (Eds.), The
Black-White test score gap (pp. 273-317) Washington, DC:
Brookings.
Finn, J. (1989). Withdrawing from School. Review of Educational Research,
59(2), 117-142.
Finn, J.D., & Rock, D.A. (1997). Academic success among students at-risk of
school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 221-234.
Fix, M., McHugh, M., Terrazas, M.A., Laglagaron, L. (2008). Los Angeles on
the Leading Edge: Immigrant Integration Indicators and their Policy.
National Center on Immigration Integration Policy, Migration Policy
Institute. Retrieved March 7, 2009, from http://www.migrationpolicy.
org/pubs/NCIIP_Los_Angeles_on_the_Leading_Edge.pdf
Florez, M.C., & Burt, M. (2001). Beginning to work with adult English
language learners: Some considerations. Washington, DC: National
Center for ESL Literacy Education. Available from
www.cal.org/cael/esl_resources/digests/beginQA.html
Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. (1986). Black students', school success: Coping with
the "burden of acting white". Urban Review, 18(3), 176-206.
Fraser, B., & Kahle, J. (2007). Classroom, home and peer environment
influences on student outcomes in science and mathematics: An
analysis of systemic reform data. International Journal of Science
Education, 29(15), 1891-1909.
238
Freeman, K., Gutman, L., & Midgley, C. (2002). Achievement Goals and
Goal Structures. In Midgley (Ed.), Goals, Goal Structures, and
Patterns of Adaptive Learning (pp. 175-204). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Fredricks, J., (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of
the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.
Fry, R. (2003, March). Hispanic youth dropping out of U.S. schools:
Measuring the challenge. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
Fry, R. (2007), How far behind in Math and Reading are English Language
Learners? Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
Fulgini, A. J., Tseng, V ., & Lam, M. (1999). Attitudes toward family
obligations among American adolescents with Asian, Latin American,
and European Backgrounds. Child Development, 70, 1030-1044.
Fuligini, A., Garcia, C., & Witkow, C. (2005). Ethic identity and the
academic adjustment of adolescents from Mexican, Chinese and
European backgrounds. Developmental Psychology, 41(5), 799-811.
Fuligni, A.&, Witkow, M. (2007). Achievement goals and daily school
experiences among adolescents with Asian, Latino, and European
American backgrounds. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3),
584-596.
Garcia, E.E. (1992). "Hispanic" children: Theoretical, empirical, and related
policy issues. Educational Psychology Review, 4, 64-94.
Gardner, R.C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The
role of attitude and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gillies, R., & Ashman, A. (1998). Behavior and interactions of children in
cooperative groups in lower and middle elementary grades. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90, 1-12.
239
Ginorio, A. & Huston, M. (2000). Si, se puede! Yes we can: Latinas in school.
American Association of University Women (AAUW) Educational
Foundation: Washington DC. Retrieved December 19, 2008, from
http://www.aauw.org/2000/latina.html.
Goodenow, C., & Grady, K. (1993). The relationship of school belonging and
friends' values to academic motivation among urban adolescent
students. Journal of Experimental Education, 62, 60-71.
Goldenberg, C.N. & Gallimore, R. (1995). Immigrant Latino parents' values
and beliefs about their children's education: Continuities and
discontinuities across cultures and generations. In P. Pintrich & M.
Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, 9, 183-227.
Gutman, L., (2006). How student and parent goal orientations and classroom
goal structures influence the math achievement of African Americans
during the high school transition. Contemporary Educational
Psychology 31, 44-63.
Haberman, M, (1991). Pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta
Kappan, 73, 290-294.
Harackiewicz, J.M., Barron, K.E., & Elliot, A.J. (1998). Rethinking
achievement goals: When are they adaptive for college students and
why? Educational Psychologist, 33, 1-21
Hatano, G & Inagaki (1991). Sharing cognition through collective
comprehension activity. Perspectives on Socially Share Cognition,
331-348. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Haywood, H.C., and Wachs, T.D. (1981). Intelligence, cognition, and
individual differences. In M.J. Begab, H.C. Haywood, and J.L. Garber
(eds), Psychosocial influences in Low Academic Performance (pp.
95-126). Baltimore: University Park Press.
Heibert, J., Stigler, J., (2000). A proposal for improving classroom teaching:
lessons from the TIMSS video study. The Elementary School Journal
V ol. 101 (1)
240
Helmke, A., Schneider, W., & Weinert, F.E. (1986). Main results of the
German IEA classroom environment study and implications for
teaching. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Francisco.
Herman, K.C., & Tucker, C.M. (2000). Engagement in learning and academic
success among at-risk Latino American students. Journal of Research
and Development in Education, 33, 129-136.
Hijzen, D., Boekaerts, M., & Vedder, P. (2007). Exploring the links between
students' engagement in cooperative learning, their goal preferences
and appraisals of instructional conditions in the classroom. Learning
and Instruction, 17, 673-687.
Hispanic Dropout Project (1998). No more excuses: The final report of the
Hispanic dropout project. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, Office of the Under Secretary.
Huerta-Macias, A. (1998). Learning for Latinos: The sociocultural
perspective. In M.L. Gonzalez, A. Huerta-Macias, & J.V . Tinajero
(Eds.), Educating Latino Students: A guide to successful practice.
Technomic Publishing Co., Inc: PA. 29-45.
Ibanez, G.E., Kupermine, G.P., Jurkovic, G., & Perilla, J. (2004). Cultural
attributes and adaptations linked to achievement motivation. Journal
of Youth & Adolescence, 33, 559-568.
Johnson, L., (2006). Elementary School Students' Learning Preferences and
the Classroom Learning Environment: Implications for Educational
Practice and Policy. Journal of Negro Education, 75(3), 506-518.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1983). Are low achievers disliked in a
cooperative situation? A test of rival theories in a mixed ethnic
situation, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 189-200.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Toward a cooperative effort: A
response to Slavin.
Educational Leadership, 46 (7), 80-81.
241
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone:
Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R. T. (2002). Learning together and alone:
overview and meta-analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22,
95-105.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Holubec, E.J. (1987). Structuring
cooperative learning: Lesson plans for teachers. Edina, MN:
Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D.W., & Norem-Hebeisen, A. (1979). A measure of cooperative,
competitive and individualistic attitudes. Journal of Social
Psychology, 40, 843-850.
Jordan W., & Nettles, S. (1999). How students invest their time out of school:
Effects on school engagement, perceptions of life chances, and
achievement. (Report No. 29). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research
on the Education of Students Place at Risk, Office of Educational
Research and Improvement (ED), Washington, DC:
Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Urdan, T., Midgley, C. (2002). Achievement
Goals and Goal Structures. In Midgley (Ed.), Goals, Goal Structures,
and Patterns of Adaptive Learning (pp. 21-53). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Kahle, Butler, J., Meece, J., & Scantlebury, K. (2000). Urban
African-American middle school science students: Does
standard-based teaching make a difference? Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 37(9), 1019-41.
Lazarowitz, R., Baird, J., & Bowlden, V . (1996). Teaching biology in a group
mastery learning mode: High school student’s academic achievement
and affective outcomes. International Journal of Science Education,
18, 447-462.
Leonardo, A., & Gialamas, V . (2002). Implicity theories, goal orientations,
and perceived competence: Impact on students' achievement behavior.
Psychology in the Schools, 39, (3), 279-291.
242
Lomax, R. G., West, M. M., Harmon, M. C., Viator, K. A., & Madaus, G.F.
(1995). The impact of mandated standardized testing on minority
students. Journal of Negro Education, 64(2), 171-185.
Long, M.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second
language acquisition. In W.C. Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook
of research on language acquisition: V ol. 2. Second language
acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
Mackey, A. (1989). Input, interaction, and second language development: An
empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 21, 557-587.
Maehr, M.L. (1991). The "psychological environment" of the school: A focus
for school leadership. In School leadership (V ol. 2, pp. 51-81).
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Marks, H. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in
the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational
Research Journal, 37(1), 153-184.
Masgoret, A.M., & Gardner, R.C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second
language learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner
and associates. Language Learning, 53 (Suppl. 1), 167-210.
McBride, A., (2008). Addressing achievement gaps: the language acquisition
and educational achievement of English-language learners, 16, (2).
Retrieved January 23, 2009, from
http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PIC-PNV16N2.pdf
McManus, S., & Gettinger, M. (1996). Teacher and student evaluations of
cooperative learning and observed interactive behaviors. The Journal
of Educational Research, 90, 13-22.
Meece, J. L., (1991). The classroom context and students' motivational goals.
In M.L. Maehr & Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and
achievement (V ol. 7, pp261-285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
243
Meece, J.L., & Holt, K. (1993). A pattern analysis of students' achievement
goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 582-590.
Meece, J. L., Blumenfoeld, P.C., & Hoyle, R. (1998). Students’ goal
orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514-523.
Middleton, M.J., Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (2004). The change in middle
school students' achievement goals in mathematics over time. Social
Psychology of Education, 7, 289-311.
Midgley, C., Anderman, E., & Hicks, L (1995). Differences between
elementary and middle school teachers and students: A goal theory
approach. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 90-113.
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 strategies. Journal or Educational Psychology, 88,
423-434.
Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Student/teacher relations
and attitudes toward mathematics before and after the transition to
junior high school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 90-113.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Maehr, M.L., Urdan, T., &
Anderman, L. H. (1998). The development and validation of scales
assessing students’ achievement goal orientations. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 23, 113-131.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M.L., Hruda, L., Anderman, E.M., 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 (P ALS). Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M.J., (2001). Performance-approach
goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at
what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 77-86.
244
Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1992). The transition to middle level schools:
Making it a good experience for all students. Middle School Journal
24(2), 5-14.
Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (2001). Academic self-handicapping and
achievement goals: A further examination. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 26, 61-75.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2002). Dropout rates in the
United States: 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language
Instruction Educational Program, (2007), Retrieved September 10,
2009, from:http://www.ncela.gwu.edu.
National Center for Educational Statistics (2004). The condition of education,
2004. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved June 16, 2008, from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe
National Council for Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and
evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, V A: Author.
National Council for Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Professional standards
for teaching mathematics. Reston, V A: Council for Exceptional
Children.
Nations Report Card. Retrieved May 23, 2008, from
http://nationsreportcard.gov/glossary.asp
Newmann, F. M. (1989). Student engagement and high school reform.
Educational Leadership, 46, 34-36.
Newman, F.M., Wehlage, G.G.., & Lamborn, S.D. (1992). Taking students
seriously. In F.M. Newman (Ed.), Student engagement and
achievement in American secondary schools. New York: Teachers
College, Columbia University.
245
Nicholls, J. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability,
subjective experience. task choice, and performance. Psychological
Review, 91, 328-346.
Nicholls, J., Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., Patashnick, M., (1990). Assessing
students' theories of success in mathematics: individual and classroom
differences. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 21(2) ,
109-122.
Nolen, S.B. & Haladyna, T. (1990). A construct validation of measures of
students' study strategy beliefs and perceptions of teacher goals.
Educational and Psychological Measurements, 50, 191-202.
Ogbu, J.U. (1992). Understanding cultural diversity and learning. Educational
Researcher, 21, 5-14.
Padron, Y .N & Waxman, H.C. (1993). Teaching and learning risks associated
with limited cognitive mastery in science and mathematics for
limited-English proficient students. In Office of Bilingual Education
and Minority Language Affairs (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third
National Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Students:
Focus on Middle and High school issues. 2,(V ol. 2 pp. 511-547).
Parker, J.G., & Asher, S.R. (1987). Peer relatins and later personal adjustment:
Are low-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102,
357-389.
Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., Ryan, A. M., Edelin, K.C., & Midgley, C.
(2001). Teachers' communication of goal orientation in four
fifth-grade classroooms. Elementary School Journal, 102, 35-38.
Patrick, H., Anderman, L.H., Ryan, A.M., Edelin, K., & Midgley, C. (1997,
March). Social intfluences of students' emotional adjustment:
Different effects for African-American and European-American
students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Paris, S., and Oka, I. (1986). Children reading strategies, metacognition and
motivation. Developmental Review 6: 25-86.
246
Patrick, H., Kaplan, A., & Ryan, A., (2007). Early adolescents' perception of
the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs and
engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology 99(1), 83-98.
Pintrich, P.R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal
orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 92, 544-555.
Pintrich, P.R., & Schunk, D.H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory,
research, and applications, 2
nd
Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Merrill-Prentice Hall.
Reid, J. (1992). The effects of cooperative learning with intergroup
competition on the math achievement of seventh grade students.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 355106).
Reyes, O., & Jason, L.A. (1993). Pilot study examining factors associated
with academic success for Hispanic high school students. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 22, 57-71.
Roseth, C., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2008). Promoting early adolescents'
achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative,
competitive and individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin,
134(2) 223-246.
Ross, M.E., Shannon, D.M., Salisbury-Glennon, J.D., and Guarino, A. (2002,
June). The patterns of adaptive learning survey: A comparison
across grade levels. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
62(3), 483-497.
Rueda, R., Monzo, L., & Arzubiaga, A. (2003). Academic instrumental
knowledge: Deconstructing cultural capital theory for strategic
intervention approaches. Current Issues in Education 6(14). Retrieved
April 12, 2009, from http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume6/number14/
Rumberger, R.W., & Larson, K.A. (1998). Student mobility and the increased
risk of high school drop out. American Journal of Education, 107,
1-35.
247
Ryan, A., & Patrick. H., (2001). The classroom social environment and
changes in adolescents' motivation and engagement during middle
school. American Educational Research Journal, 38,(2), 437-460.
Shuell, T. J. (1996). Teaching and learning in a classroom context. In D. C.
Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology
(pp. 726-764)
Shunk, D. (1985). Self-efficacy and school learning. Psychology in the
Schools 22: 208-223.
Schultz, C.F., and Switzky, H. N. (1990). The development of intrinsic
motivation in students with learning problems: Suggestions for more
effective instruction. Preventing School Failure 34: 14-20.
Skinner, E.A. & Belmont, M.J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom:
Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across
the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571-581.
Skinner, E.A., Wellborn, J., & Connell, J.P. (1990). What it takes to do well
in school and whether I've got it: The role of perceived control in
children's engagement and school achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82, 22-32.
Slavin, R. (1990). Cooperative learning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Steele, C., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test
performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 69(5), 797-811.
Stevens, T., Hamman, D., & Olivarez, A., (2007). Hispanic students’
perception of white teachers’ mastery goal orientation influences
sense of school belonging. Journal of Latinos and Education, 6,
55-70.
Stevens, T. Olivarez, A., Jr., Lan, W., & Tallent-Runnels, M.K. (2004). The
role of mathematics self-efficacy and motivation in mathematics
performance. Issues across ethnicity. Journal of Educational Research,
97, 208-221.
248
Stipek, D. (1996). Motivation and Instruction. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee
(Eds.) Handbook of Educational Psychology. NY: Macmillan Press.
Stodolsky, S.S., Salk, S., & Glaessner, B, (1991). Student view about learning
math and social studies. American Education Research Journal, 28,
89-116.
Strage, A. (2000). Predictors of college adjustment and success: Similarities
and differences among Southeast-Asian-American, Hispanic, and
White students. Education, 120, 731-740.
Telese, J. (1999). Mexican American High School Students’ Perceptions of
Mathematics and Mathematics Teaching. Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 21(2), 154-169.
Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (2001). A national study of school effectiveness
for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement.
Center for research on education, diversity and excellence. Retrieved
October 12, 2008 from http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research/llaa
/1.1_final.html
Turner, J., Meyer, D., Anderman, E., Midgley, C., Gheen, M., Kang, Y., &
Patrick, H., (2002). The classroom environment and students’ report
of avoidance strategies in mathematics: a multimethod study. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 88-106
Urdan, T. (1997). Achievement goal theory: Past results, future directions. In
P.R. Pintrich and M.L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and
achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 99-142). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Vaughn, W. (2002). Effects of cooperative learning on achievement and
attitude among students of color. Journal of Educational Research,
95(6), 359-64.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and Society: The development of higher
psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
249
Wellborn, J.G. (1991). Engaged and disaffected action: The
conceptualization and measurement of motivation in the academic
domain. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester,
New York.
Wentzel, K. R. (1991). Social and academic goals at school: Motivation and
achievement in context. In M.L. Maehr & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.),
Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol.7, pp. 185-212).
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Motivation and achievement in early adolescence:
The role of multiple classroom goals. Journal of Early Adolescence,
13, 4-10.
Wittrock, M. (1979). The cognitive movement in instruction. Educational
Researcher, 8(1), 5-11
Wolters, C.A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: using goal
structure and goal orientations to predict students’ motivation,
cognition, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
96(2), 236-250.
Wolters, C.A., Yu, S.L., & Pintrich, P.R. (1996). The relation between goal
orientation and students’ motivational beliefs and self-regulated
learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 211-238.
US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census March Current
Population Surveys, 1971-2003, in the condition of Education 2005.
Retrieved May 12, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2005
/section3/indicator23.asp#info
Zimmerman, B.J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement:
An overview. Educational Psychologist, 21, 3-17.
250
APPENDIX A
Spanish Informed Consent for Survey
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
rsoeinfo@usc.edu
CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO PARA LA INVESTIGACION DE
NON-MEDICAL PERMISO P ARENTAL
**************************************************************
CONSENTIMIENTO A PARTICIPAR EN LA INVESTIGACION
Examen del Ambiente de la Sala de Clase en la Motivación y
Contrato de los Principiantes Ingleses de Latino en
Matemáticas
Esta letra es para informarle que se le invita a su hijo/hija a participar en un
estudio de la investigación conducido por Patricia A. MS y Roberto Rueda
Ph.D de Wadman de la escuela de Rossier de la educación en la Universidad de
California meridional porque su niño es un estudiante del cuarto, siete, o del
octavo grado en una salón de clase de matemáticas en el sitio seleccionado de
la escuela. Los resultados de este estudio serán utilizados en un proyecto
doctoral de la disertación. Seleccionaron a su hijo/hija porque sus
sensaciones y creencias sobre matemáticas son importantes para mejorar la
instrucción de clase y el logro del estudiante para los principiantes del inglés
del Latino. La participación en el estudio es voluntaria. Usted debe leer la
información abajo, y hacer preguntas acerca de cualquier cosa que no
entienda, antes de decidir si va a participar o no. Tome por favor el tiempo que
usted necesite para leer la forma del consentimiento. Usted y/o su niño pueden
también decidir con su familia o amigos. Si usted y/o su niño deciden
participar, le pedirán que firmen esta forma y le darán una copia de ella.
PROPÓSITO DEL ESTUDIO
Este proyecto se diseña para investigar la motivación, el contrato y el logro
251
del estudiante entre principiantes del inglés de Latino. La investigación se
centra en varias áreas de la motivación y se presumen ser una herramienta
para el éxito de la escuela.
PROCEDIMIENTOS
Si usted se ofrece voluntariamente a la participación de su niño en este
estudio, pediríamos que usted o su niño hiciera las cosas siguientes:
Participación:
Usted y su niño deben leer, firmar y fechar las formas del consentimiento.
Vuelva las formas del consentimiento a su sitio de la escuela. Usted recibirá
la fecha y la cuatro del examen.
Los instrumentos del examen:
El examen contiene 30 preguntas cortas que deben tomar cerca de 15 minutos
para terminar. Pedirán a los estudiantes (usted) clasificar cuánto usted
concuerda con una declaración (de “en absoluto verdad” a “muy verdad”) un
ejemplo está “en esta clase de la matemáticas, yo aprendo de mis compañeros
de clase”.
Datos del gravamen de las matemáticas y número de identificación del
estudiante:
Si usted permite dar los resultados de las matemáticas de sus estudiantes y su
número de identificación, esto permitirá que el investigador compare el
resultado de las matemáticas con respuestas del examen sin saber los
nombres de los estudiantes.
RIESGOS Y MALESTARES POTENCIALES
Si hay una ocasión en que su hijo/hija no se siente cómodo al pensar de su
experiencia y sensaciones de la escuela sobre matemáticas, usted tiene la
derecha de parar el cuestionario en cualquier momento.
VENTAJAS POTENCIALES A LOS TEMAS Y/O A LA SOCIEDAD
Los resultados de este estudio proveerán de educadores la información a los
principiantes ingleses de Latino de la ayuda en matemáticas. Las escuelas
necesitan la información sobre cómo sostener a estudiantes de Latino'
motivación y contrato a través del período de elemental a la escuela media
pues ésta es cuando el logro de los estudiantes' en matemáticas disminuye
substancialmente.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION PARA LA PARTICIPACIÓN
252
Inscribirán a los estudiantes en una rifa para un IPOD Shuffle. ($50 en valor);
todos los estudiantes en su nivel del grado tendrán una oportunidad de
ganar uno de cuatro premios con el ganador seleccionado por la rifa. Los
estudiantes que participan también recibirán un lápiz de USC. Usted no será
pagado para participar en este estudio de la investigación.
CONFLICTOS DEL INTERÉS POTENCIALES
Los investigadores de esta investigación no tienen ningún interés financiero
en el asunto que es estudiado.
CONFIDENCIAL
Cualquier información que se obtiene con respecto a este estudio y que se
pueda identificar con usted seguirá siendo confidencial y será divulgada
solamente con su permiso o según los requisitos de ley.
Solamente los miembros del equipo de investigación tendrán acceso a los
datos asociados a este estudio. Los datos serán almacenados en la oficina del
investigador en un archivo/una computadora protegida con contraseña. Los
datos pero no la identidad se pueden lanzar a la silla del comité de la
disertación que repasa el estudio que se han terminado y después se han
destruido los datos serán almacenados por tres años después del estudio.
Cuando los resultados de la investigación se publican o se discuten en
conferencias, no hay información incluida que revelaría su identidad.
PARTICIPACIÓN Y RETIRO
Usted puede elegir si participara en este estudio o no. Si usted se ofrece
voluntariamente a estar en este estudio, usted puede retirarse en cualquier
momento sin consecuencias de la clase. Usted puede también rechazar
contestar a cualquier pregunta que usted no desee contestar y todavía
permanecer en el estudio. El investigador puede excusarlo de esta
investigación si se presentan las circunstancias que autorizan hacer tal.
ALTERNATIVAS A LA PARTICIPACIÓN
El alternativa usted y/o de su niño no es participar.
LAS DERECHAS DE LOS TEMAS DE LA INVESTIGACIÓN
Usted puede retirar su consentimiento en cualquier momento y continuar la
participación sin pena. Usted no está renunciando ninguna demanda legal,
las derechas o los remedios debido a su participación en esta investigación
que estudian. Si usted tiene cualesquier preguntas sobre las sus derechos o
253
los derechos de su hijo como un tema o usted del estudio quisiera hablar con
alguien independiente del equipo de investigación para obtener respuestas a
las preguntas de la investigación, o en el acontecimiento el personal de
investigación no puede ser alcanzado, entre en contacto con por favor el
parque IRB, oficina de la universidad del vice preboste para el adelanto de la
investigación, Stonier Pasillo, sitio 224a, Los Ángeles, CA 90089-1146, (213)
821-5272 o upirb@usc.edu
IDENTIFICACIÓN DE INVESTIGADORES
Si usted tiene algunas preguntas o preocupaciones por la investigación, por
favor siéntase libre estar en contacto con a Patricia A. Wadman, (818)
809-6017 o el Dr. Roberto Rueda (323) 740-9323 USC 3470 Parkway de
Trousdale Los Ángeles, CA 90089 Escuela de WPH 802 Rossier de la
educación
FIRMA DEL PADRE
Yo/nosotros hemos leído (o alguien me ha leído) la información
proporcionada arriba. Se nos ha dado la oportunidad de hacer preguntas. Las
preguntas mías y de mi hijo/hija se han contestado a mi satisfacción.
Nosotros participaremos en este estudio tendré a mi hijo/hija participar en
este estudio. Se nos ha dado una copia de esta forma.
Usted puede participar en el estudio de la investigación si usted desea dar sus
cuentas del examen de las matemáticas o no.
□ Yo permito lanzar las cuentas del gravamen del número de
identificación y de las matemáticas del estudiante de mi niño para
esto estudio.
□ Yo no quiero que las cuentas del gravamen de las matemáticas de
mi niño fueran lanzadas para este estudio.
Nombre del tema
Nombre del padre
254
Firma del padre Fecha
FIRMA DEL INVESTIGADOR
He explicado la investigación al tema y a su padres, y he contestado a todas
sus preguntas. Creo que los padres entienden la información descrita en este
documento y consiento libremente participar.
Nombre del investigador
Firma del investigador Fecha
Nombre del testigo
Firma del testigo Fecha
255
APPENDIX B
English Informed Consent for Survey
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
rsoeinfo@usc.edu
INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
PARENTAL PERMISSION
**************************************************************
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
An Examination of Classroom Environment on Motivation
and Engagement of Latino English Learners in Mathematics
This letter is to inform you that your child is invited to participate in a
research study conducted by Patricia A. Wadman MS and Robert Rueda Ph.D.
from the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California because your child is a fourth, seventh, or eight grade student in a
mathematics classroom at the selected school site. The results of this study
will be used in a doctoral dissertation project. Your child was selected as a
possible participant in this study because their feelings and beliefs about
mathematics are important for improving classroom instruction and student
achievement for Latino English learners. Participation in the study is
voluntary. You should read the information below, and ask questions about
anything you do not understand, before deciding whether or not to participate.
Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form. You and/or
your child may also decide to discuss it with your family or friends. If you
and/or your child decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form.
You will be given a copy of this form.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This project is designed to investigate student motivation, engagement and
256
achievement among Latino English learners. The research is focused on
several areas of motivation and engagement that are hypothesized to be
predictors of school success.
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to your child’s participation in this study, we would ask you
or your child to do the following things:
Participation:
You and your child should read, sign and date the consent forms if you agree
to participate.
Return the consent forms to your school site. You will receive the date and
location of the survey.
The survey instruments
The survey contains 30 short questions which should take about 15 minutes
to complete. Students (you) will be asked to rate how much you agree with a
statement (from “not at all true” to “very true”) an example is “In this math
class, I learn from my classmates”.
Mathematics Assessment Data & Student Identification Number
If you agree to release of your students’ mathematics scores and identification
number, this will allow the researcher to compare mathematics achievement
with survey responses without knowing the students names.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There is a chance your child may not feel comfortable when thinking about
their school experience and feelings about mathematics. Your child has the
right to stop filling out the questionnaire at any time.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
The results of this study will provide educators with information to support
Latino English learners in mathematics. Schools need information on how to
sustain Latino students’ motivation and engagement throughout the period
from elementary to middle school as this is when students’ achievement in
mathematics decreases substantially.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
257
Students will be entered into a raffle for an IPOD shuffle ($50 in value); all
students in your grade level will have an equal chance to win one of four
prizes with the winner selected through a random draw. Participating students
will also receive a USC pencil. You will not be paid for participating in this
research study.
POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The investigators of this research do not have any financial interest in the
topic being studied.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with
your permission or as required by law.
Only members of the research team will have access to the data associated
with this study. The data will be stored in the investigator’s office in a
locked file cabinet/password protected computer. Data but not identity may
be released to the chair of the dissertation committee reviewing the study The
data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and then
destroyed. When the results of the research are published or discussed in
conferences, no information will be included that would reveal your identity.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in
this study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind.
You may also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and
still remain in the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this
research if circumstances arise which warrant doing so.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
You and/or your child’s alternative is not to participate.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation
without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies
because of your participation in this research study. If you have any
questions about your rights and/or your child’s rights as a study subject or
you would like to speak with someone independent of the research team to
obtain answers to questions about the research, or in the event the research
258
staff can not be reached, please contact the University Park IRB, Office of the
Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to
contact Patricia A. Wadman, (818) 809-6017 or Dr. Robert Rueda (323)
740-9323 USC 3470 Trousdale Parkway Los Angeles, CA 90089 WPH 802
Rossier School of Education
SIGNATURE OF PARENT
I/we have read (or someone has read to me) the information provided above.
I/we have been given a chance to ask questions. My/our questions have
been answered to my/our satisfaction, and I/we agree to participate in this
study and/or have our child (ren) participate in this study. I/we have been
given a copy of this form.
You can still be in the research study whether or not you agree to release your
mathematics assessment scores.
□ I agree to release my child’ s student identification number and
mathematics assessment scores for this study.
□ I do not want my child’ s mathematics assessment scores to be
released for this study.
_________________________________________
Name of Subject
________________________________________
Name of Parent
______________
Signature of Parent Date
259
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
I have explained the research to the subject and his/her parent(s), and
answered all of their questions. I believe that the parent(s) understand the
information described in this document and freely consents to participate.
__________________ ______________________
Name of Investigator
________________________________________ ________________
Signature of Investigator Date
_______________ _________________________
Name of Witness
__________________ ______________________ _________________
Signature of Witness Date
260
APPENDIX C
Spanish Child Assent for Survey
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
ASSENT FORM FOR RESEARCH
Page 1 of 2
Una examinación del ambiente de la sala de clase en la
motivación y contrato de los principiantes ingleses de
Latino en matemáticas
Mi nombre es Patricia Wadman y soy una estudiante en la Universidad de
California meridional. Le estoy pidiendo que participe en este estudio de la
investigación para ayudar a profesores y a administradores a entender
creencia y sensaciones de los estudiantes Latinos hacia matemáticas.
Estamos intentando aprender más sobre cómo los estudiantes se sienten sobre
las matemáticas y qué usted cree son importantes aprender matemáticas.
Si usted decide estar en este estudio le pedirán completar un examen en la
computadora o con el papel y lápiz. Usted recibirá un lápiz de USC por
tomar el examen. Las preguntas son cortocircuito y pedirán que usted
clasifique cómo usted se siente sobre su experiencia en matemáticas este año.
Pediremos su permiso de ver su cuenta del gravamen de las matemáticas y de
utilizar su número de identificación del estudiante para que su gravamen de
las matemáticas será emparejado a sus respuestas del examen. Sus respuestas
no serán compartidas y no le preguntarán que su nombre en el examen así
que nadie sabrá quién es. Los exámenes serán mantenidos un lugar seguro y
la información será utilizada para ayudar a profesores y a administradores a
aprender más sobre cómo hacer la clase de las matemáticas más agradable y
el acoplamiento.
Este cuestionario es una gran manera para que usted piense de cómo usted
se siente sobre escuela y matemáticas. Si hay una occasion en que usted no
261
puede sentirse cómodo cuando usted piensa de su experiencia de la escuela y
de sus sensaciones sobre matemáticas, usted tiene la derecha de parar el del
cuestionario en cualquier momento.
Si usted decide participar en este estudio o no, se le inscribirá en una rifa
para un IPOD Shuffle. Antes que usted decida participar en este estudio usted
debe primero hablar de esto con sus padres. También pediremos que sus
padres den su permiso para que usted participe en este estudio. Pero aunque
sus padres dicen que usted puede inmóvil decidir “sí” no hacer esto. Si usted
decide participar en el estudio, usted tiene el derecho de cambiar su decision
y de decidir no participar. Usted puede hacer cualquier pregunta que tenga
sobre el estudio. Si usted tiene una pregunta más adelante que usted no
pregunto ahora, usted puede hablarme por telefono al (818) 809-6017
preguntarme la proxima vez.
Ponga su nombre en el fondo significa que usted ha decidido estar en este
estudio. Si usted conviene el dar su número de identificación del estudiante y
de sus cuentas del assessement de las matemáticas para el semestre de la
caída usted debe seleccionar el apropiado encajona. Le y sus padres darán
una copia de esta forma después de que usted la haya firmado. Por favor haga
seguro volver la forma del permiso del padre también si usted desea
participar en este estudio.
Usted puede todavía ser en el estudio de la investigación si o no usted
acuerda lanzar sus cuentas del gravamen de las matemáticas.
Yo permito dar mis cuentas del gravamen del número de
identificación y de las matemáticas del estudiante que se utilizarán para este
estudio.
Yo no quiero que mis cuentas del gravamen de las matemáticas
sean utilizadas para este estudio.
Nombre del estudiante (tema)
_______________________________________ _____ ______________
(Por favor puesto su nombre aquí ↑) Fecha
_______________________________________
*Name de la Persona que Obtiene Asentimiento
262
APPENDIX D
English Child Assent for Survey
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
ASSENT FORM FOR RESEARCH
Page 1 of 2
An Examination of Classroom Environment on
Motivation and Engagement of Latino English Learners
in Mathematics
My name is Patricia Wadman and I am a student at the University of
Southern California. I am asking you to take part in this research study to
help teachers and administrators understand Latino students beliefs and
feelings towards mathematics class. We are trying to learn more about how
students your age feel about mathematics and what you believe is important
to learn mathematics.
If you decide to be in this study you will be asked to complete a survey
either on the computer or with paper and pencil. You will receive a USC
pencil for taking the survey. The questions are short and will ask you to rate
how you feel about your experience in mathematics this year. We will ask for
your permission to see your mathematics assessment score and to use your
student identification number so your mathematics assessment will be
matched to your survey responses. Your answers will not be shared and you
will not be asked your name on the survey so no one will know who you are.
The surveys will be kept in a safe place and the information will be used to
help teachers and administrators learn more about how to make mathematics
class more enjoyable and engaging.
This questionnaire is a great way for you to think about how you feel
about school and mathematics. There is a chance that you may not feel
comfortable when you think about your school experience and your feelings
263
about mathematics. You have the right to stop filling out the questionnaire
at any time.
Whether or not you decide to participate in this study, you will still be
entered into a raffle for an ipod shuffle . Before you decide to participate in
this study you should first discuss this with your parents. We will also ask
your parents to give their permission for you to take part in this study. But
even if your parents say “yes” you can still decide not to do this. If you do
decide to participate in the study, you have the right to change your mind and
decide not to participate. You can ask any questions that you have about the
study. If you have a question later that you didn’t think of now, you can call
me at (818) 809-6017 or ask me next time.
Putting your name at the bottom means that you have decided to be in
this study. If you agree to the release of your student identification number
and your mathematics assessment scores for the fall semester you must select
the appropriate box. You and your parents will be given a copy of this form
after you have signed it. Please make sure to return the parent permission
form as well if you want to participate in this study.
You can still be in the research study whether or not you agree to release
your mathematics assessment scores.
I agree to allow my student identification number and mathematics
assessment scores to be used for this study.
I do not want my mathematics assessment scores to be used for this
study.
Name of Student (Subject)
___________________________________ ____________________
(Please put your name here ↑) Date
___________________________________
*Name of Person Obtaining Assent
__________________________________ ____________________
*Signature of Person Obtaining Assent Date
264
APPENDIX E
Youth Assent for Survey
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
rsoeinfo@usc.edu
INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
FOR YOUTH (AGES 12-17)
**************************************************************
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
Examination of Classroom Environment on Motivation and
Engagement of Latino English Learners in Mathematics
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Patricia A.
Wadman MS and Robert Rueda Ph.D. from the Rossier School of Education
at the University of Southern California because you are a fourth, seventh or
eighth grade student in a mathematics classroom. The results of this study
will be used in a doctoral dissertation project. You were selected as a possible
participant in this study because your feelings and beliefs about mathematics
are important for improving classroom instruction and student achievement
for Latino English learners. A total of 200 to 300 subjects who are Latino
English learners ranging in ages from 9 to 18 and enrolled in elementary and
middle school mathematics classes will be selected to participate. Your
participation is voluntary. You should read the information below, and ask
questions about anything you do not understand, before deciding whether or
not to participate. Your parent’s permission will be sought; however, the final
decision is yours. Even if your parents agree to your participation, you
don’t have to participate if you don’t want to. Please take as much time as
you need to read this form. You may also decide to discuss it with your
family or friends. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this
form. You will be given a copy of this form.
265
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This project is designed to investigate student motivation, engagement and
achievement among Latino English learners. The research is focused on
several areas of motivation and engagement that are hypothesized to be
predictors of school success.
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the
following things:
Participation:
First you will receive two consent forms for you and your parent(s) to read,
sign, and date. Next you will return the consent forms to your teacher. Then
you will receive the date and location of where and when the survey will take
place at your school site.
You will use your student identification number (which will be given to you
by the researcher at the time of the survey) to attach to your survey so your
identity will remain unknown but your survey results can be matched to your
mathematics assessment data.
The survey instruments
There will be three surveys with a total of 30 short questions addressing the
main variables: class environment (teaching strategies), motivation (goal
orientation) and engagement. You will be asked to rate your level of
agreement (from “not at all true” to “very true”) with questions, such as,” I
like work that I learn from in math even if I make a lot of mistakes” and “ In
this math class, I learn from my classmates”.
Mathematics Assessment Data
If you agree to the release of your mathematics scores from the fall semester,
this will allow the researcher to match your scores with your survey
responses. Your name for your math scores will not be revealed so no one
will know who you are and what your scores are. You can still participate in
the research even if you decide not to share your math scores.
Completion:
You will take the survey one time. The estimated time for completion is 15 to
20 minutes.
266
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There is a chance that you may not feel comfortable when you think about
your school experience and your feelings about mathematics. You have the
right to stop filling out the questionnaire at any time.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
The results of this study will provide educators with information to support
Latino English learners in mathematics. It is important to understand what
motivates and engages this population of students as they are at risk of school
failure. The research suggests Latino students who dropout, cite school related
issues more than any other reason. Schools are in need of information on how
to sustain Latino students’ motivation and engagement throughout the
transition period from elementary to middle school so students have access to
advanced mathematics in high school and college.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will be entered into a raffle for one of four IPOD shuffles ($50.00 each
in value); all students in your grade will have an equal chance to win one of
four prizes with the winner selected through a random draw. You will not be
paid for participating in this research study, however all participants will
receive a USC pencil.
POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The investigators of this research do not have any financial interest in the
topic being studied.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with
your permission or as required by law.
Only members of the research team will have access to the data associated
with this study. The data will be stored in the investigator’s office in a
locked file cabinet/password protected computer. Data but not identity may
be released to the chair of the dissertation committee reviewing the study.
The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and
then destroyed. When the results of the research are published or discussed in
conferences, no information will be included that would reveal your identity.
267
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in
this study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind.
You may also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and
still remain in the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this
research if circumstances arise which warrant doing so.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation
without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies
because of your participation in this research study. If you have any
questions about your rights as a study subject or you would like to speak with
someone independent of the research team to obtain answers to questions
about the research, or in the event the research staff can not be reached,
please contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA
90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to
contact
Patricia A. Dickenson, (818) 809-6017 or Dr. Robert Rueda (323) 740-9323
USC 3470 Trousdale Parkway Los Angeles, CA 90089 WPH 802 Rossier
School of Education.
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT
I have read (or someone has read to me) the information provided above. I
have been given a chance to ask questions. My questions have been
answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.
You can still be in the research study whether or not you agree to release your
mathematics assessment scores.
□ I agree to release my student identification number and
mathematics assessment scores to be used for this study.
268
□ I do not want my mathematics assessment scores to be used for this study.
_________________________________________
Name of Subject
______________
Signature of Subject Date
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
I have explained the research to the subject and answered all of his/her
questions. I believe that he/she understands the information described in
this document and freely consents to participate.
_________________________________________
Name of Investigator
______________
Signature of Investigator Date
269
APPENDIX F
Teacher Consent for Survey
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
rsoeinfo@usc.edu
INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH PERMISSION
**************************************************************
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
An Examination of Classroom Environment on Motivation
and Engagement of Latino English Learners in Mathematics
This letter is to inform you that you are invited to participate in a research
study conducted by Patricia A. Dickenson MS and Robert Rueda Ph.D. from
the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California
because you are a fourth or eighth grade teacher of mathematics at the
selected school site. The results of this study will be used in a doctoral
dissertation project. Your class was selected in this study because their
feelings and beliefs about mathematics are important for improving
classroom instruction and student achievement for Latino English learners. A
total of 12 to 20 teachers of Latino English learners ranging in ages from 9 to
18 and enrolled in elementary and middle school mathematics classes will be
selected to participate. Participation in the study is voluntary. You should
read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not
understand, before deciding whether or not to participate. Please take as
much time as you need to read the consent form. If you decide to participate,
you will be asked to sign this form. You will be given a copy of this form.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This project is designed to investigate student motivation, engagement and
achievement among Latino English learners. The research is focused on
several areas of motivation and engagement that are hypothesized to be
predictors of school success.
270
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the
following things: Participation:
First read sign and date the consent form. Next return the consent forms to
the office of your school site. Then you will receive the survey. Complete the
survey and return to the office at your school site.
The survey instruments:
There will be 5 short questions related to your teaching experience and the
type of school you teach at. You will be asked to select a response for each
question. A sample question is “The type of school you teach at?” (from
“Title 1” to “Non-Title 1”).
Completion:
The survey will only occur once. The estimated time for completion is 1 to 3
minutes.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There is a chance you may not feel comfortable when answering these
questions. You have the right to stop filling out the questionnaire at any time.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
The results of this study will provide educators with information to support
Latino English learners in mathematics. It is important to understand what
motivates and engages this population of students as they are at risk of school
failure. The research suggests Latino students who dropout, cite school related
issues more than any other reason. Schools are in need of information on how
to sustain Latino students’ motivation and engagement throughout the
transition period from elementary to middle school and high school as this is
when students’ achievement in mathematics decreases substantially.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
Teachers will receive a Target gift card ($10 in value). You will not be paid
for participating in this research study.
POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The investigators of this research do not have any financial interest in the
topic being studied.
271
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with
your permission or as required by law.
Only members of the research team will have access to the data associated
with this study. The data will be stored in the investigator’s office in a
locked file cabinet/password protected computer. Data but not identity may
be released to the chair of the dissertation committee reviewing the study The
data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and then
destroyed. When the results of the research are published or discussed in
conferences, no information will be included that would reveal your identity.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in
this study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind.
You may also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and
still remain in the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this
research if circumstances arise which warrant doing so.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is not to participate.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation
without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies
because of your participation in this research study. If you have any
questions about your rights and/or your child’s rights as a study subject or
you would like to speak with someone independent of the research team to
obtain answers to questions about the research, or in the event the research
staff can not be reached, please contact the University Park IRB, Office of the
Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to
contact
Patricia A. Dickenson, (818) 809-6017 or Dr. Robert Rueda (323) 740-9323
USC 3470 Trousdale Parkway Los Angeles, CA 90089 WPH 802 Rossier
School of Education
272
SIGNATURE OF SUBJECT
I have read (or someone has read to me) the information provided above. I
have been given a chance to ask questions. My questions have been
answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.
________________________________
Name of Subject
________________________________ __________
Signature of Subject Date
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
I have explained the research to the subject and his/her parent(s), and
answered all of their questions. I believe that the parent(s) understand the
information described in this document and freely consents to participate.
_________________________________________
Name of Investigator
____________
Signature of Investigator Date
_________________________________________
Name of Witness
_________________________________________ _____________
Signature of Witness Date
273
APPENDIX G
Cover Sheet Consent Packet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
rsoeinfo@usc.edu
To: Parents at “Name of School”
From: Patricia Dickenson, Principal Investigator
RE: University of Southern California Research Study
This invitation packet is for a study conducted by Patricia Dickenson doctoral
candidate from the University of Southern California. The purpose of the
study is to explore Latino English language learners’ motivation and
engagement in mathematics in the elementary and middle schools. This study
is restricted to Latino students who are English Language learners. Your child
should be able to read English in order to participate in this survey. Please
read the enclosed consent forms. If you would like your child to participate
please sign and return all of the forms to your school site.
*You must return all forms signed and dated by “date” in order to participate.
Este paquete es para un estudio conducido por el candidato doctoral de
Patricia Dickenson de la Universidad de California meridional. El propósito
del estudio es dar motivación a los principiantes de lengua inglesa en
matemáticas en las escuelas primarias y medias. Este estudio se restringe a
los estudiantes hispanos que son principiantes de lengua inglesa. Su niño
274
debe poder leer inglés para participar en este examen. Lea por favor las
formas incluidas del consentimiento. Si usted quisiera que participara su niño
por favor firme y vuelva todas las formas a su sitio de la escuela.
*Usted debe traer todas las formas firmadas y anticuadas a la oficina antes
del “fecha” para participar.
275
APPENDIX H
Recruitment Speech
Hello, my name is Patricia Wadman and I am a doctoral candidate in the
Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. I
would like to tell you about a study that I am conducting as part of a
requirement for my doctoral degree. I am interested in understanding how
students who are Latino English learners feel about their mathematics
classroom. You were selected for this survey because the majority of students
at your school site are Latino English learners. I will be surveying students
in the fourth and eighth grades. There are three other school sites that are
participating in this survey and I hope to survey from 200-300 students. I
want you to know that participation in this survey is voluntary.
The study is looking at mathematics achievement in relation to the surveys.
Your parents’ permission will be required to access this information. Your
school ID will only be viewed by me the principal investigator to view your
mathematics achievement scores. I want you to know that your responses to
the survey will not be shared with anyone; in fact you will not be required to
write your name on the survey. Your teachers will not be able to see your
responses and your answers will not affect the grade you receive in this class.
The survey contains 39 questions which will take approximately 15-20
minutes to complete. The first part of the survey asks you about yourself. An
example question would be “Are you male or female?” The next three parts
of the survey will ask you to rate your opinion on a scale of 1-5. In the first
section you will describe yourself as a student. A sample statement is “I pay
attention during mathematics class”. Using the scale 1 means “Not at all true,
3 means “Somewhat True”, and 5 means “Very True”. The next section asks
you about your beliefs during mathematics class a sample statement is “it is
important to me that other students in my math class think I am good at
math”. You will use the same scale 1 means “Not at all true, 3 means
“Somewhat True”, and 5 means “Very True. The last part of the survey asks
you about the things you do during mathematics class, a sample statement is
“in this math class, I learn from my classmates” you will tell me how often
this occurs in your math class
276
All students will be eligible for the prize drawing of an Ipod shuffle ($49.00
each) whether they choose to participate in the study or not. A total of four
Ipod shuffles will be given away during the random drawing.
If you would like to participate in this study you will need to do two things,
first speak to your parents about this study. Please read over and discuss with
your parents the informed consent. Then your parent will need to sign the
inform consent form and you will need to sign the assent form that you will
be receiving. If your parents agree to release your mathematics assessment
scores please check the box on the form as well. Second once you and your
parents sign the consent/assent form please return it to your homeroom
teacher. If you choose not to participate you can still return the forms and be
eligible for the prize drawings.
Thank you,
277
APPENDIX I
Study Proposal
The Study of Latino English Learners’ Motivation and Engagement in
Mathematics
IDENTIFICATION OF RESEARCHER: Patricia Dickenson M.S. a
doctoral candidate from the Rossier School of Education at the University of
Southern California & Dr. Robert Rueda Ph.D.
COLLEGE AFFILIATE: University of Southern California Rossier
School of Education
PURPOSE OF THIS PROJECT: This project is designed to investigate
student motivation, engagement and achievement among 4
th
and 8
th
grade
Latino English learners. The research is focused on several areas of
motivation and engagement that are hypothesized to be predictors of school
success.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY: Data will be collected in
the form of self-report questionnaire that will be administered either in paper
format or on the computer at the school site. The procedure for data
collection will be to distribute and collect an informed consent from the
students and their families prior to data collection. Mathematics Achievement
will be collected after the administration of quarterly assessments (Fall 2008).
DATE PROJECT IS TO BEGIN IN SCHOOL (S): NOVEMBER 2008
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATES: FEBRUARY 2009
NUMBER OF STUDENTS: All 4
th
, 7
th
and 8
th
graders are invited to
participate.
WILL RESEARCH BE CONDUCTED DURING SCHOOL HOURS?
YES.
WILL TEACHER(S) BE REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE? NO. Teachers
278
may elect to partake in a questionnaire to collect demographic information
which will remain confidential.
WILL SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS BE REQUESTED TO
PARTICIPATE?
NO.
HOW WILL STUDENTS/FACULTY BENEFIT FROM THIS
PROJECT?
The results of this study will provide educators with information to support
Latino English learners in mathematics. It is important to understand what
motivates and engages this population of students as they are at greatest risk
of school failure. The research suggests Latino students who dropout, cite
school related issues more than any other reason. Schools are in need of
information on how to sustain Latino students’ motivation and engagement
throughout the transition period from elementary to middle school as this is
when students achievement in mathematics decreases substantially. It is
important to examine students’ perception of the learning environment in
elementary and middle school to determine if differences in the learning
environment exist and which instructional practices are more likely to engage
and motivate Latino students. The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts the
number of jobs in science and mathematics will grow by 47%, three times the
rate of all occupations by the year 2010. Only 3% of all workers employed in
a science or engineering occupation are Hispanic (National Science
Foundation, 2002). It is important to examine how the learning environment
impacts student motivation and engagement. The classroom environment is
where students form their perception of school and educators have the
greatest impact. In addition the researcher of this study will provide any or all
of the following to the school site:
Summary of the research findings
V olunteer at school site.
Professional Development for teachers and/or parents on
student motivation and engagement
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
279
APPENDIX J
Teacher Questionnaire
Teacher Demographic Information
Dear Teacher,
Thank you for your willingness to participate in this study. Please note the
below questions will only be used for the purpose of this study. All of your
responses will be kept confidential. This survey is voluntary and you may
stop at any time. Complete the questions below by checking the appropriate
boxes.
1. Your current teaching assignment (grade & class):
_________________________
2. Your gender is:
Female
Male
3. The type of school you teach at:
Title 1
Non-Title 1
4. Your Ethnicity:
Hispanic Caucasian African-American Asian
Other: __________
5. The number of years you have been teaching:
0-3 years
4-6 years
7-10 years
More than 10 years
280
6. Coursework taken related to student motivation: (including collegiate
and in-service classes)
None
1 class
2-3 classes
More than 3 classes
281
APPENDIX K
Mastery Goal Orientation Questions
PERSONAL ACHIEVEMENT GOAL ORIENTATION SCALES
Items from Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS), Midgley et al. (2000)
Mastery Goal Orientation
Students who are mastery oriented believe learning is a process of
self-improvement and understanding. They are more likely to take on
challenging tasks, use strategies when problem solving and participate even
when mistakes are known to others (Elliot & Dweck, 1988).
1 2 3 4 5
NOT AT ALL TRUE SOMEWHAT TRUE VERY TRUE
Mastery Goal Orientation Items 1 2 3 4 5
22. One of my goals in math class is to learn as much
as I can.
23. It is important to me that I thoroughly understand
my math work.
24. It is important to me that I improve my skills in
math this year.
25. One of my goals is to master a lot of new math
skills this year.
282
APPENDIX L
Performance-Approach Goal Orientation Questions
PERSONAL ACHIEVEMENT GOAL ORIENTATION SCALES
Items from Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS), Midgley et al. (2000)
Performance-Approach Goal Orientation
Students who are performance-approach oriented value appearing competent
and outperforming others. They seek positive feedback regarding their ability
and believe achievement is attributed to one’s ability rather than effort. They
are more likely to disengage from activities viewed as too difficult to
accomplish, and persist in the face of failure (Ames, 1992).
1 2 3 4 5
NOT AT ALL TRUE SOMEWHAT TRUE VERY TRUE
Performance-Approach Questions 1 2 3 4 5
26. It is important to me that other students in my math
class think I’m good at math
27. One of my goals is to show others that math work is
easy for me.
28. One of my goals is to show others that I’m good at
my math work.
29. It is important to me that I look smart compared to
others in math class.
283
APPENDIX M
Performance-Avoidance Orientation Questions
PERSONAL ACHIEVEMENT GOAL ORIENTATION SCALES
Items from Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS), Midgley et al. (2000)
Performance-Avoidance Goal Orientation
Students who are performance-avoidance oriented seek to avoid negative
feedback regarding their ability and are more likely to be concerned with not
looking like they are incompetent to others. They believe achievement is
attributed to one’s ability rather than effort. Negative outcomes of learning
are associated with performance avoidance goals (Elliot & Church, 1997).
1 2 3 4 5
NOT AT ALL TRUE SOMEWHAT TRUE VERY TRUE
Performance Avoidance Questions 1 2 3 4 5
30. It is important to me that I don’t look stupid in
math class.
31. One of my goals is to keep others from thinking
I’m not smart in math class.
31. It is important to me that my teacher does not think
that I know less than others in math class.
33. One of my goals in class is to avoid looking like I
have trouble doing the math work.
284
APPENDIX N
Behavioral Engagement Questions
BEHAVIORAL ENGAGEMENT SCALES
Items from Feelings about School Survey, Fredricks et al. (2005)
Behavioral Engagement
Behavioral engagement includes actions associated with student dropout such
as cutting class, and actions associated with school success such as
participation in classroom discussion.
1 2 3 4 5
NOT AT ALL TRUE SOMEWHAT TRUE VERY TRUE
Behavioral Engagement Questions 1 2 3 4 5
10. I follow the rules during math class.
11. I pay attention during math class.
12. During math class I just act as if I am working.
13. I get in trouble during math class.
285
APPENDIX O
Emotional Engagement Questions
EMOTIONAL ENGAGEMENT SCALES
Items from Feelings about School Survey, Fredricks et al. (2005)
Emotional Engagement
Emotional engagement includes positive and negative reactions to teachers,
classmates, academics, and school. It is presumed to create ties to the
institution and influence willingness to do the work (Connell, 1990; Finn,
1989).
1 2 3 4 5
NOT AT ALL TRUE SOMEWHAT TRUE VERY TRUE
Emotional Engagement Questions 1 2 3 4 5
14. I feel excited by the work in math class.
15. I like being at school during math.
16. I am interested in the work during math class.
17. My math class is a fun place to be.
286
APPENDIX P
Cognitive Engagement Questions
COGNITIVE ENGAGEMENT SCALES
Items from Student Engagement Instrument (SEI), Appleton et al. (2006)
Cognitive Engagement
Cognitive engagement includes being thoughtful and willing to exert the
necessary effort for comprehension of complex ideas and mastery of difficult
skills (Corno & Mandinach, 1983). Research shows students who use
strategies associated with cognitive engagement are more successful in
school and classroom tasks.
1 2 3 4 5
NOT AT ALL TRUE SOMEWHAT TRUE VERY TRUE
Cognitive Engagement Questions 1 2 3 4 5
18. The tests in my math class do a good job of
measuring what I’m able to do.
19. The grades in my math class do a good job of
measuring what I’m able to do.
20. After finishing my math work I check it over to
see if it’s correct.
21. When I do math work I check to see whether I
understand what I’m doing.
287
APPENDIX Q
Standard-based Teaching Questions
STANDARD-BASED TEACHING SCALES
Items from Standard-based Teaching Practices Questionnaire, Kahle et al. (2000)
Standard-based Teaching Practices
Teaching practices that emerged from the National Council of Teaching
Mathematics recommendations that encourage more conceptual approaches
to teaching and less traditional procedures and strategies such as
memorization and role problem solving (NCTM, 1989)
Standard Based Practices Questions 1 2 3 4 5
34. During math, my teacher asks me to give reasons
for my answers.
35. During math, I talk with my classmates about how
to solve problems.
36. During math, my teacher encourages me to ask
questions.
37. During math, I learn from my classmates.
288
Appendix R
Introduction Letter to Student Survey
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE
DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME ON THIS BOOKLET!
Dear Student,
All 4
th,
7
th
and 8
th
grade students are being asked to complete this survey.
The questions on this survey ask you about your feelings, beliefs and
experiences in mathematics class. Your answers will help us to improve
mathematics classes by understanding how you feel about mathematics.
We are not asking you for your name so your information will never be
shared. The answers that you give will be kept private. Remember taking this
survey is your choice if at any time you do not want to continue you may
stop. You may also choose to not answer a question. This is not a test and
there are no wrong answers.
Make sure you read the directions on each page. If you have any
questions just raise your hand and I will come over to help you.
Here are some points that may help you when answering the
questions:
• Remember there is no wrong or right answer.
• Be as honest as possible.
289
• Select the first answer that comes to you.
• Take your time reading the question.
Thank you for contributing to this research study!
Student ID: ___________________________________
Today’s Date _________________________________
290
Appendix S
Student Survey Demographic Questions
The following questions ask about your personal background.
Remember that no one will know your answers to these questions.
1. What is the name of the school you are currently attending?
2. What grade are you in? ______________
3. Do you receive the Free and Reduced School Lunch Program?
(Check one answer)
Yes_________________
No_________________
4. Are you? (Check one answer)
Male __________________ Female__________________
The following questions ask you about your racial and ethnic background.
Remember these answers are private.
5. Choose the group(s) that describes you.
You may check one or more.
Asian or Asian-American
Black or African-American
291
White (non-Hispanic) or Caucasian
Hispanic or Latino
Native American, American-Indian, or Eskimo
Pacific Islander
Other (write-in) ________________________
6. Where were you born? (Please check one box)
United States
Other Country (write in) ____________________
7. Where was your mother born? (Please check one box)
United States
Other Country (write in) ____________________
8. Where was your father born? (Please check one box)
United States
Other Country (write in) ____________________
The next questions ask you about the language(s) you speak. .
9. Is Spanish the first language you learned to speak when you were a child?
Yes
No I learned (write in) ______________________
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The relationship between teacher assessment practices, student goal orientation, and student engagement in elementary mathematics
PDF
An alternative capstone project: Evaluating the academic achievement gap for Latino English language learners in a high achieving school district
PDF
The role of music in the English language development of Latino prekindergarten English learners
PDF
An alternative capstone project: closing the achievement gap for Latino English language learners in elementary school
PDF
Teach them to read: implementing high leverage pedagogical practices to increase English language learner academic achievement
PDF
An alternative capstone project: bridging the Latino English language learner academic achievement gap in elementary school
PDF
MAT@USC and Latino English language learners
PDF
English language learners utilizing the accelerated reader program
PDF
Teacher perceptions of instructional practices for long-term English learners
PDF
A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readiness gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on college affordability and student grades
PDF
Narrowing the achievement gap: Factors that support English learner and Hispanic student academic achievement in an urban intermediate school
PDF
The implementation of strategies to minimize the achievement gap for African-American, Latino, English learners, and socio-economically disadvantaged students
PDF
The relationship of parental involvement to student academic achievement in Latino middle school students
PDF
Superintendents and Latino student achievement: promising practices that superintendents use to influence the instruction and increase the achievement of Latino students in urban school districts
PDF
Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners
PDF
A quantitative analysis on student goal orientation and student perceptions of parental involvement among 6th grade middle school students
PDF
A comparative study of motivational orientation of elementary school English learners in a dual language immersion program and a transitional bilingual education program
PDF
Status of teaching elementary science for English learners in science, mathematics, and technology centered magnet schools
PDF
Examining the relationship between knowledge, perception and principal leadership for standard English learners (SELs): a case study
PDF
The importance of Black and Latino teachers in BIPOC student achievement and the importance of continuous teacher professional development for BIPOC student achievement
Asset Metadata
Creator
Dickenson, Patricia Ann
(author)
Core Title
Goal orientation of Latino English language learners: the relationship between students’ engagement, achievement and teachers’ instructional practices in mathematics
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Degree Conferral Date
2009-08
Publication Date
07/30/2009
Defense Date
05/14/2009
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
elementary,engagement,English language learner,goal orientation,Latino,mathematics,middle school,OAI-PMH Harvest,teaching practices,transition period
Place Name
California
(states)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Rueda, Robert S. (
committee chair
), Ryan, Mark (
committee member
), Seli, Helena (
committee member
)
Creator Email
teacher2read@yahoo.com,wadman@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2425
Unique identifier
UC1498378
Identifier
etd-Dickenson-2995 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-573050 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2425 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Dickenson-2995.pdf
Dmrecord
573050
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Dickenson, Patricia Ann
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
elementary
English language learner
goal orientation
Latino
teaching practices
transition period