To Be or Not To Be Motivated.. A Comparison of Students' Goal Orientation Within Direct Instructi

TO BE OR NOT TO BE…MOTIVATED: A COMPARISON OF STUDENTS' GOAL
ORIENTATION WITHIN DIRECT INSTRUCTION AND CONSTRUCTIVIST SCHOOLS.
Courtney C. Galliger
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green

State University in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
SELECT ONE:
May 2009
Committee:
Dara Musher-Eizenman, Advisor
Dafina Stewart
Graduate Faculty Representative
Catherine Stein
Yiwei Chen
ii
ABSTRACT
Dara Musher-Eizenman, Advisor
The goal of this study was to compare students’ achievement goal orientation within
schools that take a more direct instruction approach to education (e.g., schools that are not
affiliated with any educational organization) and schools that take a more constructivist approach
to education (e.g., Montessori schools). Participants included 209elementary school students.
The results revealed that although Non-affiliated students were more performance oriented than
Montessori students, Non-affiliated students and Montessori students had an equal level of
mastery orientation. Additionally, the results indicated that both Montessori and Non-affiliated
student were more mastery oriented than performance oriented. Lastly, it was found that
students’ mastery orientation was related to adaptive outcomes.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
Achievement Goal Orientation…………………………………………………… .. 1
Educational Philosophies………………………………………………………….. . 5
Direct Instruction Approach .......................................................................... 5
Constructivist Approach ................................................................................. 6
Current Study ............................................................................................................. 7
Hypotheses...................................................................................................... 9
METHODS………… ............................................................................................................ 13
Participants ............................................................................................................ 13
Procedure ............................................................................................................ 13
Measures ............................................................................................................ 14
Teachers’ Achievement Goal Orientation ........................................................ 14
Students’ Achievement Goal Orientation ........................................................ 14
Learning Strategies ........................................................................................... 14
Prosocial Goals ................................................................................................. 15
Task Persistence................................................................................................ 15
Task Challenge.................................................................................................. 16
Class Attitudes ................................................................................................... 16
RESULTS ………............................................................................................................ 18
Factor Analysis and Internal Consistency.................................................................. 18
Teachers’ Achievement Goal Orientation ....................................................... 18

iv
Students’ Achievement Goal Orientation ......................................................... 19
Learning Strategies ........................................................................................... 20
Prosocial Goals ................................................................................................. 20
Task Persistence................................................................................................ 21
Task Challenge.................................................................................................. 22
Class Attitudes .................................................................................................. 22
Preliminary Analyses ................................................................................................. 23
Achievement Goal Orientation .................................................................................. 24
Student Outcome Variables ....................................................................................... 26
DISCUSSION ………............................................................................................................ 27
Achievement Goal Orientation .................................................................................. 27
Student Outcome Variables ....................................................................................... 30
Additional Findings ................................................................................................... 33
Limitations ............................................................................................................ 34
Future Directions ....................................................................................................... 35
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………… . 38
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 39
APPENDIX A. PARENT LETTER ...................................................................................... 46
APPENDIX B. ASSENT LETTER ...................................................................................... 48

v
APPENDIX C. STUDENT PERCEPTION OF TEACHERS’ GOAL ORIENTATION ..... 49
APPENDIX D. STUDENTS’ GOAL ORIENTATION........................................................ 50
APPENDIX E. LEARNING STRATEGIES......................................................................... 51
APPENDIX F. ACADEMIC PROSOCIAL GOALS............................................................ 52
APPENDIX G. PROSOCIAL GOALS…………………………………………………… . 53
APPENDIX H. TASK PERSISTENCE…………………………………………………… 54
APPENDIX I. TASK PERSISTENCE BEHAVIORAL MEASURE…………………… . 55
APPENDIX J. TASK CHALLENGE……………………………………………………… 56
APPENDIX K CLASSROOM ATTITUDES…………………………………………….. . 57

vi
LIST OF FIGURES/TABLES
Figure/Table Page
1 Frequencies of participant demographic information by school type........................ 58
2 Correlations between measures.................................................................................. 59
3 Learning strategies: Factor loadings for Montessori and Non-affiliated groups ....... 60
4 Montessori versus Non-affiliated: Means and
standard deviations for outcome variables................................................................. 61
5 Teachers’ achievement goal orientation scale: Factor loadings and
correlations between subscales for Montessori and Non-affiliated groups. .............. 62
6 Students’ achievement goal orientation scale: Factor loadings and
correlations between subscales for Montessori and Non-affiliated groups. .............. 63
7 Academic prosocial goals scale: Factor loadings and correlations
between subscales for Montessori and Non-affiliated groups. .................................. 64
8 Prosocial goals scale: Factor loadings for Montessori and
Non-affiliated groups. ................................................................................................ 65
9 Task persistence scale: Factor loadings for Montessori and
Non-affiliated groups……………………………………………………………… . 66
10 Task challenge scale: Factor loadings for Montessori and
Non-affiliated groups……………………………………………………………… . 67
11 Class attitudes scale: Factor loadings for Montessori and
Non-affiliated groups…. ............................................................................................ 68

Student Goal Orientation 1
INTRODUCTION
Today, approximately 1 in 3 students within the United States will not graduate
from high school (Barton, 2005; Bridgeland, DiIulio, & Morison, 2006). Furthermore,
nearly 70% of high school dropouts report that a major reason why they dropped out of
school was due to boredom and lack of motivation (Bridgeland et al., 2006). Other
studies have shown that even among students who do not drop out there is a general
decline in academic motivation as children progress through school (Anderman & Maehr,
1994; Eccles, Lord, & Midgley, 1991; Eccles et al., 1993; Pintrich, 2000). A lack of
school motivation has a number of negative implications on development, particularly
career development. Today, many of the fastest growing companies require some form
of postsecondary education and/or continuous on-the-job training (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2008); thus, students' lack of motivation to learn may interfere with their ability
to obtain a desirable job or make career advancements once they enter the workforce
(McCombs, 1991). Based upon these findings, it is imperative that researchers and
educators better understand the factors that contribute to low motivation in school. Thus,
the primary purpose of the current study is to better understand if and how schools with
different educational philosophies (i.e., direct instruction and constructivism)
differentially influence students' motivation to learn.
Achievement Goal Orientation
Much of students' motivation and engagement in school is determined by a
student's achievement goal orientation. Achievement goal orientation refers to the
primary purpose students have for achievement behavior (Ames, 1992a, 1992b; Elliot &
Dweck, 1988). Researchers have identified two primary forms of achievement goal
orientations that differentially influence how students approach academic tasks, the level
of student engagement in a particular task, and how students respond to achievement-
related activities: mastery orientation and performance orientation.
Students with a mastery orientation aim to understand academic material, increase
their academic competence, and develop new skills (Ames, 1992a, 1992b; Dweck, 1986).
Such an orientation has been found to relate to and predict a number of adaptive
outcomes. Specifically, mastery oriented students tend to be more task persistent (e.g.,
Ames, 1984; Bouffard, Boisvert, Vezeau, & Larouche, 1995; Elliot & Dweck, 1988;
Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999; Mueller & Dweck, 1998; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, &
McKeachie, 1991), prefer more challenging tasks (e.g. Ames & Archer, 1988; Elliot &
Dweck, 1988), have better attitudes towards school or class (e.g., Ames & Archer, 1988;
Pintrich, 2000), and use deeper learning strategies (e.g., elaboration) (e.g., Elliot et al.,
1999; Dweck & Legget, 1988; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Karabenick & Collins-Eaglin,
1997; Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyld, 1988).
On the other hand, students who adopt a performance orientation are primarily
concerned with their ability and performance relative to others. Focusing on one's ability
rather than on one's understanding of the material is associated with more maladaptive
learning attitudes and behaviors. For example, students with a performance orientation
tend to avoid challenging tasks (Dweck & Leggett, 1988), have more negative attitudes
towards class (Ames & Archer, 1988), are less task persistent (Elliot & Dweck, 1988),
and use more surface learning strategies (e.g., memorization) (Elliot et al., 1999; Meece
et al., 1988).
More recently, researchers have identified two subtypes of performance
orientations. Some students aim to do better than others and to demonstrate their
academic ability, an orientation referred to as performance-approach. On the other hand,
other students aim to avoid appearing incompetent, an orientation referred to as
performance-avoidant (Pintrich, 2000). It is important to differentiate performance-
approach and performance-avoidant orientations as these orientations are associated with
unique outcomes. Specifically, while a performance-avoidant orientation consistently
elicits maladaptive attitudes and behaviors (e.g., surface processing, lower academic
performance, disorganization), a performance-approach orientation can result in more
adaptive outcomes (e.g., higher academic performance and achievement) (e.g., Elliot et
al.,1999).
In addition to assessing the relationship between students' goal orientation and
academic outcomes, a small body of research has begun to assess how students' goal
orientation is related to the pursuit of academic prosocial goals (e.g., helping with class
work, sharing information about class work) in school (e.g., Wentzel, 1993, 1994, 1996).
This research has found that academic prosocial goals are positively related to students'
mastery goal orientation (Wentzel, 1996). Understanding the variables that promote
academic prosocial goals are important as the pursuit of prosocial goals is positively
related to students' popularity (Wentzel, 1994) and students' academic success (Wentzel,
1993).
Ultimately, the development of students’ goal orientation is strongly influenced
by the classroom structure (Ames, 1992a, 1992b; Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck &
Leggett, 1988). Past research has uncovered a number of classroom variables that
influence students' achievement goal orientation such as task design, approach to student
evaluation, and classroom instruction style. Specifically, teachers are likely to promote a
mastery orientation in students if academic tasks offer variety and are personally relevant
to the students; if student evaluation is private and focuses on individual student
improvement and effort; and if students are granted autonomy and given opportunities to
help make classroom decisions (see Ames, 1992a, 1992b for reviews). On the other
hand, teachers are likely to promote a performance orientation within students if all
students use the same materials and complete the same assignments as one another; if
students' academic work and grades are publicly displayed; and if there is more emphasis
on teacher control and less opportunity for student decision making (see Ames, 1992a,
1992b for reviews). It should be noted that little to no research has identified classroom
level variables that promote a performance-approach orientation versus a performance-
avoidant orientation.
While past research has identified classroom level variables that promote certain
goal orientations, this research has not considered the underlying educational models
(i.e., pedagogical ideologies) that create the basis for classroom environments. Within
the United States, the fundamental educational philosophies can be organized along a
continuum that ranges from the direct instruction approach to the constructivist approach
to education (Samuelowicz & Bain, 2001; Schuh, 2004), each of which will be described
in more detail below. Some theorists have argued that it is important to consider these
fundamental educational models in order to better understand student outcomes
(Fromberg & Williams, 1992; Lillard, 2005) as these models uniquely shape the
classroom environments (Galliger & Musher-Eizenman, 2009), and as a result, may
uniquely shape students' goal orientation.
Educational Philosophies
Direct Instruction Approach. During the late 19th century and early 20th century
the United States began to shift from an agrarian society to an industrial society.
Factories and businesses began to dominate the economy and the need for skilled workers
increased significantly. As a result of the industrialization of America, the primary goal
of the educational system was to create satisfactory workers as efficiently as possible in
order to facilitate the country’s economic success (Boers, 2007; Button & Provenzo,
1989). In order to achieve this goal, schools widely adopted a direct instruction approach
to classroom instruction. Today, the direct instruction approach continues to be the
educational model emphasized in most schools in the United States (Bennett &
LeCompte, 1990; Cuban, 1979).
The direct instruction approach to education is a teacher-centered approach that is
consistent with “transmission” models of teaching (Schuh, 2004). That is, the primary
objective of the direct instruction approach is to transmit necessary information to the
learner. Common characteristics of a classroom operated around the direct instruction
approach include whole-group instruction, recitation of information, memorization of
information, rows of desks facing the teacher, and extracting learning material directly
from textbooks (Cuban, 1979; Fromberg & Williams, 1992). Moreover, in direct
instruction classrooms there is typically more teacher-talk than student-talk. In general,
in order to transmit the necessary information to students teachers control “what is taught,
when, and under what conditions” (Cuban, 1982, p. 27).

Constructivist Approach. Coinciding with the rigorous implementation of the
direct instruction approach into American classrooms during the early 20th century, a
group of progressive educators, including John Dewey and Maria Montessori, questioned
the effectiveness of the direct instruction approach. These educators argued that students
are not passive learners, but rather, construct their knowledge by actively experimenting
with and exploring their environment (DeVries & Kohlberg, 1987). The thinking of
these educators led to the development of schools that took a different, more
constructivist approach to classroom instruction. In fact, today, Montessori schools are
the most prevalent type of constructivist school in the United States (NAMTA, 2008).
Within the constructivist approach to education, there is a shift in focus from the
teacher and instruction to the student and understanding (Schuh, 2004). According to this
approach, education is expected to parallel the developmental trajectory of the child in
order for optimal learning to take place. This approach recognizes that learning is an
active process that is unique to each student; each student differs in the rate of learning,
their interests, aptitude, temperament, and experiences, differences that educators need to
take into consideration (DeVries & Kohlberg, 1987; Fromberg & Williams, 1992).
Moreover, constructivism recognizes that student learning is only optimized through
social interaction. That is, full meaning and understanding of one’s environment is
derived when students are able to engage in social interaction with their peers (Krajcik,
Blumenfeld, Marx, & Soloway, 1994; Vadeboncoeur, 1997). Thus, constructivist-based
classrooms create an environment that allows the child to actively explore their
environment, freely interact with their peers, and learn at their own pace. In essence, this
educational model views the child as an equal contributor to his or her education
(Fromberg & Williams, 1992).
Current Study
Recent research that has compared constructivist schools and schools that take a
more direct instruction approach has found that these different educational philosophies
promote different teacher practices and teacher beliefs (Galliger & Musher-Eizenman,
2009). Specifically, teachers in Montessori schools, a form of constructivist school, are
more student-centered, less controlling, place less emphasis on comparative forms of
evaluation, and are more likely to share control with their students than teachers in
schools that take a more direct instruction approach, all of which are consistent with the
classroom variables that promote a mastery orientation within the classroom (see Ames,
1992a, 1992b for reviews).
Despite the fact that the classroom variables that promote a mastery goal
orientation are inherent in constructivist schools, research has yet to examine how
constructivist schools impact students' motivation to learn as compared to schools that
take a more direct instruction approach to education. Indeed, much of the research that
has reported a downward spiral in students' motivation over time has only focused on
students in schools that take a more direct instruction approach to education, and has not
examined whether such trends generalize to students who attend constructivist schools.
Thus, the primary goal of this study is to compare and contrast students' goal orientation
in constructivist classrooms versus classrooms that take a more direct instruction
approach, and to determine how a student’s goal orientation is related to affective,
cognitive, and behavioral patterns. If constructivist schools better foster students'

mastery orientation, and if this orientation leads to more positive outcomes as it has in
past research, then perhaps constructivist schools can serve as a model for educational
reform to improve student motivation within schools that take a more direct instruction
approach.
In the United States, there are a number of school organizations that promote a
constructivist approach to education, including American Waldorf Schools of North
America (AWSNA), National Association for the Education of Young Children
(NAEYC), American Montessori International (AMI), and American Montessori Society
(AMS). Thus, affiliation with one of these organizations implies that the school
implements a constructivist pedagogical approach. Of these various constructivist
schools in the United States, Montessori is perhaps the most noteworthy. Not only was
the founder of Montessori schools one of the pioneers of constructivism, but Montessori
is one of the few constructivist forms of education based on a formal model, with defined
methods, teacher certification standards, and accreditation processes (Edwards, 2002).
Additionally, with approximately 4,000 accredited schools currently within the United
States, Montessori is the most prevalent constructivist school (NAMTA, 2008). Due to
its theoretical basis and prominence, Montessori will be the focus of constructivist
schools in the current study.
In contrast, the focus of direct instruction schools in this study will be on schools
that are not affiliated with any pedagogically-based organization. Past research has found
that fully implementing constructivism into the classroom is a difficult, if not impossible,
feat without the aid and support of outside resources (DeVries, 2002). Additionally, it is
difficult to implement constructivism into an educational system that is so entrenched in

the direct instruction approach (Dryden & Fraser, 1998). Consistent with this, recent
research has found that the teacher practices and beliefs within Non-affiliated schools are
more consistent with the direct instruction approach than the teacher practices and beliefs
within Montessori schools (Galliger & Musher-Eizenman, 2009).
Hypotheses. As mentioned previously, the primary goal of this study was to
compare and contrast students' goal orientation in constructivist classrooms (Montessori)
versus classrooms that take a more direct instruction approach (Non-affiliated). First, it
is expected, based on the differences in teacher practices and teacher beliefs that exist
between Montessori and Non-affiliated schools, that the type of goal orientation
emphasized in the classroom by the teacher, as perceived by the students, will differ
depending on the type of school. Specifically, past research has found that Montessori
teachers are more student-centered, less controlling, place less emphasis on comparative
forms of evaluation, and are more likely to share control with their students than Non-
affiliated teachers (Galliger & Musher-Eizenman, 2009), all of which have been found
foster a more mastery orientation within students (Ames, 1992a, 1992b). Consistent with
these findings, it is hypothesized that, according to students’ perceptions, Montessori
teachers will foster more of a mastery orientation within their students than Non-affiliated
teachers. On the other hand, it is expected that Non-affiliated school teachers will foster
more of a performance orientation within their students than Montessori teachers.
In addition, it is expected that goal orientation will be related to grade level.
Previous research has found that as grade level increases, teachers tend to be more
controlling, less student-centered, and more likely to use evaluative methods that
emphasize social comparisons among students (Eccles et al., 1991; Eccles et al., 1993),
changes that would likely promote a stronger performance goal orientation within the
classroom (Ames, 1992a, 1992b). More recent research has found that these trends in
teacher practices occur across grade levels in both Montessori and Non-affiliated schools
(Galliger & Musher-Eizenman, 2009). Thus, although Montessori classrooms are still
likely to foster more of a mastery orientation within students than Non-affiliated
classrooms, it is also hypothesized that, regardless of the type of school, as grade level
increases, teachers will foster more of a performance orientation according to student
perceptions.
As mentioned previously, the classroom structure, such as approach to student
evaluation and instruction style, exerts a powerful influence on the development of
students’ goal orientation (Ames, 1992a, 1992b; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Thus, based
upon the hypothesized goal orientations fostered by Montessori teachers and Non-
affiliated teachers, it is hypothesized that Montessori students will be more mastery
oriented than students within Non-affiliated schools. On the other hand, however, it is
expected that students within Non-affiliated schools will be more performance oriented
than Montessori students. Moreover, it is also hypothesized that, regardless of the type of
school, students will become more performance oriented and less mastery oriented as
grade level increases.
Although a great deal of past research has uncovered a number of affective,
cognitive, and behavioral patterns that are related to or predicted by students' goal
orientation, much of this research was conducted in non-constructivist schools. Thus, the
current study will also examine if these findings are generalizeable to students in
Montessori schools by measuring a number of student outcomes including learning

strategies, academic prosocial goals, task persistence, task challenge, and classroom
attitudes. A number of hypotheses were formed guided by past research.
In regard to student outcomes, it is first hypothesized that students’ mastery
orientation will be positively related to deep processing learning strategies and negatively
related to surface learning strategies. On the other hand, it is hypothesized that both
performance-approach and performance-avoidant orientations will be positively related to
surface learning strategies and will be negatively related to deep processing learning
strategies.
Second, although academic prosocial goals have yet to be examined as they relate
to students’ goal orientation, it is hypothesized that students’ goal orientation will impact
the extent to which they pursue academic prosocial goals (e.g., working with peers,
helping peers with class work). More specifically, because the primary motive of
performance-approach oriented students is to "outperform other students as a way to
aggrandize one's ability status at the expense of peers" (Covington, 2000, p. 174), it is
anticipated that students with a higher performance-approach orientation will be less
likely to pursue academic prosocial goals in order to increase their chances of
outperforming their peers. Similarly, it is anticipated that students’ performance-avoidant
orientation will be negatively related to academic prosocial goals. On the other hand, it is
hypothesized that students with a higher mastery orientation will be more likely to pursue
academic prosocial goals as they would not feel threatened by their peers and they may
view social collaboration as a way to improve their understanding and knowledge of
academic material.
Third, consistent with past research (i.e., Elliot et al., 1999), it is hypothesized that
students’ mastery orientation and performance-approach orientation will be positively
related to task persistence, while students’ performance-avoidant orientation will be
negatively related to task persistence.
Fourth, it is hypothesized that students’ mastery orientation will be positively
related to preference for challenging tasks, while performance-approach and
performance-avoidant orientations will be negatively related to preference for
challenging tasks.
Fifth, consistent with the findings of Meece et al. (1988), it is hypothesized that
mastery orientation will be positively related to positive classroom attitudes and
negatively related to negative classroom attitudes. On the other hand, it is hypothesized
that both performance-approach and performance-avoidant orientations will be negatively
related to positive classroom attitudes and positively related to negative classroom
attitudes.
Finally, in addition to testing these hypotheses, the current study will examine
whether or not the relation between the predictor variables (i.e., student goal orientation)
and the outcome variables (e.g., learning strategies) are moderated by school type. Due
to the exploratory nature of these analyses, no a priori hypotheses were formed.

METHOD
Participants
Participants of the current study included 209 elementary school students (110
Montessori students from two schools and 99 Non-affiliated students from one school; 98
males and 111 females). The participating Montessori schools were both accredited by
the American Montessori Society. Additionally, the participating Non-affiliated school
was a non-denominational, private school. All participating schools were located in the
Midwest. The participants ranged in age from 8 to 12 years old (M= 9.67; SD= 1.16).
Twenty seven point eight percent of the participants were in third grade, 24.4% were in
fourth grade, 25.8% were in fifth grade, and 21.5% were in sixth grade. The ethnic
composition of the sample was 54.5% Caucasian, 18.7% Mixed, 9.6% Asian, 6.2%
African American, and 3.8% Hispanic. Participation rate was 98%. See Table 1 for a
breakdown of demographic information by school type.
Procedure
Prior to recruiting participants, local Montessori schools and Non-affiliated
schools were contacted by telephone. Upon consent from the superintendent and/or
principal, parents of potential participants (3rd-6th grade students) received a letter
informing them about the study and a consent form (see Appendix A). Consistent with
the preferences of the schools, the parents were instructed to return a form to the school
by a given date if they did not want their children to participate in the survey. For all
students eligible to participate, the study was described in their classrooms and they were
asked whether or not they would like to participate (see Appendix B). Completion of the
survey indicated student assent to participate. Four Montessori students were allowed to
work on their school work rather than complete the survey as their parents did not want
them to participate in the study.
Measures
Teachers' Achievement Goal Orientation. To measure students' perceptions of the
type of goal orientation their teacher fosters within the classroom, a 15-item scale was
used that was adapted from the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (Midgley et al.,
2000) (see Appendix C). Six items measure mastery orientation; five items measure
performance-approach orientation; and four items measure performance-avoidant
orientation. All questions were measured using a 4-point Likert response scale ranging
from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (4).
Students' Achievement Goal Orientation. Students' achievement goal orientation
was assessed using a 12-item measure that was created based on past research and
reflects existing measures of students' goal orientation (e.g., Elliot & McGregor, 2001;
Meece & Miller, 2001; Midgley et al., 2000) (see Appendix D). Four items were created
to measure mastery orientation; four items were created to measure performance-
approach orientation; and four items were created to measure performance-avoidant
orientation. All questions were measured using a 4-point Likert response scale ranging
from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (4).
Learning Strategies. Students' learning strategies were assessed using a nine-item
measure that was created based upon past research and is representative of existing
measures of students' learning strategies (e.g., Biggs, 2001; Meece & Miller, 2001;
Pintrich & De Groot, 1990) (see Appendix E). Five items measure the extent to which
students take a deep-level approach to learning and four items measure the extent to
which students take a surface-level approach to learning. All questions were measured
using a 4-point Likert response scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly
Agree (4).
Prosocial Goals. To measure students' academic prosocial goals, a six item scale
was used (see Appendix F). Three items were adapted from Wentzel's (1993) six-item
Prosocial Goals subscale. These items measure the extent to which students like to
academically help or share with their peers. Additionally, three items were created to
measure the extent to which students like their peers to help them academically.
Moreover, students’ general prosocial behaviors were also assessed in order to determine
if students maintain their prosocial behavior during academic tasks as they do outside of
academic tasks. General prosocial behavior was measured using a four-item scale (see
Appendix G) that was adapted from Wentzel's (1993) six-item Prosocial Goals subscale.
This scale measures the extent to which students like to help or share with their peers.
All questions were measured using a 4-point Likert response scale ranging from Never
(1) to Always (4).
Task Persistence. Students' task persistence was measured using a 4-item
measure that was created for the purpose of the current study (see Appendix H). All
questions were measured using a 4-point Likert response scale ranging from Strongly
Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (4). Additionally, students’ task persistence was
measured behaviorally. During the survey administration, participants were given a three
minute "break" and each participant was provided with a different but similar picture
find. Participants were asked to find four items. Participants were also provided with a
card. One side of the card was red and read “No Help” and the other side of the card was
green and read “Help.” Participants were informed that at any point they could flip their
card to the green side and a researcher would help them find their item. One researcher
recorded the time at which any participant flipped their card to seek help during the
picture find. A longer delay to ask for help was considered higher task persistence.
When the three minutes were over, participants who were still working were asked one,
4-point Likert scale item to measure their persistence on the particular task ("How much
longer would you like to work on this picture find?") (see Appendix I).
Task Challenge. To assess students' desire to pursue challenging tasks a 3-item
measure was created based on Harter's (1981) task challenge subscale (see Appendix J).
All questions were measured using a 4-point Likert response scale with lower scores
indicating a preference for easy tasks and higher scores indicating a preference for
challenging tasks. Participants’ desire to pursue challenging tasks was also assessed
behaviorally. Following the completion of the entire questionnaire, participants were
offered a packet of games (e.g., crossword puzzles, picture finds, mazes) as a token of
appreciation for participating in the study. Each participant was taken aside individually
to choose their desired level of games, easy, medium, or hard. The level chosen served as
an additional measure of preference for challenge.
Classroom Attitudes. Students' attitudes toward their classroom were measured
using a ten-item scale that was created based on past research on school attitudes and is
reflective of existing measures of students' school attitudes (e.g, Hawkins, Guo, Hill,
Battin-Pearson, & Abbot, 2001; Kalil & Ziol-Guest, 2003; Jessor, Van Den Bos,
Vanderryn, Costa, & Turbin, 1995) (see Appendix K). Five items were intended to
measure positive affect towards their classroom and five items were intended to measure
negative affect towards their classroom. All questions were measured using a 4-point
Likert response scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (4).
RESULTS
Factor Analysis and Internal Consistency
To determine whether the factor structure of each scale used in the current study
was similar for Montessori and Non-affiliated students, two-group confirmatory factor
analyses were conducted using Amos (Amos Development Corporation, 2007). Each
nested model was fit such that in the least restrictive model, Model 1, the parameters
were free to vary across the two groups. In Model 2, the regression weights were
constrained to be equal across both groups. Lastly, in the most restrictive model, Model
3, regression weights, covariances, and variances were constrained to be equal across
both groups. The least restrictive model, Model 1, served as a baseline against which to
judge the more restrictive model(s) using the criterion of a significant Δχ² / Δ degrees of
freedom ratio (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Once the best fit model for both groups was
identified, other fit indices were examined to determine if the proposed factor structure
was an adequate representation of the data. These indices were a RMESA ≤ .10 (Browne
& Cudeck, 1993) and a CFI greater than .95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Additionally, any
items with a factor loading below .32 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) were removed and
factor analyses were rerun. See Table 2 for correlations between scales.
Teachers’ Achievement Goal Orientation. Analyses revealed that the
hypothesized three-factor, baseline model (Mastery, Performance Approach, Performance
Avoid) fit the data for both groups well (χ²= 286.49, df= 174, p < .0001; RMSEA= .06;
CFI= .98). In Model 2, the additional restriction of the regression weights did not
significantly worsen the model fit (Δ χ²= 17.91, Δdf= 12). In Model 3, the constraint of
all quantitative values across the two groups significantly worsened the fit the model (Δ
χ²= 14.4, Δdf= 3). Based upon these findings, Model 2 was retained. After reviewing
the factor loadings for each item, one item (item 11) was dropped, and CFA was rerun
with regression weights constrained. The results revealed a good model-fit (χ²= 255.70,
df= 159, p < .0001; RMSEA= .05; CFI= .99) (see Figure 1). Cronbach’s alpha for the
Mastery Orientation subscale was .59; Cronbach’s alpha for the Performance-Approach
Orientation subscale was .67; and Cronbach’s alpha for the Performance-Avoidant
Orientation was .72.
Students’ Achievement Goal Orientation. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed
that the baseline model, with no constraints on the parameters across groups, fit the data
well (χ²= 98.90, df= 64, p > .01; RMSEA= .05; CFI= .99), and constraining the
regression weights significantly worsened the model fit (Δχ²= 15.6, Δdf= 7). Due to low
factor loadings, four items were removed (item 9-12) and the baseline model was rerun.
The results revealed a good fitting model (χ²= 52.00, df= 35, p < .05; RMSEA= .03; CFI=
1.00).
In order to gain insight on the factor structures of both groups, an exploratory
factor analysis was conducted for Montessori and Non-affiliated groups separately. To
aid in the interpretation of the factor components, Varimax rotation was performed as the
subscales were not highly correlated with each other (r<.37 for all). As originally
hypothesized, the rotated solution revealed that all Mastery items loaded strongly for both
groups on one component (α= .65). Additionally, while the three Performance-Approach
items and two Performance-Avoidant items loaded strongly for both groups, these items
loaded on to one component for the Non-affiliated group and loaded on to two
components for the Montessori group. Specifically, for the Montessori group, two
Performance-Approach items and one Performance-Avoidant item loaded on to one
factor, while the third Performance-Approach item and the two remaining Performance-
Avoidant items loaded on to a second factor. However, when forcing Factor Analysis to
extract two factors for the Montessori group all Performance items loaded strongly on to
a single factor. Thus, a one factor Performance Orientation scale was retained for both
groups (α= .75) (see Figure 2).
Learning Strategies. Model 1 fit the data adequately (χ²= 88.5, df= 40, p < .0001
RMSEA= .08; CFI= .99), and Model 2 significantly worsened the model (Δ χ²= 17.5,
Δdf= 8). However, the factor loadings for several items were below .32 for both groups.
In order to gain insight on the factor structures of both groups, exploratory factor
analyses were conducted for Montessori and Traditional groups separately. Analyses
revealed the presence of three components with eigenvalues exceeding 1 for both groups.
Varimax rotation was performed as the subscales were not highly correlated with each
other (r<.18 for all). The results revealed uninterpretable factor structures for both
groups as the factor structures did not coincide with the apriori model or past research.
Specifically, various items tapping into students’ deep processing strategies and surface
learning strategies loaded on to each component (see Table 3 for factor loadings). Due
to these results, the Learning Strategies scale was dropped from further analyses.
Prosocial Goals. For the two-factor Academic Prosocial Goal Scale, the baseline
model fit the data somewhat well (χ²= 59.9, df= 16, p < .0001 RMSEA= .09; CFI= .99);
however, constraining the regression weights of the model to be equal across the groups
did not significantly worsen the fit of the model (Δ χ²= 3.6, Δdf= 4). Model 2 was
retained as Model 3 significantly worsened the model fit (Δ χ²= 12, Δdf= 1). Upon
reviewing the factor correlations for Montessori and Traditional groups (r= .97; r= .13
respectively), however, a one-factor model was tested for the Montessori group. The
results indicated that the single factor model was a relatively poor fitting model (χ²=
19.85, df= 9, p < .05; RMSEA= .11; CFI= .93). The two-factor model was retained as it
did not significantly worsen the model fit (Δ χ²= .85, Δdf= 1).The internal consistency for
Help Others and Others Help subscales were adequate (α= .58; α= .64 respectively) (see
Figure 3).
For the one-factor Prosocial Scale, confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the
baseline model, with no constraints on the parameters across groups, fit the data
adequately well (χ²= 12.30, df= 6, p > .05; RMSEA= .07; CFI= 1.00), and constraining
the regression weights to be equal across groups significantly worsened the model fit
(Δ χ²= 8, Δdf= 3). After reviewing the factor loadings for each item, however, one item
(item 4) was dropped and CFA was rerun. The resulting single factor model fit the data
for both groups well (χ²= 1.38, df= 4, p > .05; RMSEA= 0; CFI= 1.00) (see Figure 4).
Cronbach’s alpha was .62.
Task Persistence. The baseline model, with no constraints on any of the
parameters, fit the data for both groups well (χ²= 5.6, df= 4, p < .05; RMSEA= .04; CFI=
1.00). However, the more restrictive model was retained as constraining the regression
weights did not significantly worsen the fit of the model (Δ χ²= 3.8, Δdf= 3) (see Figure
5). Cronbach’s alpha was .77. It is important to note, however, that the Task Persistence
Scale was not correlated with the behavioral assessment of task persistence. Specifically,
the Task Persistence scale was not correlated with the amount of time students worked on
the picture find (r= .04) or the amount of time persistent students would have liked to
continue to work on the picture find (r=.01)
Task Challenge. The results revealed that the one factor hypothesized model for
Task Challenge fit the data for both groups well (χ²= 1.90, df= 2, p < .05; RMSEA= .00;
CFI= 1.00). Forcing the parameters to be equivalent across groups did not significantly
worsen the fit of the model (Δ χ²= 1.9, Δdf= 2), so the more restrictive model was
retained (see Figure 6). Cronbach’s alpha was .74. The Task Challenge Scale was
positively related to the behavioral assessment of task challenge (r= .42, p< .001).
Classroom Attitudes. Allowing the parameters to vary across groups fit the data
well (χ²= 127.3, df= 68, p < .0001; RMSEA= .06; CFI= .99). In Model 2, the additional
restriction of the regression weights did not significantly worsen the model fit (Δ χ²=
11.6, Δdf= 10). Moreover, in Model 3, the constraint of all quantitative values across the
two groups significantly worsened the fit the model (Δ χ²= 14.4, Δdf= 3). Despite the fact
that the two-factor model fit the data for both groups well, the factor correlations for both
groups revealed that the subscales were highly, negatively correlated (r= -.90, for both
groups). Thus, a one factor model was tested and compared to the two-factor model.
Results indicated that the two factor model was not a significantly better fitting model (Δ
χ²= 3.10, Δdf= 1). Additionally, the goodness-of-fit indices for the single factor model
were slightly better than the indices of the two factor model (RMSEA= .05; CFI= .99).
Based on the data, the more parsimonious single factor model was retained (α= .89) (see
Figure 7).
Preliminary Analyses
Following factor analyses, preliminary analyses were performed on students’
grade and gender to determine if these variables might be related to differences in
students perceptions of teachers’ goal orientation, students’ goal orientation, and the
outcome variables. Grade in school was converted into a dichotomous variable (lower
and upper) due to relatively unequal n sizes across specific grades. Specifically, among
Montessori participants, 16 were in sixth grade while approximately 30 were in each of
the other grades (third, fourth, and fifth). Similarly, among Non-affiliated participants, 19
were in fourth grade while approximately 26 were in each of the other grades. Finally,
because a large number of comparisons were run, alpha level was set to .01 to control for
inflation of Type 1 error.
To determine if there were gender or grade differences in students’ perception of
teachers’ goal orientation, students’ goal orientation, and student outcome variables, a
series of independent samples t-tests were conducted. While the results did not indicate
any significant grade level differences among these variables, they did reveal significant
gender differences for students’ perception of their teacher’s performance-avoidant
orientation, t(204)= 2.71, p< .01, helping others with academic tasks, t(204)= 2.56, p<
.01, prosocial behavior, t(206)= 3.68, p< .001, and classroom attitudes, t(205)= 2.54, p<
.01. Specifically, boys perceived their teachers to be more performance-avoidant
oriented (M= 2.06, SD= .77) than did girls (M= 1.80, SD= .60). Moreover, female
students were more likely to help others with academic tasks (M= 3.27, SD= .45) and
were more prosocial (M= 3.77, SD= .29) than male students (M= 3.09, SD= .59; M=
3.57, SD= .48). Finally, girls had more positive classroom attitudes (M= 3.38, SD= .45)
than boys (M= 3.20, SD= .58). There were no significant gender differences among
students’ goal orientation, task persistence, or task challenge.
To test the study’s key hypotheses, a series of independent samples t-tests were
conducted to determine if Non-affiliated students and Montessori students differed in
their perceptions of teachers’ goal orientation, student goal orientation, and student
outcome variables (see Table 4 for means). However, in cases where gender was related
to these variables as indicated by preliminary analyses, a series of univariate analyses of
variance was performed to determine if the type of school interacted with gender.
Nonetheless, there were no significant interactions between gender and school type.
Teachers’ Achievement Goal Orientation. The results revealed a significant effect
of school type on students’ perception of their teachers’ performance-approach goal
orientation, t(205)= 6.28, p< .001. Specifically, Non-affiliated students perceived their
teachers to be more performance-approach oriented (M= 1.83, SD= .62) than Montessori
students (M= 1.38, SD= .40). However, the results did not indicate a significant
difference between Montessori and Non-affiliated students’ perceptions of their teachers’
mastery orientation (M= 3.63, SD= .33; M= 3.56, SD= .34, respectively) or
performance-avoidant orientation (M= 1.83, SD= .65; M= 2.02, SD= .73, respectively).
It should be noted that both Montessori and Non-affiliated teachers were
perceived to be more mastery oriented (M= 3.63, SD= .33; M= 3.56, SD= .34,
respectively) than performance-approach oriented (M= 1.38, SD= .40; M= 1.83, SD=
.62), t(107)= 40.40, p< .001; t(98)= 24.71, p< .001 . Moreover, both Montessori teachers
and Non-affiliated teachers were perceived to be more mastery oriented (M= 3.63, SD=
.33; M= 3.56, SD= .34, respectively) than performance-avoidant oriented (M= 1.83, SD=
.65; M= 2.02, SD= .73, respectively), t(108)= 17.79, p< .001; t(98)= 11.61, p< .001.
Lastly, both Montessori and Non-affiliated teachers were perceived to be more
performance-avoidant oriented (M= 1.83, SD= .65; M= 2.02, SD= .73, respectively) than
performance-approach oriented (M= 1.38, SD= .40; M= 1.83, SD= .62), t(107)= 6.72,
p< .001; t(98)= 2.80, p< .01.
Students’ Achievement Goal Orientation. Students’ goal orientation, as reported
by the students, was significantly, positively correlated to their perceived teachers’ goal
orientation. Specifically, students’ mastery orientation was positively correlated with
perceived teachers’ mastery orientation (r=.37), and students’ performance orientation
was positively correlated with perceived teachers performance-approach and
performance-avoidant orientation (r=.36; r=.40, respectively). Similar to perceived
teachers’ goal orientation, results did not indicate a significant mean difference in
students’ mastery orientation between Montessori (M= 3.52, SD= .47) and Non-affiliated
students (M= 3.66, SD= .40). However, results revealed that Non-affiliated students
were significantly more performance oriented (M= 2.58, SD= .59) than Montessori
students (M= 2.08, SD= .56), t(205)= 6.26, p< .001. Despite the latter finding, it is
important to note that both Montessori students and Non-affiliated students were
significantly more mastery oriented (M= 3.52, SD= .47; M= 3.66, SD= .40, respectively)
than performance oriented (M= 2.08, SD= .56; M= 2.58, SD= .59, respectively), t(107)=
19.21, p< .001; t(98)= 15.11, p< .001.

Student Outcome Variables
There was a significant effect of school type on students’ academic prosocial
goals. Specifically, Montessori students were more likely to report helping others with
academic activities (M= 3.29, SD= .53) than Non-affiliated students (M= 3.07, SD= .50),
t(205)= 3.09, p< .01. Additionally, Montessori students were more likely to report
allowing others to help them with academic activities (M= 3.29, SD= .56) than Non-
affiliated students (M= 3.07, SD= .68), t(191.22)= 2.58, p< .001. School type was not
significantly related to any other student outcome variable.
In addition to the previous analyses, a series of hierarchical regressions was
conducted to determine whether students’ mastery and performance orientations were
related to students’ reports of academic prosocial goals, prosocial behavior, task
persistence, preference for challenging tasks, and classroom attitudes, and to determine
whether the relationships were moderated by type of school. Although the results did not
indicate a significant relationship between students’ performance orientation and the
outcome variables, the results revealed that students’ mastery orientation was related to
the outcome variables. Specifically, regardless of school type, a higher mastery
orientation significantly predicted general prosocial goals, F(2, 206)= 9.74, p<.001 (ß=
.29; R²=.08), helping others with academic tasks, F(2, 205)= 17.78, p<.001 (ß= .33;
R²=.11), allowing others to help with academic tasks, F(3, 205)= 6.07, p<.01 (ß= .23;
R²=.05), task persistence, F(2, 205)= 22.47, p<.001 (ß= .43; R²=.18), class attitudes F(2,
205)= 32.19, p<.001 (ß= .50; R²=.24), and preference for challenging tasks as indicated
by the task challenge measure, F(2, 205)= 12.67, p<.001 (ß= .33; R²=.103), and the
behavioral assessment of task challenge F(2, 205)= 10.27, p<.001 (ß= .31).
DISCUSSION
Students’ motivation to learn has a profound impact on a number of academic
activities, including task persistence (e.g., Ames, 1984; Bouffard et al., 1995; Elliot &
Dweck, 1988; Elliot et al., 1999; Mueller & Dweck, 1998; Pintrich et al., 1991),
preference for challenging tasks (e.g. Ames & Archer, 1988; Elliot & Dweck, 1988), and
class attitudes (e.g., Ames & Archer, 1988; Pintrich, 2000). Ultimately, however, as
students progress through school there tends to be a general decline in their academic
motivation and, thus, a decline in their academic achievement (Anderman & Maehr,
1994; Eccles et al., 1991; Eccles et al., 1993; Pintrich, 2000).
While a considerable amount of research has examined students’ motivational
trends and the effects such trends have on various academic outcomes, this research is
somewhat limited as it does not typically consider how schools with different educational
philosophies influence students’ academic motivation. Such research is essential as the
development of students’ motivation to learn is strongly influenced by the classroom
environment (Ames, 1992a, 1992b; Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck & Leggett, 1988)
which, in turn, is influenced by a school’s educational philosophy (Fromberg &
Williams, 1992; Lillard, 2005). Thus, this study compared and contrasted students’
academic motivation in constructivist classrooms versus classrooms that take a more
direct instruction approach, and examined how student motivation is related to affective,
cognitive, and behavioral patterns.
Teachers’ Achievement Goal Orientation. Consistent with the first hypothesis,
according to student perceptions, Non-affiliated teachers were more performance-

approach orientated than Montessori teachers. This finding is consistent with past
research that has found that Non-affiliated teachers tend to be more teacher-centered,
more controlling, place more emphasis on comparative forms of evaluation, and are less
likely to share control with their students than Montessori teachers (Galliger & Musher-
Eizenman, 2009), all of which are characteristic of a performance orientation (see Ames,
1992a, 1992b for reviews). On the other hand, contrary to the hypothesis, there was not a
significant difference between students’ perceptions of their teachers’ mastery
orientation; both Montessori and Non-affiliated students perceived their teachers to be
mastery oriented.
It should also be noted that according to student perceptions, although Non-
affiliated teachers were more performance-approach oriented than Montessori teachers,
Non-affiliated teachers were significantly more mastery oriented than performance
oriented. Thus, while Non-affiliated teachers may implement certain performance
oriented practices and beliefs into classroom instruction, their students perceive that they
implement significantly more mastery oriented practices and beliefs, equal to that of
Montessori teachers. Past research has found that certain performance oriented teacher
practices and beliefs (e.g., emphasis on teacher control rather than shared control)
promote a performance orientation within students (see Ames, 1992a, 1992b for reviews),
and such an orientation within students has been linked to maladaptive outcomes (e.g.,
negative class attitudes) (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliot & Dweck, 1988; Elliot et al.,
1999; Meece et al., 1988). However, more recent research has found that when
performance goals are accompanied with high mastery goals, performance goals do not
hinder or dampen positive student outcomes (Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Pintrich, 2000).
Consequently, although Non-affiliated teachers are more performance-approach oriented
than Montessori teachers according to student perceptions, the result on students may not
be negative as Non-affiliated teachers implement significantly more mastery oriented
goals into the classroom.
Students’ Achievement Goal Orientation. Past research has found that teachers’
classroom orientation exerts a powerful influence on the development of students’ goal
orientation (Ames, 1992a, 1992b; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Consistent with this
research, the results of the current study found that students’ reported goal orientation
somewhat reflected their perceptions of the goal orientation of their teachers.
Specifically, although there was not a significant difference between Montessori and
Non-affiliated students’ mastery orientation, Non-affiliated students were significantly
more performance oriented than Montessori students. However, it should be noted that,
similar to Montessori students, Non-affiliated students were significantly more mastery
oriented than performance oriented.
It is especially worthwhile to mention that the performance orientation factor
structure did not fit the data as well for Montessori participants as it did for Non-affiliated
participants. Additionally, although recent research has identified two subtypes of
performance orientation that are associated with unique student outcomes (e.g., Elliot, et
al., 1999), these subtypes were not found in the current study in regard to students’ goal
orientation. These results may be due to the fact that the Student Goal Orientation
measure utilized within the current study was primarily developed for non-Montessori,
non-private school students. Thus, it is likely that this scale is not a completely accurate
reflection of Montessori or private Non-affiliated school students’ beliefs and behaviors

in the classroom. Such a finding is important for future research to consider. In order to
gain better insight into the similarities and differences between these two types of schools
it will be necessary to devise measures that are applicable to students in schools with
different educational philosophies.
Student Outcome Variables
Analyses revealed a significant effect of school type on students’ academic
prosocial goals. Specifically, Montessori students were more likely to report helping
others with academic activities and more likely to allow others to help them with
academic activities than Non-affiliated students. These findings are likely to reflect
Montessori pedagogy. Specifically, explicit instruction on social behavior is embedded
within the Montessori curriculum (Lillard, 2005). Moreover, the teacher plays an active
role in fostering an environment in which students have the freedom to collaborate with
their peers (DeVries, 2002). Thus, it is likely that Montessori students are more prosocial
in regard to academic tasks due to the fact that Montessori students are encouraged to
spend more time during the school day working with their peers. Due to the fact that the
pursuit of prosocial goals is positively related to students’ popularity (Wentzel, 1994) and
students’ academic success (Wentzel, 1993), these findings may have important
implications for Montessori students’ peer relationships and achievement.
In regard to the relationship between students’ reported goal orientation and the
outcome variables, the results indicated that, as predicted, students’ mastery orientation
was positively related to a number of affective, cognitive, and behavioral patterns. Past
research has found that such an orientation is related to and predicts a number of adaptive
outcomes. Specifically, mastery oriented students tend to be more task persistent (e.g.,
Ames, 1984; Bouffard et al., 1995; Elliot & Dweck, 1988; Elliot et al., 1999; Mueller &
Dweck, 1998; Pintrich et al., 1991), prefer more challenging tasks (e.g. Ames & Archer,
1988; Elliot & Dweck, 1988), and have better attitudes towards school or class (e.g.,
Ames & Archer, 1988; Pintrich, 2000). Consistent with this research, the results of the
current study revealed that regardless of type of school, students’ mastery orientation was
predictive of students’ prosocial goals, task persistence, preference for challenging tasks,
and positive class attitudes. It is important to note that while a number of studies have
found a positive relationship between students’ mastery orientation and student outcome
variables, much of this research has only assessed this relationship within schools with a
more traditional pedagogy. The current study is the first to illustrate that the relationship
between students’ mastery orientation and adaptive outcomes occurs among Montessori
students as well.
In regard to students’ performance orientation, research has found that this
orientation is associated with more maladaptive learning attitudes and behaviors. For
example, students with a performance orientation tend to avoid challenging tasks (Dweck
& Leggett, 1988), have more negative attitudes towards class (Ames & Archer, 1988),
and are less task persistent (Elliot & Dweck, 1988). However, the results of the current
study did not reveal a significant relationship between students’ performance orientation
and any outcome variables. It is possible that the insignificant results may reflect the
unique factor structure derived in the current study. Specifically, recent goal orientation
research has typically uncovered two performance orientation subscales, one related to
adaptive student outcomes and the other related to maladaptive student outcomes (e.g.,
Elliot, et al., 1999). Within the current study, however, all performance-approach items
and all performance-avoidant items loaded strongly on to one factor. Ultimately, past
research suggests that the relationship between students’ performance orientation and
student outcome variables is inconsistent when performance goals are not properly parsed
into approach and avoidant components (Covington, 2000). Thus, it will be important for
future research to decipher students’ performance orientation within different educational
contexts in order to clearly understand how such an orientation relates to various student
outcome variables.
A finding in regard to students’ task persistence also warrants discussion. Past
research that has examined task persistence among elementary students has typically
utilized behavioral assessments (e.g., Mueller & Dweck, 1998; Zimmerman & Ringle,
1981). Similarly, the current study devised a behavioral assessment of task persistence
that reflected assessments used in past research. Additionally, student task persistence
was assessed using a four-item measure created for the purpose of the current study.
However, the results revealed that the behavioral assessment of task persistence was not
correlated with the Task Persistence scale. Moreover, the behavioral assessment was not
related to any other study variables, except one. Despite these findings, the Task
Persistence scale was positively related to students’ mastery orientation as well as other
student outcome measures. These findings have important implications for how student
outcomes are measured as students’ task persistence in specific situations may be
different from their global perception of their academic task persistence as reported on
the survey.
Additional Findings
Previous research has found that as grade level increases, both Montessori and
Non-affiliated teachers tend to be more controlling, less student-centered, and more likely
to use evaluative methods that emphasize social comparisons among students (Galliger &
Musher-Eizenman, 2009), changes that would likely promote a stronger performance
goal orientation within the classroom (Ames 1992a, 1992b). Despite these findings,
however, the current study did not find significant differences between grade level and
teacher and student goal orientations. This inconsistency may be due to the fact that past
research assessed grade level changes through the perspective of the teacher and not the
students. It is possible that while teachers adopt more performance oriented practices and
beliefs as grade level increases, students may not perceive such changes. In fact, past
research has found that teachers perceive the classroom differently than students and
observers (Feldlaufer, Midgley, & Eccles, 1988; Midgley & Feldlaufer, 1987).
In addition to assessing grade level differences among the test variables, the
current study also assessed whether or not gender was related to students’ perceptions of
teachers’ goal orientation, students’ goal orientation, and the outcome variables. The
results indicated that male students perceived their teachers to be more performance-
avoidant than did female students. It is possible that teachers, regardless of school type,
convey different types of goal orientations to male and female students as past research
has found that teachers tend to treat male and female students differently (see Jones,
Dindia, & Tye, 2006 for review). Particularly, teachers tend to reprimand and critique
male students more often than female students. It is possible that the way in which
teachers critique male students is through a performance-avoidant approach. This finding

has important implications for male students’ academic outcomes as performance-
avoidant goals are consistently linked with maladaptive outcomes and behaviors (e.g.,
Elliot et al., 1999). In fact, the current study also found that female students had more
positive classroom attitudes, were more prosocial, and were more likely to help others
with academic tasks than male students. Although past research has found that females
tend to be more prosocial towards their peers than males (Eisenberg-Berg & Lennon,
1980; Persson, 2005; Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow, Wagner, & Chapman, 1992), it is
also possible that teachers’ performance-avoidant orientation as perceived by male
students, impacts male students’ classroom behavior and attitudes in a negative way.
Limitations
The results of the current study should be interpreted with caution as the sample
of participants was fairly homogenous. Specifically, due to limited accessibility, only
two Montessori schools and one Non-Affiliated school participated in the current study.
While accredited Montessori schools, such as the participating schools, have strict
guidelines for the classroom environment, it is likely that the classroom environments
still vary among different Montessori schools, and such variation may influence students’
motivation to learn. Moreover, schools that are not affiliated with any particular
educational organization are likely to vary considerably. Thus, it is possible that while
some Non-affiliated schools promote more of a mastery orientation others may promote
more of a performance orientation. Consequently, it is strongly recommended that future
research consider multiple schools in order to determine whether or not schools with
different educational philosophies differentially influence students’ academic motivation.

Moreover, as indicated by the results, the Students’ Performance Orientation
subscale did not fit the data for Montessori students as well as it did for Non-affiliated
students. In order to gain a better understanding into the similarities and differences
between Montessori and Non-affiliate students’ academic motivation, it will be necessary
to devise a measure that is applicable to students in schools with different educational
philosophies.
Future Directions
The present study has important implications for future research. First and
foremost, the current study is the first to illustrate that Montessori students have a lower
performance orientation in relation to students in Non-affiliated schools. Moreover, the
current study is the first to illustrate that the relationship between students’ mastery
orientation and adaptive outcomes occurs among Montessori students as well. Thus, if a
goal of educational reform is to maintain/improve students’ motivation to learn, schools
that take a more constructivists approach to education, such as Montessori schools, may
provide a model for schools that struggle to preserve students’ academic motivation over
time.
It is important to note, however, that although constructivist schools are able to
foster motivation to learn among students, the present research also suggests that strictly
adhering to constructivist standards may not be necessary. It seems that what is most
important is that teachers implement classroom practices that promote students’
motivation to learn, and, as illustrated by the current study, schools do not have to be
affiliated with a constructivist instructional philosophy in order to accomplish this task.
Ultimately, although past research has identified a number of classroom variables that
influence the particular type of goal orientation students adopt, it would be beneficial for
future research to explore whether certain teacher practices and teacher beliefs are more
powerful determinants than others. Specifically, if future research can identify one or
two classroom variables that are more substantial contributors to the development of
students’ mastery orientation, educational reform may become a more manageable task
and, thus, teachers may be more inclined to make positive classroom changes.
Another point worthy of mention is in regard to effect size. Although the current
study found several significant differences between Montessori and Non-affiliated
teachers and students, similar future research is needed in order to determine the strength
of these relationships. The differences between Montessori and Non-affiliated schools
derived in the current study, while small, may have significant implications on students’
academic outcomes. Future research is necessary in order to determine what real life
impact such differences have on students. It is possible that teachers may not have to
make drastic changes in their classrooms in order to positively influence student
motivation and academic outcomes. Rather, it is possible that if teachers are able to
encourage academic prosocial goals, for example, slightly more often within their
students, such a small change may significantly increase students’ mastery orientation
and academic achievement. If small changes within the classroom can make a large
difference in students, teachers and school administrators may be more willing to make to
make those positive changes.
Another area in need of additional research is in the area of student outcomes,
specifically in regard to learning strategies and task persistence. First, despite the fact
that the learning strategy measure used in the current study was created based upon other
learning strategy measures used in past research, a coherent factor structure could not be
derived. These findings could be due to the fact that the measure used in the current
study was reflective of learning strategy questionnaires that are typically used with older
students, even college students, in a more traditional school setting. Thus, it is possible
that such strategies are not relevant to younger students who attend a Montessori school
or a Non-affiliated private school. It would be interesting for future research to explore
the learning strategies of students who attend more constructivist schools as compared to
students who attend schools that take a more direct instruction approach to education.
Due to the fact that Montessori schools have a very different approach to student
learning, it is possible that Montessori students in particular, have different ways in
which they learn academic material.
Second, as mentioned previously, in regard to task persistence, the current study
found some inconsistencies when measuring students’ task persistence with a
questionnaire and through a behavioral assessment. Specifically, the behavioral
assessment was not related to the majority of measures used in the current study. It is
possible that this lack of correlation was due to the fact that the task was a game-like task
that reflected more of a leisure activity than an academic activity. It is possible that
different results would emerge if the task simulated tasks that students are more likely to
encounter in an academic setting, such as math problems or tasks that involve reading
comprehension. Ultimately, it will be necessary for future research to determine which
type of measurement methodology is a more accurate representation of students’ true task
persistence in the classroom.

Conclusion
In sum, although much research has reported a downward spiral in students’
academic motivation over time, this research has typically only focused on students in
schools that are not affiliated with a constructivist approach to education. This study
represents an initial comparison of students’ academic motivation within constructivist
schools and schools that take a more direct instruction approach to education. Moreover,
the current study was one of the first to explore students’ goal orientation within schools
that are affiliated with a particular constructivist approach to instruction. It is important
to note that the current study ha s not only contributed to goal orientation literature, but it
has also opened the door for a great deal of future research that can benefit educational
reform.
REFERENCES
Ames, C. (1992a). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
Ames, C. (1992b). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In. D. H.
Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327-348).
New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Ames, C. (1994). Achievement attributions and self-instructions under competitive and
individualistic goal structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 478-487.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning
strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-
267.
Amos Development Corporation (2007). Amos (Version 7.0) [Computer software].
Chicago: Small Waters.
Anderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle
grades. Review of Educational Research, 64, 287-309.
Barton, P. E. (2005). One third of a nation: Rising dropout rates and declining
opportunities. Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center Educational Testing
Service.
Bennett, K. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1990). How schools work: A sociological analysis of
education. New York: Longman.
Biggs, J. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133-149.
Boers, D. (2007). History of american education. New York: Peter Lang.

Button, H. W., & Provnzo, E. F., Jr. (1989). History of education and culture in america
(2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bouffard, T., Boisvert, J., Vezeau, C., & Larouche, C. (1995). The impact of goal
orientation on self-regulation and performance among college students. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 317-329.
Bridgeland, J. M., DiIulio, J. J., & Morison, K. B. (2006, March). The silent epidemic:
Perspectives of high school dropouts. Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2008). Tomorrow's Jobs. Washington, DC: U. S. Department
of Labor.
Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An
integrative review. Annual Review in Psychology, 51, 171-200.
Cuban, L. (1979). How did teachers teach, 1890-1980. Theory into Practice, 22, 159-165.
Cuban, L. (1982). Persistence of the inevitable: The teacher-centered classroom.
Education and Urban Society, 15, 26-41.
DeVries, R. (2002). What does research on constructivist education tell us about effective
schooling? Iowa Academy of Education Occasional Research Paper #5. Des
Moines, IA: First in the Nation in Education.
DeVries, R., & Kohlberg, L. (1987). Programs of early education: A constructivist view.
New York: Longman.
Dryden, M. & Fraser, B. F. (1998, April). The impact of systemic reform efforts in
promoting constructivist approaches in high school science. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Diego, CA.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist,
41, 1040-1048.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
Eccles, J. S., Lord, S., & Midgley, C. (1991). What are we doing to early adolescents?
The impact of educational contexts on early adolescents. American Journal of
Education, 99, 521-542.
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., et
al. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit
on young adolescents' experiences in schools and in families. American
Psychologist, 48, 90-101.
Edwards, C. P. (2002). Three approaches from Europe: Waldorf, montessori, and reggio
emilia. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 4, 2-14.
Eisenberg-Berg, N., & Lennon, R. (1980). Altruism and the assessment of empathy in the
preschool years. Child Development, 51, 552-557.
Elliot, 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.
Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies,
and exam performance: A mediational analysis. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 91, 549-563.

Feldlaufer, H, Midgley, C., & Eccles, J. S. (1988). Student, teacher, and observer
perceptions of the classroom environment before and after the transition to junior
high school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 8, 133-156.
Fromberg, D. P., & Williams, L. R. (1992). Early childhood curricula and programs:
Variations in form and content. In L. R. Williams & D. P. Fromberg (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of early childhood education (pp. 305-308). New York: Garland
Publishing.
Galliger, C. C., & Musher-Eizenman, D. R. (2009). When the school bell rings: A
comparison of teacher beliefs and teacher practices in direct instruction and
constructivist schools. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the
classroom: motivational and informational components. Developmental
Hawkins, J. D., Guo, J., Hill, K. G., Battin-Pearson, S., & Abbott, R. D. (1996). Long-
term effects of the Seattle Social Development intervention on school bonding
trajectories. Applied Developmental Science, 5, 225-236.
Jessor, R., Van Den Bos, J., Vanderryn, J., Costa, F. M., & Turbin, M. S. (1995).
Protective factors in adolescent problem behavior: Moderator effects and
developmental change.
Jones, S.M., Dindia, K. & Tye, S. (2006). Sex equity in the classroom: Do female
students lose the battle for teacher attention? In B. M Gayle, R. W. Preiss, & N.
Burrell (Eds.), Classroom Communication and Instructional Processes: Advances
Through Meta-Analysis (pp. 185-209). New York, NY Routledge.

Kalil, A., & Ziol-Guest, K. M. (2003, March). Teacher-student relationships, school goal
structure, and teenage mothers' school motivation and engagement. Paper
presented at Child Trends meeting.
Karabenick, S. A., & Collins-Eaglin, J. (1997). Relation of perceived instructional goals
and incentives to college students' use of learning strategies. Journal of
Experimental Education, 65, 331-341.
Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative
model for helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction.
The Elementary School Journal, 94, 485-497.
Lillard, A. S. (2005). Montessori: The science behind the genius. New York: Oxford
University Press.
McCombs, B. L. (1991). Motivation and lifelong learning. Educational Psychologist, 26,
117-127.
Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students' goal orientation and
cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational
Meece, J. L., & Miller, S. D. (2001). A longitudinal analysis of elementary school
students' achievement goals in literacy activities. Contemporary Educational
Midgley, C., & Feldlaufer, H. (1987). Students’ and teachers’ decision-making fit before
and after the transition to junior high school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 7,
225-241.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E.,
et al. (2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales. Michigan:
University of Michigan.
Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children's
motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,
33-35.
North American Montessori Teachers Association (2008). Retrieved April 3, 2008, from
http://www.montessori-namta.org/NAMTA/geninfo/faqmontessori.html
Persson, G. E. B. (2005). Developmental perspectives on prosocial and aggressive
motives in preschoolers’ peer interactions. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 29, 80-91.
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., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D., Garcia, T, & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of
the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Washington, DC:
Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Provalis Research (1997). Italassi (Version 1.2) [Computer software]. Montreal: Provalis
Research.
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting academics’ beliefs about teaching
and learning. Higher Education, 41, 299-325.

Schuh, K. L. (2004). Learner-centered principles in teacher-centered practices? Teaching
and Teacher Education, 20, 833-846.
Vadeboncoeur, J. A. (1997). Child development and the purpose of education: A
historical context for constructivism in teacher education. In V. Richardson (Ed.),
Constructivist teacher education: Building a world of new understanding (pp. 15-
37). New York, NY: Routledge.
Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Motivation and achievement in early adolescence: The role of
multiple classroom goals. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 4-20.
Wentzel, K. R. (1994). Relations of social goal pursuit to social acceptance, classroom
behavior, and perceived social support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86,
173-182.
Wentzel, K. R. (1996). Social and academic motivation in middle school: Concurrent and
long-term relations to academic effort. Journal of Early Adolescence, 16, 390-
406.
Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., Wagner, E., & Chapman, M. (1992). Development
of concern for others. Developmental Psychology, 28, 126-136.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Ringle, J. (1981). Effects of model persistence and statements of
confidence on children's self-efficacy and problem solving. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 73, 485-493.

Appendix A
Department of Psychology
Dear Parents:
My name is Courtney Galliger and I am a psychology doctoral candidate at Bowling Green State University. I am currently
working on my Dissertation regarding students' academic motivation under the direction of Dr. Dara Musher-Eizenman. I
have been in contact with your principal/director and he/she has granted me permission to contact you. The primary purpose
of this research is to gain a better understanding of the type of motivation students develop within a private school. I also
want to see how students' motivation is related to a variety of student outcomes such as learning strategies, classroom
attitudes, and task persistence. Recent research has found that there is a general decline in motivation to learn as children
progress throughout public school which is a cause of concern. However, this decline in motivation may not occur among
students who attend a private school. If private schools should better foster students' academic motivation, and if this
motivation should lead to more positive outcomes, then perhaps private schools can serve as a model for educational reform
to improve student motivation within public schools.
I am conducting a survey to find out more about students' motivation to learn within a private school. I will come to your
child's classroom to administer a survey regarding this issue. We have been granted permission to conduct this research
project from the principal of your child’s school. We would like to include your child in this project. Participation is
completely voluntary. Following your permission, the project will be described to your son/daughter. Your son/daughter will
then be asked if he/she would like to participate in this research by filling out a questionnaire. Although there are no
anticipated risks to your child by participating in this project, if your child chooses not to participate or wishes to stop
participation at any time, he/she will be free to do so for any reason.
The survey should take about 30 minutes to complete. Students' responses to the survey are completely anonymous.
Students will be told NOT to write their names anywhere on the survey and will not be asked any personal information that
could identify them or their families. Our interest is not in a particular student or classroom, but in group-level data.
I am excited about administering this survey in your child's school. When I compile the results, I will prepare a report that
will be available to you through your school principal/director. The results can be helpful in allowing us to learn more about
students' motivation in school, and how this might be related in a positive and negative ways to various behaviors and/or
patterns of thinking. If for any reason you do not want your child to complete the survey, please let us know by returning the
attached form to your child's teacher. If you have any questions concerning any part of this research, please feel free to
contact me at (419) 372-4395. You may also contact the Chair, Human Subjects Review Board, Bowling Green State
University, (419) 372-7716 (hsrb@bgnet.bgsu.edu), if you have any concerns about the conduct of the study or your child's
rights as a research participant.
If you do not want your child to participate in this survey, you must return the attached form by _____________. Thank you
very much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Courtney C. Galliger, MA
Doctoral Candidate
(419) 372-4395
cgallig@bgnet.bgsu.edu
Parental Consent Form
Please return this form only if you do not want your child to participate in the survey.
I have read the letter about the survey being conducted by a graduate student from Bowling Green State
University.
_____ I do not want my child to complete a survey about his/her academic motivation and how it
relates to his/her behavior and/or thought process.
Child's name (please print): ___________________________________________________
Child's grade:___________
Child's teacher:_______________________________
Signature of parent or legal guardian:________________________________________________
Thank you again for your time.

Appendix B
Department of Psychology
Hi, my name is Courtney Galliger. I am a graduate student from Bowling Green State
University. I am doing a research project that is a survey. It is about what you think
about your schoolwork and your classroom. I want to see what your classroom is like,
what kind of schoolwork you like to do, and how you feel about school. This survey will
help me learn more about students' feelings and behavior in the classroom.
You DO NOT have to fill out this survey if you do not want to. If you start, and then
change your mind, you can stop at any time. If you do fill it out, your answers will be
private and confidential. This means that no one will be able to know what you wrote.
You will not write you name anywhere on the survey. If you agree to participate just tear
off this cover sheet and keep it for yourself.
If you have any questions for me, please feel free to ask!
Appendix C
Student Perception of Teachers' Goal Orientation
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
For the next fifteen questions, please read each item
carefully. Then, for each statement, select the answer
Disagree
that best applies to your teacher.
Agree
1 My teacher makes sure I understand my work, not just memorize 1 2 3 4
it.
2 My teacher points out students who do the best on class work or 1 2 3 4
tests as an example to all of us.
3 My teacher tells us that it is important that we don’t look stupid in 1 2 3 4
class.
4 My teacher pays attention to whether I am improving. 1 2 3 4
5 My teacher lets us know which students do the best on school 1 2 3 4
work or tests.
6 My teacher says that showing others that we are not bad at school 1 2 3 4
work should be our goal.
7 My teacher gives me a chance to correct mistakes. 1 2 3 4
8 My teacher tells me how my school work compares to other 1 2 3 4
students’ school work.
9 My teacher tells us it’s important to join in discussions so it 1 2 3 4
doesn’t look like we can’t do our work.
10 My teacher thinks mistakes are okay as long as I am learning. 1 2 3 4
11 My teacher thinks getting a good grade is the most important 1 2 3 4
thing in class.
12 My teacher tells us it’s important to answer questions in class, so 1 2 3 4
it doesn’t look like we can’t do the work.
13 My teacher wants us to enjoy learning new things. 1 2 3 4
14 My teacher gives us time to really explore and understand new 1 2 3 4
topics.
15 My teacher encourages us to compete with each other. 1 2 3 4
Appendix D
Students' Goal Orientation
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
For the next twelve questions, please read each item
carefully, then, for each statement, select the number
Disagree
that best applies to you.
Agree
1 The most important thing to me in this class is that I learn as much 1 2 3 4
as I can.
2 The most important thing to me in this class is to do better than 1 2 3 4
other students.
3 The most important thing to me in this class is to not look stupid. 1 2 3 4
4 The most important thing to me in this class is that I learn new 1 2 3 4
things.
5 The most important thing to me in this class is to show others I am 1 2 3 4
smart
6 The most important thing to me in this class is to not look like I 1 2 3 4
have trouble doing school work.
7 The most important thing to me in this class is to really 1 2 3 4
understand my school work.
8 The most important thing to me in this class is to show others how 1 2 3 4
good I am at school.
9 The most important thing to me in class is to not do poorly on my 1 2 3 4
school work.
10 The most important thing to me in this class is to improve what I 1 2 3 4
know.
11 The most important thing to me in this class is that I get a good 1 2 3 4
grade or get good comments about my school work.
12 The most important thing to me in this class is to not get a bad 1 2 3 4
grade or bad comments from my teacher on my school work.
Appendix E
Learning Strategies
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
For the next nine questions, please read each item
Disagree
Agree
1 When I learn something new in school, I like to take extra time to 1 2 3 4
make sure I really understand it.
2 I only do school work I have to do. 1 2 3 4
3 When I learn something new in school, I try to connect it to 1 2 3 4
information I already know.
4 I try to finish school work as fast as I can. 1 2 3 4
5 I use what I have learned on old school work to do new school 1 2 3 4
work.
6 When learning a new topic, I try to memorize the important 1 2 3 4
information even if I don’t understand it very well.
7 I take my time on school work to make sure I really understand it. 1 2 3 4
8 I do school work without thinking too hard. 1 2 3 4
9 When learning something new in school, I ask myself questions to 1 2 3 4
make sure I really understand it.
Appendix F
Academic Prosocial Goals
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
For the next six questions, please read each item
Disagree
Agree
1 I like to share what I have learned with my classmates. 1 2 3 4
2 I like to help my classmates solve a problem once I have figured it 1 2 3 4
out.
3 I like to try to help my classmates learn new things. 1 2 3 4
4 I like to ask another classmate for help when I don’t understand 1 2 3 4
something in class.
5 I like when my classmates try to help me learn new things. 1 2 3 4
6 I like when my classmates try to help me solve a problem once 1 2 3 4
they have figured it out.
Appendix G
Prosocial Goals
Almost Always
For the next four questions, please read each item
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
1 How often do you try to be nice to kids when something bad has 1 2 3 4
happened to them?
2 How often do you try to help other kids when they have a 1 2 3 4
problem?
3 How often do you try to cheer someone up when something has 1 2 3 4
gone wrong?
4 How often do you share your toys or games with other kids? 1 2 3 4
Appendix H
Task Persistence
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
For the next four questions, please read each item
Disagree
Agree
1 I do not like to give up on class work even when it is hard. 1 2 3 4
2 In class, I do not give up on a problem until I get the right answer. 1 2 3 4
3 In class, I like to try things over and over again until I get it right. 1 2 3 4
4 I continue working on class work even after other people give up. 1 2 3 4
Appendix I
As long as it takes
A little bit longer
After three minutes:
me to find every
Not any longer
item myself.
A lot longer
How much longer would you like to work on the picture find? 1 2 3 4
Appendix J
1. Some kids like hard, challenging school work the best, but other kids like easy school
work the best.
What type of school work do you like the best?
A. I definitely like easy school work the best.
B. I sort of like easy school work the best
C. I sort of like hard, challenging school work the best.
D. I definitely like hard, challenging school work the best.
2. Some kids like hard subjects in school the best, but other kids like easy subjects in
school the best.
What type of subjects in school do you like the best?
A. I definitely like easy subjects in school the best
B. I sort of like easy subjects in school the best.
C. I sort of like hard subjects in school the best.
D. I definitely like hard subjects in school the best.
3. Some kids think difficult school work is the most interesting, but other kids think that
easy school work is the most interesting.
What type of school work do you think is the most interesting?
A. I definitely think easy school work is the most interesting.
B. I sort of think easy school work is the most interesting.
C. I sort of think difficult school work is the most interesting.
D. I definitely think difficult school work is the most interesting.

Appendix K
Classroom Attitudes
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
For the next ten questions, please read each item
Disagree
Agree
1 I like being in my class. 1 2 3 4
2 I feel bored in my class. 1 2 3 4
3 I look forward to going to my class. 1 2 3 4
4 I often feel frustrated when I do class work. 1 2 3 4
5 My class puts me in a good mood. 1 2 3 4
6 I often don’t feel good about myself when I am in my class. 1 2 3 4
7 My class makes me feel good about myself. 1 2 3 4
8 I am often angry when I am in my class. 1 2 3 4
9 In my class, I usually like thinking about class work. 1 2 3 4
10 My class often makes me feel bad. 1 2 3 4
Table 1
Frequencies of participant demographic information by school type
Montessori Non-Affiliated
Gender
Male 39.1% 55.6%
Female 60.9% 44.4%
Ethnic Composition
African American 6.4% 6.1%
Asian 9.1% 10.1%
Caucasian 60.9% 47.5%
Hispanic 3.6% 4.0%
Mixed 14.5% 23.2%
Other 5.5% 8.1%
Grade
Third 29.1% 26.3%
Fourth 29.1% 19.2%
Fifth 26.4% 25.3%
Sixth 14.5% 29.3%

Table 2
Correlations between measures
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) Teacher Mastery
(2) Teacher Approach -.10
(3) Teacher Avoidant -.00 .41*
(4) Student Mastery .37* - .06 -.13
(5) Student Performance -.03 .36* .40* -.01
(6) Help Others Academically .34* -.02 -.06 .29* -.09
(7) Others Help Academically .24* .04 .10 .20* -.06 .38*
(8) Prosocial .23* - .10 -.16* .27* -.12 .46* .24*
(9) Task Persistence .38* -.00 -.12 .42* -.07 .40* .20* .46*
(10) Task Persistence (time) -.14 -.12 -.01 .04 -.03 .03 .09 -.06 -.05
(11) Task Persistence (more time) -.09 .05 .06 -.13 .02 -.09 .19* -.05 .01 -.38
(12) Task Challenge .18* -.08 -.10 .33* -.02 .20* -.01 .34* .42* .04 -.06
(13) Task Challenge (behavioral) .12 -.19* -.07 .29* .07 .22* .11 -.07 .12 .20* -.05 -.02
(14) Class Attitudes .29* -.18* -.17* .48* -.14* .43* .21* .43* .53* .03 -.10 .56* .29*
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
* p< .05
Table 3
Learning strategies: Factor loadings for Montessori and Non-affiliated groups.
Montessori Component 1 Component 2 Component 3
Item 1 .77
Item 2 .71
Item 3 .54
Item 4 -.70
Item 5 .90
Item 6 .46 .50
Item 7 .42
Item 8 .63
Item 9 .84
Non-Affiliated
Item 1 .72 .36
Item 2 -.48
Item 3 .81
Item 4 -.70
Item 5 .86
Item 6 .84
Item 7 .72
Item 8 .43 -.74
Item 9 .45 .43

Table 4
Montessori versus Non-affiliated: Means and standard deviations for outcome variables.
Montessori Non-affiliated
Teacher Mastery 3.63 (.33) 3.56 (.34)
Teacher Approach 1.38 (.40) 1.83 (.62)*
Teacher Avoidant 1.83 (.65) 2.02 (.73)
Student Mastery 3.52 (.47) 3.66 (.40)
Student Performance 2.08 (.56) 2.58 (.59)*
Help Others 3.29 (.53)* 3.07 (.50)
Others Help 3.29 (.56)* 3.07 (.68)
Prosocial 3.71 (.41) 3.64 (.50)
Task Persistence 3.21 (.52) 3.22 (.64)
Task Persistence (time in seconds) 143.56 (51) 161.73 (35.21)
Task Persistence (more time) 2.95 (1.20) 3.10 (1.07)
Task Challenge 3.01 (.51) 3.11 (.67)
Task Challenge (behavioral) 1.66 (.60) 1.69 (.68)
Class Attitudes 3.32 (.52) 3.27 (.53)
______________________________________________________________________________________
* significantly different by p< .01
Montessori
Non-affiliated
Item 1 e1
.40 .42 Item 4 e2

.37 .44
Mastery .58 .44 Item 7 e3

.35 .34
.62 .59
Item 10 e4
.48 .49
Item 13 e5
.04 -.05
-.44 .08
Item 14 e6
Item 2 e7
.52 .78
Approach .71 .76

Item 5 e8
.35 .49
Item 8 e9
.34 .33
Item 15 e10
.33 .54
Item 3 e11
.58 .73
.60 .74 Item 6 e12

Avoidant
.41 .57
Item 9 e13
.61 .69
Item 12 e14
Montessori
Non-affiliated
Item 1 e1
.79 .85
Mastery .79 .75

Item 4 e2
.70 .67
Item 7 e3
-.14 -.01
Item 2 e4
.59 .69
.58 .51 Item 3 e5

Performance
.71 .85
Item 5 e6
.60 .57
Item 6 e7
.82 .79
Item 8 e8
Montessori
Non-affiliated
Item 1 e1
.47 .40
Help Others .76 .50

Item 2 e2
.67 .52
Item 3 e3
.97 .13
Item 4 e4
.40 .56
Others Help .63 .61

Item 5 e5
.69 .83
Item 6 e6
Montessori
Non-affiliated
Item 1 e1
.48 .48
Prosocial .37 .37

Item 2 e2
.99 .99
Item 3 e3
Montessori
Non-affiliated
Item 1 e1
.62 .76
Task Persistence .74 .82

Item 2 e2
.55 .71
.57 .66 Item 3 e3
Item 4 e4
Montessori
Non-affiliated
Item 1 e1
.80 .93
Task Challenge .72 .77 Item 2 e2

.46 .52
Item 3 e3
Montessori
Non-affiliated
Item 1 e1
.76 .75
Item2 e2
.78 .77
.74 .75
Item 3 e3
.71 .70 Item 4 e4
Class Attitudes .63 .62

Item 5 e5
.74 .69
Item 6 e6
.51 .48
.68 .63 Item 7 e7
.60 .59 Item 8 e8
.67 .66
Item 9 e9
Item 10 e10

To Be or Not To Be Motivated.. A Comparison of Students' Goal Orientation Within Direct Instructi

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

To Be or Not To Be Motivated.. A Comparison of Students' Goal Orientation Within Direct Instructi

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

TO BE OR NOT TO BE…MOTIVATED: A COMPARISON OF STUDENTS' GOAL

ORIENTATION WITHIN DIRECT INSTRUCTION AND CONSTRUCTIVIST SCHOOLS.

Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green

Dara Musher-Eizenman, Advisor

Dara Musher-Eizenman, Advisor

to education (e.g., Montessori schools). Participants included 209elementary school students.

students’ mastery orientation was related to adaptive outcomes.

Achievement Goal Orientation…………………………………………………… .. 1

Direct Instruction Approach .......................................................................... 5

Constructivist Approach ................................................................................. 6

Current Study ............................................................................................................. 7

Teachers’ Achievement Goal Orientation ........................................................ 14

Students’ Achievement Goal Orientation ........................................................ 14

Learning Strategies ........................................................................................... 14

Prosocial Goals ................................................................................................. 15

Class Attitudes ................................................................................................... 16

Factor Analysis and Internal Consistency.................................................................. 18

Teachers’ Achievement Goal Orientation ....................................................... 18

Students’ Achievement Goal Orientation ......................................................... 19

Learning Strategies ........................................................................................... 20

Prosocial Goals ................................................................................................. 20

Class Attitudes .................................................................................................. 22

Preliminary Analyses ................................................................................................. 23

Achievement Goal Orientation .................................................................................. 24

Teachers’ Achievement Goal Orientation ....................................................... 24

Students’ Achievement Goal Orientation ......................................................... 25

Student Outcome Variables ....................................................................................... 26

Achievement Goal Orientation .................................................................................. 27

Teachers’ Achievement Goal Orientation ....................................................... 27

Students’ Achievement Goal Orientation ......................................................... 29

Student Outcome Variables ....................................................................................... 30

Additional Findings ................................................................................................... 33

Future Directions ....................................................................................................... 35

APPENDIX A. PARENT LETTER ...................................................................................... 46

APPENDIX B. ASSENT LETTER ...................................................................................... 48

APPENDIX C. STUDENT PERCEPTION OF TEACHERS’ GOAL ORIENTATION ..... 49

APPENDIX D. STUDENTS’ GOAL ORIENTATION........................................................ 50

APPENDIX E. LEARNING STRATEGIES......................................................................... 51

APPENDIX F. ACADEMIC PROSOCIAL GOALS............................................................ 52

APPENDIX G. PROSOCIAL GOALS…………………………………………………… . 53

APPENDIX H. TASK PERSISTENCE…………………………………………………… 54

APPENDIX I. TASK PERSISTENCE BEHAVIORAL MEASURE…………………… . 55

APPENDIX J. TASK CHALLENGE……………………………………………………… 56

APPENDIX K CLASSROOM ATTITUDES…………………………………………….. . 57

1 Frequencies of participant demographic information by school type........................ 58

2 Correlations between measures.................................................................................. 59

4 Montessori versus Non-affiliated: Means and

standard deviations for outcome variables................................................................. 61

5 Teachers’ achievement goal orientation scale: Factor loadings and

correlations between subscales for Montessori and Non-affiliated groups. .............. 62

6 Students’ achievement goal orientation scale: Factor loadings and

correlations between subscales for Montessori and Non-affiliated groups. .............. 63

7 Academic prosocial goals scale: Factor loadings and correlations

between subscales for Montessori and Non-affiliated groups. .................................. 64

8 Prosocial goals scale: Factor loadings for Montessori and

Non-affiliated groups. ................................................................................................ 65

9 Task persistence scale: Factor loadings for Montessori and

10 Task challenge scale: Factor loadings for Montessori and

11 Class attitudes scale: Factor loadings for Montessori and

Non-affiliated groups…. ............................................................................................ 68

school motivation has a number of negative implications on development, particularly

of postsecondary education and/or continuous on-the-job training (Bureau of Labor