ERIC EJ754269: Achievement Goal Orientations, "Oughts," and Self-Regulation in Students with and without Learning Disabilities

2006·0.11 MB·English

by  ERIC

ACHIEVEMENT GOAL ORIENTATIONS,
“OUGHTS,”AND SELF-REGULATION
IN STUDENTS WITH AND WITHOUT
LEARNING DISABILITIES
Georgios D. Sideridis
Abstract. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the
regulation of goal orientations and strong “oughts” in students with
learning disabilities (LD). Participants were 132 Greek students with
state-identified LD using the achievement-discrepancy criterion,
and 538 typical students. The first hypothesis tested was that feel-
ing obliged to engage in an activity is grounded on fear and is asso-
ciated with a network of avoidance-related behaviors. Results
confirmed this hypothesis, as the ought-self explained significant
amounts of variability in task avoidance, performance avoidance,
and fear of failure. The second hypothesis was that the ought-self
was associated with failure to regulate. Student groups were formed
based on their adoption of mastery, performance approach, task
avoidance, multiple-approach goals, and strong “oughts.” Results
indicated that students with strong “oughts” persisted significantly
less than students with approach forms of motivation. Regardless of
their lack of persistence, however, students with strong “oughts”
were not inferior in achievement, nor did they display heightened
negative affect. By modeling the relationship between goals,
achievement and psychopathology, results showed that the ought-
self was negatively associated with achievement and positively asso-
ciated with indices of anxiety and depression. Mean group analyses
pointed to salient differences between students with and without
LD on motivation, achievement and psychopathology.
GEORGIOS D. SIDERIDIS, Department of Psychology, University of Crete.
Recent literature on learning disabilities suggests lems (Masi, Provedani, & Poli, 1998); and motiva-
that the disorder may entail a lot more than academic tional deficits (Dunn & Shapiro, 1999). Given such
deficits (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). For example, many comorbidity and heterogeneity (Kavale & Forness,
students with learning disabilities (LD) present other 1987), it is imperative for researchers to expand their
comorbid characteristics such as depression (Heath frameworks to understand the causes of underachieve-
& Ross, 2000); anxiety (Hoy, Gregg, Wisenbaker, ment in students with LD and, potentially, intervene
Manglitz, King, & Moreland, 1997); emotional prob- accordingly.
Volume 29, Winter 2006 3
A particularly underrepresented area of research con- avoid negative evaluations (avoidance focus; e.g., avoid
cerns the hypothesized functional role of motivation ridicule and humiliation from receiving low grades).
and emotions (e.g., Bryan, Burstein, & Ergul, 2004; Elias, Although some controversy surrounded this dicho-
2004; Elksnin & Elksnin, 2004; Turner, Meyer, & tomization, it is fairly well established that performance
Schweinle, 2003), which has proven to be highly pre- approach and performance avoidance goals are associ-
dictive for the achievement of students with LD ated with unique patterns of behavior, affect, and
(Bouffard, 2003; Garcia & de Caso, 2004; Sideridis & achievement (e.g., Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton,
Tsorbatzoudis, 2003). Attention to motivationally re- 2001), thus presenting different forms of regulation.
lated constructs for identification of LD has also been Recent evidence also indicates that performance-
found to enhance correct identification of LD subtypes approach goals are adaptive for certain outcomes and
(Sideridis, Morgan, Botsas, Padeliadu, & Fuchs, in press). under certain circumstances (Harackiewicz, Barron,
The primary objective of the present study was to eval- Pintrich, Elliott, & Trash, 2002; Kaplan & Middleton,
uate students’ regulation of their academic behavior 2002; Midgley et al. 2001). Thus, mastery and perform-
when that behavior had various motivational origins ance orientations are thought to energize different reg-
(i.e., achievement goal theory and obligations, as des- ulatory mechanisms. They activate different cognitions
cribed in self-determination theory). and strategies and, eventually, result in different aca-
demic outcomes when pursued independently of each
Achievement Goal Theory
other. However, the orthogonality of goal orientations
According to goal theory, approaching a task out of
has recently been challenged with the proposition that
interest and the desire to learn may yield more effective
a synergy of goals may prove to be more adaptive than
outcomes than approaching it to demonstrate compe-
the pursuit of one type of goal alone (e.g., Pintrich,
tence over others (Ames, 1992). The former orientation
2000).
(termed learning or mastery) has consistently been asso-
Multiple goals and optimal motivation. Pintrich
ciated with positive achievement gains as students focus
(2000) and Barron and Harackiewicz (2001) suggested
on understanding and performing a task out of joy and
that goal orientations do not necessarily operate inde-
pleasure (Meece & Holt, 1993; Nicholls, Patashnick, &
pendently. Individuals can be motivated by multiple
Nolen, 1985).
forces, which may operate in different ways, producing
The adaptiveness of the latter orientation, termed per-
different forms of regulation and explaining different
formanceorientation (Dweck & Leggett, 1988), has been
outcomes. Barron and Harackiewicz (2001) proposed
subject to controversy. With a basis in normative com-
four motivational combinations that may result in
parisons, this orientation describes students who focus
diverse achievement outcomes (see also Pintrich,
on outperforming other students and maintaining a
Conley, & Kempler, 2003): the additive goal pattern,
high standing in their class. Originally, Dweck (1986)
the selective goal pattern, the interactive goal pattern,
termed this orientation “helpless” because students
and the specialized pattern.
tended to withdraw from academic tasks early, particu-
According to the additive goal pattern, goal orienta-
larly when they felt incapable of performing well. tions are orthogonal and are associated with different
Dweck attributed students’ early withdrawal to their achievement outcomes in an additive fashion. Thus, it
conceptions of ability, which she termed “fixed” and may be more adaptive to have two forces operating
“malleable.” That is, students who thought that their than just one. Students who adopt multiple-approach
intelligence was fixed (i.e., could not change in their life goals, given this pattern, are expected to have a notable
course) displayed the “helpless” pattern, and were more advantage over students who select only one set of
likely to approach tasks for competence-based reasons. goals. For example, a student may wish to be the top
On the contrary, students who thought that intelligence student in his or her class in math, a subject that hap-
was malleable were more likely to persist and adopt pens to be of great personal interest.
mastery or learning-based goals. The selective goal pattern states that individuals may
Those early findings have been replicated consistently pursue different goals in different situations. Thus, a
in subsequent studies (e.g., Dykman, 1998), up until the student may pursue performance goals in large lecture
dichotomization of performance goals into approach courses in which normative evaluations are prominent,
and avoidance (i.e., a focus to do well or a focus not to but may pursue mastery goals in small seminars
fail) (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). Following the in which the emphasis is on mastery (Barron &
dichotomization of performance goals, emphasis and Harackiewicz, 2003).
focus changed; students could be motivated by targeting According to the interactive goal pattern, goals inter-
a positive end state (approach form of motivation; e.g., act with each other to produce outcomes (e.g., an indi-
get high grades) or could be motivated by the goal to vidual who likes the material of a course but also
Learning Disability Quarterly 4
desires to be the top student in the class). The pursuit Ought-Self: Theoretical Links
of these goals is expected to result in unique gains over The ought-self as a concept is linked to at least four
and above those produced from the pursuit of mastery theoretical schemes (self-discrepancy, self-determina-
or performance goals alone. However, this approach tion, possible selves and planned behavior). For the
“weights” goals equally. Thus, a high-mastery/low-per- purposes of the present study, the conceptualization of
formance pattern is treated as identical to a low-mas- the ought-self relates strongly to the concept of con-
tery/high-performance pattern. trolled motives in self-determination theory (SDT;
Lastly, the specialized goal pattern states that each Ryan & Deci, 2000).
orientation is expected to relate to specific processes or In SDT, the ought-self represents a self-motivational
outcomes only. Thus, mastery goals may predict posi- system that is regulated by other people’s administra-
tively well-being whereas performance goals may pre- tion of contingencies. Thus, it is an external form of
dict positively anxiety. motivation that is more likely linked to regulation fail-
Given research findings that reflect a synergistic role ure and decrements in intrinsic motivation. According
of pursuing both mastery and performance goals in typ- to SDT, externally based goals cannot be internalized
ical student groups, it is important to evaluate those and valued as important by the self because they have
propositions with students with LD. Studies employing an external origin. Externally based goals can be rooted
students with LD, attention deficit hyperactivity disor- in people who are significant in the person’s environ-
ders (ADHD), or “garden variety” student samples, sug- ment (e.g., parents, teachers, friends). Thus, the value
gested that those students have motivational deficits and importance of significant others can be transmit-
(e.g., Carlson, Booth, Shin, & Canu, 2002; Sideridis, ted to the person, and these external goals get assigned
2003a, 2005a). Past studies have also presented a mixed a “relative” value and importance (based on how
profile for students with LD with regard to their important these goals are for the “significant others”).
adoption of different goals. For example, Pintrich, For example, a student may not like math but his par-
Anderman, and Klobucar (1994) reported that students ents may constantly remind him that it is important
with LD were high on mastery, whereas Carlson et al. for them that he does well in math because they have
(2002) reported the opposite. In general, the literature a family business for which math is necessary. In this
seems to suggest that students with LD obtain low case, the goal of achieving well in math is not person-
scores on mastery orientation (e.g., Botsas & Padeliadu, ally important, interesting, or valuable, but is impor-
2003). Little is known about the type of relationship tant and valuable through the lenses of the student’s
that links goal orientations to achievement outcomes parents. Thus, it is assigned some importance and
for students with LD. value, which energizes the student to engage in goal-
In a recent study, Sideridis (2005b) reported that stu- directed behaviors.
dents with LD benefited when either orientation was In SDT, goal attainment is more likely when the
operative, with the effects from pursuing performance- value/importance of the goal is internalized by the per-
approach goals being significantly more pronounced. son, which is not the case when the ought-self is oper-
Specifically, a performance-approach orientation had ative. Deci and Ryan (2000) proposed that across a
significant positive standardized weights associated continuum between amotivated and fully self-deter-
with both academic achievement and cognition. One mined behaviors, the behaviors guided by ought-self
unit of change in students’ performance-approach represent an “immature” form of motivation. This
orientation was associated with about .25 to .65 unit form of motivation is most likely associated with regu-
changes in math achievement (or their intention to do lation failure, low achievement, and heightened anxi-
well in math). The respective effects from pursuing ety. Thus, those “external pressures, controls and
mastery goals were significant, approximately .30 in evaluations appear to forestall rather than facilitate “…
standardized units. the constructive process of giving personal meaning
It is possible that pursuing goals out of interest or the and valence to acquired regulations” (Deci & Ryan,
desire to outperform other students are only two ways 2000, p. 238).
of thinking about and approaching a task. Another rea- The originators of SDT further discussed the opera-
son for pursuing goals may lie in an individual’s feel- tionalization of the ought-self. In their view, the
ings of obligation, either because the person feels he ought-self may motivate a person, but the external ori-
has to accomplish something undesirable or because he gin of the contingencies cannot result in self-deter-
wants to satisfy the wills of another person (e.g., par- mined actions (i.e., actions valued by the self). These
ents, teacher, friends) (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Higgins, external motivators (termed “should-oriented induc-
1987). Motivation out of obligation has been described tions”) are associated with an inability to assimilate
in various motivational theories. those values as coming from the self. Self-produced
Volume 29, Winter 2006 5
inductions come from an individual’s formation of a evaluate the regulation of student behaviors when their
cognitive schema that is integrated into one’s values. motivation originated in goal orientations or “oughts.”
Such a self-schema results in authenticengagement and For comparison purposes samples of students with and
volitional involvement with an activity, leading to without LD participated.
fully self-determined behaviors (i.e., intrinsically moti- Specifically, the present study attempted to test the
vated). following hypotheses:
The regulation of goals that are controlled by others 1. Being obliged to engage in an academic activity is
is saliently different from intrinsically motivated goals.
positively associated with a network of avoidance-
Through various processes (e.g., internalization, inte-
related behaviors for students with LD.
gration), the self may try to take in those goals and
2. Motivation by mastery goals, performance-
attempt to pursue them, but they will never be the basis
approach goals, multiple goals, obligations, or
for self-determined action, and it is likely that they will
lacking motivation is associated with different on-
not be attained. An individual who is externally moti-
task outcomes, achievement, and emotions for
vated (e.g., through rewards) may eventually lose
students with LD.
intrinsic interest (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987). However,
3. The ought-self is negatively associated with aca-
individuals who feel obliged to engage may attempt to
demic achievement and positively associated with
internalize external values. Goal attainment should
post-achievement anxiety and depression. The
then depend on the success of this internalization.
respective results of approachgoal orientations are
According to Ryan and Deci (2000), regardless of goal
expected to be in the opposite direction. There is
attainment, controlled motivation (when external
no prediction (based on theory) as to whether
forces are operative) is considered an unhealthy form
these processes would operate differently for stu-
of motivation, associated with loss of self-esteem, poor
dents with and without LD.
well-being and adjustment problems. Thus, self-deter-
mination theory places strong “oughts” as a motiva- 4. There are significant differences in obligations,
tional entity that affects subsequent goal pursuit and motivation and psychopathology for students
influences the regulation of the behaviors involved in with and without LD. Students with LD may feel
that pursuit. Similar roles for obligations (“oughts”) more obliged to engage in school-related activi-
have been described in other theories (cf. Ajzen, 1988; ties, and will most likely be inferior in motivation
Higgins, 1987; Markus & Nurius, 1986; Wentzel, 1989). and have higher levels on anxiety and depression,
One objective of the present study was to empirically compared to their peers.
Table 1
Sample Characteristics for Students With and Without LD
Students With LD Typical Students
M SD M SD
IQ 105.38 5.38 113.56 8.52
Achievement1 6.91 1.50 9.00 1.11
Age 11.38 1.56 11.58 1.60
Note. 1Achievement assessment data are confidential to the special diagnostic teams that collect them. Semester grades are reported here
to partially reflect achievement.
Learning Disability Quarterly 6
METHOD lum for each grade using an item pool developed by 30
elementary school teachers from northern Greece. The
Participants and Procedures
third indicator of math achievement was the mathe-
Participants were 132 fifth- and sixth-grade students
matics task in which students had to solve 15 grade-
diagnosed as having LD using state diagnostic criteria in
appropriate exercises modeled after the curriculum. The
northern Greece. Subjects were 73 boys and 59 girls who
number of math exercises solved correctly comprised
were educated in typical classroom settings. The state
this dependent variable. Between-construct correlations
diagnostic criteria in Greece follow the discrepancy for-
were as follows: r = .93, r
mula (i.e., between IQ and achievement) and employ CBM/Semester Grades CBM/Math Exercises
= .39, r = .37.
measures that are identical or similar to those used in Math Exercises/Semester Grades
the United States (e.g., WISC-III) (see Table 1). These Goal orientation. Four constructs of goal orientation
students were receiving supplementary services follow- were assessed: mastery, performance approach, task
ing regular school hours. Such services, called “teaching avoidance, and a multiple-goal orientation, which was
for empowerment,” are mandated by federal legislation the multiplicative term of mastery and performance-
in Greece. Usually students practice material previously approach goals. Mastery orientation was assessed using
taught using worksheets, in the presence of a teacher. eight items derived from well-known scales (Elliot &
The teaching-for-empowerment teacher works with Church, 1997; Lethwaite & Piparo, 1993; Midgley et al.,
each student on an individual basis or forms teams. 2000). Performance-approach goals were assessed with
Additionally, 583 typical students comprised a com- 10 items from the same scales as those used for the mas-
parison sample for Hypothesis 3 (the simultaneous tery subscale. Task avoidance was assessed with six
modeling of all hypotheses using latent variable analy- items, three were from Thorkildsen and Nichols (1998)
sis). A total of 297 boys and 284 girls (gender was miss- and three from Lethwaite and Piparo (1993). Sample
ing for two), fifth and sixth graders were selected from a items included (a) for mastery, “How important is it to
pool of 1,2000 students in the same 28 classes as the stu- you to understand mathematics?”; (b) for performance-
dents with LD. Classrooms were located in urban, rural approach, “How important is it to you to outperform
and suburban areas in a large state in northern Greece. your classmates in mathematics?”; and (c) for task
Students came from various socio-economic strata, most avoidance, “How important is it to you to spend little
of them from middle-class families, which is the typical time in mathematics?” All goal orientations were
distribution of students in Greek public schools. assessed using a 7-point response option ranging from
Prior to being engaged in a math activity, students “not at all” to “very much so.” The internal consistency
completed scales of positive and negative affect and of the items (Cronbach alpha) that comprised the mas-
of goal orientations and the ought-self. Then they were tery subscale was .95, the performance-approach sub-
instructed to work on a series of math exercises modeled scale, .90, and the task-avoidance subscale, .88.
after the curriculum for a minimum of 5 minutes. Emotionality. Students’ affective response was
Students were then told that they could stop the activ- assessed using the children’s version of the PANAS
ity or continue as long as they wished. When students (Laurent et al., 1999; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988).
wanted to stop, they were to raise their hand. Trained Two types of affect, positive and negative, were made up
research assistants monitored the total time each stu- of 10 adjectives each, rated on a 5-point scale ranging
dent engaged in the math activity. When they stopped, from 1 (not very true) to 5 (true all the time). Alphas
students had to leave the room after completing self- were .87 for positive affect and .88 for negative affect.
report measures of positive and negative affect, anxiety, Depression. Feelings of depression were assessed
and depression. No student left the room at 5 minutes. using the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI;
Most students persisted significantly longer and few Kovacs, 1992). The CDI consists of 27 self-report items,
remained until the end of class time, which was approx- each of them including three statements, scored from
imately 25 minutes. 0 to 2 (with the score of 2 indicating severity in that
Measures characteristic). The “suicide” item was dropped from
On-task behavior. This variable comprised the time the original version of the CDI, a practice followed in
students spent engaged with the math exercises. previous studies as well because of the negative conno-
Mathematics achievement. Three indicators com- tations the item carries (e.g., Cole, Hoffman, Tram, &
prised the latent variable, math achievement. The first Maxwell, 2000).
was semester grades. The second was a teacher-com- According to Cole et al. (2000), the CDI measures
posed rating scale (CBM), which assessed student three factors: (a) social self-esteem, (b) oppositional-mis-
knowledge about 12 math concepts (on a scale from behavior, and (c) dysphoria-sadness. Sample items
0-10). The scale was constructed based on the curricu- included (a) for social self-esteem, “I do not have any
Volume 29, Winter 2006 7
Table 2
Unidimensionality of the Ought-Self Scale
Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Study 4 Study 5
Item r1 R2 r R2 r R2 r R2 r R2
1 .808 58% .855 62% .836 70% .810 58% .742 65%
2 .789 .901 .895 .784 .863
3 .826 .805 .922 .868 .883
4 .583 .550 .657 .524 .724
1Item loading based on Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). These results came from Sideridis (2003b).
friends” and “I look ugly”; (b) for oppositional-misbe- think that it is your obligation to do well in mathe-
havior, “I am bad all the time” and “I never do what I matics?,” “Do you think that you should do well in
am told”; and (c) for dysphoria-sadness, “I am sad all mathematics in order to please your parents?,” “Do you
the time” and “I have trouble sleeping every night.” think it is your job to do well in mathematics,” and
Several studies have reported on the reliability and “Do you think that you should do well in mathematics
validity properties of the scale (Cole et al., 2000; Kovacs, whether you like it or not?” The subscale was the sub-
1992). Internal consistency estimates ranged between ject of intense psychometric examination by means of
.70 and .83. exploratory factor analysis using five student samples
Anxiety. Symptoms of anxiety were assessed using the and 818 participants (Sideridis, 2003b). Internal consis-
Anxiety subscale of the Revised Children’s Manifest tency estimates were acceptable across all samples, rang-
Anxiety Scale (RCMAS; Reynolds & Richmond, 1978). ing between .73 and .84. Also, the unidimensionality of
According to Cole et al. (2000), the 28 items of the the scale was well supported with all five student sam-
RCMAS measure three dimensions: social alienation, ples (see Table 2). Using the LD sample, alpha was .81.
worry-oversensitivity, and physiological concerns. The
Data Analyses
scaling of the instrument was modified based on Cole
Effect size (eta square). Besides analyzing the data
et al.’s (2000) suggestions. Thus, the “yes”-“no” re-
using traditional statistical significance testing, all dif-
sponse option was replaced with a 3-option scaling sys-
ferences were also reported using effect size measures1
tem. The addition of the option “this was sort of true”
(cf. Onwuegbuzie, Levin, & Leach, 2003; Sideridis,
was placed between “yes” and “no.” Using the new scal-
1999).
ing, alphas ranged between .75 and .86. Factor-analytic
Latent variable modeling. A latent variable model
studies also were supportive of the scale’s validity (Cole
was applied to evaluate all hypothesized relationships.
et al., 2000; Paget & Reynolds, 1984). The Lie subscale
Nonsignificant chi-square statistics and fit indices above
of the RCMAS was not used in the present study because
.90 were the criteria used to determine acceptable model
of time considerations.
fit (Hu & Bentler, 1995, 1998a, 1998b). All models were
Fear of failure. Clifford’s (1988) five-item “failure
analyzed using variance-covariance matrice inputs in
tolerance” subscale was modified for use in mathemat-
EQS 5.7b (Bentler, 1998).
ics and was applied in the present study (alpha was .75).
A sample item was “Will you be disappointed if you RESULTS
make mistakes in mathematics?” Intercorrelations between variables shown in Table 3
Ought-self. The ought-self scale was comprised of indicate that “oughts,” as a form of motivation, shared
four items that tapped two types of obligations: self- variance with goal orientations – both approach and
imposed and other-imposed. The items were: “Do you avoidance.
Learning Disability Quarterly 8
8 — —
1
* *
617 —1** —3**.76* —6** —9**.84*
51 —0 4 .80** .8 —1** 6** .89** .8
1 103 323
314 —0** —4** .65** 2* .20* .1 .18* .6** .36** . —0** —8** .62** 4**.31** .3** .25** .3** .43** .
11121 —08 —15 -.05 07 -.02 .515 -.07.407 -.02 .205 .02.113 .08.2 —28** —18** -.11** 12**-.06 .611** -.07.516** .01 .415**.04.310**.03.4
.-.-.-.-.-.-. .-.-.-.-.-.-.
** ********
0 — 8*5*1232*2*7 — 3*7*8*2*2*3*0*6*
1 72100221 92111221
..-..-.-.-.-. ..-.-.-.-.-.-.
9 D — 13151146**47**50**22*22*32** s — 14**13**15**31**37**35**17*13**21**
L -.-.-....... nt -.-.-.......
h * *** e * *****
ups 78 udents Wit —.04—.01-.32*-.04.19*-.04.17-.02.16-.01-.35*-.07-.24*-.06-.23*.06-.20*.04-.21*.06-.20* ypical Stud —-.04—.15**-.38*-.17**.07-.17**.11*-.13**.16*.18**-.23*.14**-.23*.14**-.24*.15**-.06.10**-.07.12**-.06
ro St — 5**78160514571 T — 3**1**31118*0**71**8*0**
t G 6 .5.1.0-.0-.0-.1-.0.0-.0.0.0.1 .4.1.0.0.0.0.0.1.0.1.0.1
n ** ***
ude 5 — .72*.44*.15.04-.01-.04-.01-.12.02-.09.02.13.10 — .56*.25*.21*.01-.03-.01-.06-.04.03.01.08*.05.08*
t
S *** ****
s — 6*2*4*30026554143 — 3*5*6*5*54333747*59*
s 4 55311100000000 65210000000000
ro ....-..-..-..-.... .....-.-........
c
s A 3 — 41**45**43**30**003120519*020326**26**030915 — 18**21**24**23**13**27**25**26**09*22**38**24**13**09*19**
le ......-.-........ ....-..-.-.-.......
b
ria 2 — 51**38**43**45**18*27**04130115121005140403 — 29**24**25**20**13*19**0404010402020408*0407*
en Va 1 — 70** 33** .28**.29**.32**.09.29**.04-.21*.06.19*.05-.10.05.10-.03-.04-. — 32** 07 .20**.27**.13.06.34**.19**.24*-.26**-.21**.18**.11**.17**-.07*.04.03.
we .......-....-...-.-.. .....-..-....-.-.-.-.-.-.
t
e
Table 3 Intercorrelations B Variables 1. Mastery2. Perform-approach3. Perform-avoidance4. Ought 15. Ought 26. Ought 37. Ought 48. Positive affect9. Negative affect10. Math-TRS11. Math-semester12. Math-exercises13. Social allienation14. Worry15. Physiological conc.16. Social self-esteem17. Oppositional-misb.18. Dysphoria-sadness 1. Mastery2. Perform-approach3. Perform-avoidance4. Ought 15. Ought 26. Ought 37. Ought 48. Positive affect9. Negative affect10. Math-TRS11. Math-semester12. Math-exercises13. Social allienation14. Worry15. Physiological conc.16. Social self-esteem17. Oppositional-misb.18. Dysphoria-sadness *p < .05, **p < .01.
Volume 29, Winter 2006 9
Ought-Self and Avoidance Motivation dent groups. This finding may be due to the “baseline”
According to prevailing hypotheses, the ought-self effect as performance in math was low for all students
represents a form of motivation that is controlled by with LD.
others. Thus, it is grounded on fear of rejection. That is, With regard to affect, a few significant differences
fear of letting people down by not complying withtheir emerged, none of which related to the ought-self group.
goals and theirvalued outcomes. Therefore, it is hypoth- Students who were amotivated displayed significantly
esized that “oughts” relate positively to various indices less positive affect prior to the task [F(3, 128) = 4.068, p
of avoidance motivation such as performance avoid- < .01]. No other differences in positive or negative affect
ance, task avoidance, and fear of failure. Regressing the emerged across motivation groups, suggesting that the
ought-self on fear of failure resulted in 14.2% explana- ought-self group did not experience more negative
tory variance. One unit of change in “oughts” was asso- affect than the other student groups. Given that mean
ciated with a .376 unit change in fear of failure (in differences in affect were influenced by the overall low
standardized values). Thus, the ought-self was a strong level of achievement, it is likely that this lack of signifi-
predictor of fear of failure [F(1, 128) = 21.132, p< .001]. cant differences is attributable to no differences in
Similar results, although stronger, emerged with achievement. However, the functionality of the ought-
regard to performance avoidance. For one unit change self was expected to emerge when modeling the slopes
in the ought-self, performance avoidance changed by linking the ought-self to achievement and anxiety out-
.492 in standardized values. The amount of variability comes (see below).
of performance-avoidance explained was 24.2% [F(1, Full Latent Variable Model Examining Antecedents
127) = 40.246,p< .001]. These two findings corroborate and Consequences of Low Achievement
with the idea that the ought-self represents a form of
A latent variable path model was estimated to assess
motivation that is based in fear of failure and negative
all relationships simultaneously (for the LD group, see
outcomes in general. With regard to task avoidance,
Figure 1). This model postulated that a latent approach
results suggested that “oughts” explained significant
goal orientation construct (defined by mastery and per-
amounts of the variability in avoidance motivation
formance-approach orientations) influences one’s
(R2 = 3%). One unit of change in obligations was asso-
achievement and post-achievement processes (i.e., the
ciated with a medium change (i.e., .171) in amotivation
presence of anxiety and depression) both directly and
[F(1, 129) = 3.844, p= .052]. Overall, the results suggest
indirectly. This is why goal orientations were called
that the ought-self represents a form of motivation that
“mid-range constructs that occupy the conceptual space
is associated with the fear of negative outcomes.
between … specific … and more general goals” (Pintrich
Goal Orientations, “Oughts,” and Student et al., 2003, p. 3). That is, structural paths linked the
Regulation of Academic Behaviors ought-self to achievement and post-achievement out-
The second hypothesis examined the proposition that comes. Both antecedent processes (goal orientations
the ought-self leads to self-regulation failure. Regulation and the ought-self) were linked with each other with a
failure is hypothesized to be manifested with early dis- bidirectional (covariation) arrow. Technically speaking,
engagement (when one is challenged), low achieve- all factors were standardized in order to be able to assign
ment, and negative affect – both prior to and following a meaningful unit of measurement to each construct
the experimental manipulation (i.e., the introduction of (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2000; Schumacker & Lomax,
challenging math exercises). 1996).
Results indicated that students motivated by strong Using the LD sample, results indicated that the model
“oughts” disengaged from the math activity signifi- fit the data well [χ2(80, N= 117) = 104.821, p= .033, CFI
cantly earlier than any other group (even the amoti- = .969, SRMR = .058]. All measurement paths were sta-
vated group) [F(3, 67) = 3.023, p < .05]. The most tistically significant at p< .05, and the chi-square statis-
persistent group was students holding a multiple-goal tic did not reach significance, suggesting no differences
orientation, followed by those having a mastery- between the covariance matrix implied by the model
approach2 orientation. The effects of performance- and the one estimated from the data. As shown in
approach goals could not be evaluated due to low Figure 1, the linear combination of approach-goal
frequencies in that category, which disabled group for- orientations was positively linked to academic achieve-
mation. With regard to math achievement, no signifi- ment. The respective antecedent term reflecting obli-
cant group differences were found across the various gations was linked negatively to achievement and
orientations and the ought-self group [F(3, 128) = 0.497, positively, albeit weakly, to depression. Interesting,
p = n.s.]. Thus, students motivated by strong “oughts” both antecedent motives correlated significantly, sug-
performed no differently in math than the other stu- gesting that approach goal orientations may contain
Learning Disability Quarterly 10
Figure 1. Structural linear model predicting math achievement from goal orientations (mastery and
performance-approach) and the ought-self for students with LD (n = 117). Values in the model are
standardized structural coefficients. The residual terms of the indicators as well as the variances of the
latent variables are not shown for simplicity. One-way arrows indicate direct causal influences, and
two-way arrows indicate between construct correlations.
SA WO PC SSE OM DS manceocial
erforSE - S
PS
336. 6Anxiety09. .730 .255 539. .875Depression .888 m = Semester grades; Test = C = Physiological concerns;
eP
ale; Svity;
750.- -.222 of the Ought-Self scWorry– Oversensiti
4 =
h O
560. .226 MathAchievement 43..7121.-9.10710 CSTeBemsMt 401. nce approach goals; 11-14 = Items 1 througmeasure in math; SA = Social alienation; WS = Dysphoria – Sadness.
ns Performam-based havior; D
Goal Orientatio 205. 8 OughtSelf ch goals; Perfo = CBM = Curriculuositional – Misbe
.704 289. .61 .828 668. 885. ery approaproblems; Om = Opp
MA Perfo I1 I2 I3 I4 1MA = Maston 15 math self-esteem;
Volume 29, Winter 2006 11
Figure 2. Structural linear model predicting math achievement from goal orientations (mastery and
performance-approach) and the ought-self for typical students (n = 538). Values in the model are
standardized structural coefficients. For simplicity purposes, residuals, variances, and disturbance
terms were omitted from the figure. Full, one-way arrows indicate direct causal influences.
Bidirectional, dotted arrows indicate covariations between constructs (standardized).
SA WO PC SSE OM DS manceocial
erforSE - S
PS
956. 4Anxiety08. .713 .198 949. .885Depression .920 m = Semester grades; Test = C = Physiological concerns;
eP
ale; Svity;
101.- -.190 of the Ought-Self scWorry– Oversensiti
4 =
h O
562.- .350 MathAchievement 96..9.12.-9784776 CSTeBemsMt 821. nce approach goals; 11-14 = Items 1 througmeasure in math; SA = Social alienation; WS = Dysphoria – Sadness.
ns Performam-based havior; D
Goal Orientatio 363. 0 OughtSelf ch goals; Perfo = CBM = Curriculuositional – Misbe
.702 004. .77 .773 237. 183. ery approaproblems; Om = Opp
MA Perfo I1 I2 I3 I4 1MA = Maston 15 math self-esteem;
Learning Disability Quarterly 12