In terms of the predictive utility, the current study investigated a structural model based on first-order achievement goals assuming that four goals are mediators between Chinese self-efficacy and Chinese performance. Moreover, the current study also conducted a structural model based on second-order achievement goals assuming that the four factors of the valence and definition dimensions are mediators between Chinese self-efficacy and Chinese performance.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were the same with Study1. Totally 3,137 students (934 fifth graders, 29.8%; 1,074 seventh graders, 34.2%; and 1,129 tenth graders, 36%) completed questionnaires assessing self-efficacy and achievement goals in year 2007. The self-efficacy questionnaire was administered in large group sessions during the first week (middle of the semester), and the achievement goal questionnaire was administered approximately two weeks later. Chinese grades were obtained at the end of the semester.
Instruments
Achievement Goals. Elliot and McGregor’s (2001) AGQ was translated into Chinese (AGQ-C).
Chinese Self-efficacy. The current study both translated and modified the self-efficacy subscale in Pintrich and DeGroot’s (1990) Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Students were instructed to describe whether or not they were confidently mastering the lessons taught in their Chinese language classes. A 5-point scale was used to measure responses. An example item is “I am sure that I can do an excellent job in my Chinese class.” The validity of self-efficacy scale using CFA showed that all factor loadings ranged from .75 to .83 (p < .01) and each fit statistic were: χ2(20, N=3137)
= 511.03 (p = .000); RMSEA = .08; CFI = .99; GFI=0.96 (Figure 6). Figure 6-1 provides the measurement model of Chinese self-efficacy. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .90.
Chinese Figure 6-1 The measurement model of Chinese self-efficacy.
Note. Estimates are standardized. All coefficients are significant (p< .01).
V1 to V8 represent the individual items of the scale.
Chinese Performance. Grades (representing overall performance in Chinese) were requested from the school districts’ official student record storage system. Students’ grades were converted into T scores based on each class norm.
Results
Descriptive analyses and zero-order correlations
Descriptive statistics and correlations among Chinese self-efficacy, four achievement goals, and Chinese performance are presented in Table 6-1. As shown in Table 6-1, the mean rating of Chinese self-efficacy was 3.05 and for four achievement goals the means ranged from 2.88 to 3.57 respectively.
The internal consistencies for the four goals were rather high. The intercorrelations between four goals were all significantly positive.The largest zero order correlation was between mastery-approach goals and performance-approach goals (r = .59, p < .01). Correlations between mastery-approach goals and mastery-avoidance goals (r = .33, p < .01) as well as between mastery-avoidance goals and performance-avoidance goals (r = .30, p < .01) were also high. Performance-approach goals were positively associated with mastery-avoidance goals (r = .26, p < .01). Except mastery-avoidance goals, the other three achievement goals were associated with Chinese self-efficacy and Chinese performance, respectively.
Table 6-1 Descriptive statistics, alpha coefficients of and zero order correlations among Chinese self-efficacy, achievement goals, and Chinese performance (N = 3137)
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1.Chinese self-efficacy 3.05 .89 (.90)
2.Mastery-approach goals 3.57 .97 .44** (.85)
3.Mastery-avoidance goals 3.01 1.03 - .02 .33** (.85)
4.Performance-approach goals 3.31 1.03 .47** .59** .26** (.89)
5.Performance-avoidance goals 2.88 1.04 -.08** .09** .30** .18** (.81) 6.Chinese performance 50.00 9.84 .32** .27** .02 .26** -.11** --
* p < .05 ; ** p <.01 ( ) : alpha coefficients of internal consistency
Testing structural model of first-order achievement goals
The proposed structural model of first-order achievement goals speculated that four achievement goals would be effective mediators between Chinese self-efficacy and Chinese performance. The fit indices were χ2(125, N=3137) = 1452.63 (p = .000); RMSEA = .058; CFI = .98; IFI = .98; GFI=0.97 -- all demonstrating a good fit between the model and data (Figure 6-2).
Chinese self-efficacy was a positive predictor of mastery-approach goals (beta = .50, p < .01) that was in turn a positive predictor of Chinese performance (beta = .21, p < .01). Chinese self-efficacy was a positive predictor of performance-approach goals (beta = .53, p < .01) that was consecutively a positive predictor of Chinese performance (beta = .17, p < .01). Chinese self-efficacy was a negative predictor of performance-avoidance goals (beta = -.08, p < .01) that was then a negative predictor of Chinese performance (beta = -.16, p < .01). Unexpectedly, no association was found between Chinese self-efficacy and mastery-avoidance goals while mastery-avoidance goals were negative predictors of Chinese performance (beta = -.05, p < .01). Partially supporting my hypotheses, three of the four achievement goals – mastery-approach, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance – were mediators between Chinese self-efficacy and Chinese performance in the Taiwanese student sample.
χ2(125, N=3137) = 1452.63 (p = .000), RMSEA = .058, CFI = .98, IFI =.98, GFI= .97.
Figure 6-2 The structural model of factorial achievement goals with Chinese self-efficacy and Chinese performance.
Note. Estimates are standardized. All coefficients presented in the figure are significant (p< .01).
Indicator variables and error variables are not represented in order to simplify the presentation.
Testing structural model of second-order achievement goals
Because of the observation of nonequivalent effects from the approach, avoidance, mastery, and performance factors (of the valance and definition dimensions) on their respective 2 × 2 achievement goals, it may be necessary to adopt a second-order achievement goal structure to examine how such a goal structure mediated the effect of the antecedent and its effect on learning. This model posited that the second-order factors would be successful mediators between Chinese self-efficacy and Chinese performance. As shown in Figure 6-3, the model fit indices were χ2 (124, N=3137) = 1005.74 (p = .000), RMSEA = .048, and CFI = .98; GFI=0.96-- all demonstrating a good fit between the model and data.
χ2(124, N=3137) = 1005.74 (p = .000), RMSEA = .048, CFI = .98, IFI = .98, GFI= .96.
Figure 6-3 The structural model of dimensional achievement goals with Chinese self-efficacy) and Chinese performance.
Note. Estimates are standardized. All coefficients presented in the figure are significant (p< .01). Error variables are not represented in order to simplify the presentation.
Chinese self-efficacy was a positive predictor of the approach factor (beta = .53, p < .01) that was mainly derived from mastery-approach goals (lambda = .96), and the approach factor was in turn a positive predictor of Chinese performance (beta = .29, p < .01). Chinese self-efficacy was a negative predictor of the avoidance factor (beta = -.13, p < .01) that was primarily derived from performance-avoidance goals (lambda = .99), and the avoidance goals were sequentially a negative predictor of Chinese performance (beta = -.16, p < .01). Chinese self-efficacy was a positive predictor of the performance factor (beta = .31, p < .01) that was primarily derived from performance-approach goals (lambda = .78), and the performance factor was in turn a positive predictor of Chinese performance (beta = .10, p < .01). Finally, Chinese self-efficacy was not an effective predictor of the mastery factor that was mainly derived from mastery-avoidance goals (lambda = .96); in turn the mastery factor was not associated with Chinese performance. In sum, three of the four factors,
approach, avoidance, and performance, were effective mediators between Chinese self-efficacy and Chinese performance in the Taiwanese student sample.