The Relation of Self-Determination and Achievement Goals to Taiwanese Eighth Graders' Behavioral and Emotional Engagement in Schoolwork

全文

(1)The Relation of SelfDetermination and Achievement Goals to Taiwanese Eighth Graders’ Behavioral and Emotional Engagement in Schoolwork Shu-Shen Shih National Chengchi University. The Elementary School Journal Volume 108, Number 4 © 2008 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0013-5984/2008/10804-0003$10.00. Abstract In this study I examined how Taiwanese junior high school students’ perceptions of autonomy support were related to their motivational characteristics, and the ability of these constructs to explain students’ academic engagement. A total of 343 eighth-grade students completed a selfreport survey assessing their perceptions of autonomy support from teachers, achievement goal orientations, self-regulatory styles, and behavioral as well as emotional engagement in schoolwork. Results supported the contention of self-determination theory (SDT) that, when students learn out of personal interest and personal relevance, they are more fully engaged in schoolwork, both behaviorally and emotionally. Moreover, students who perceived higher levels of autonomy support provided by teachers also reported more adaptive patterns of learning. In terms of effects of achievement goals, results suggested that, when constructs from SDT were accounted for, mastery-approach and performanceavoidance goals remained important for explaining Taiwanese students’ academic functioning. This study also documented profiles of behaviorally engaged students with different levels of emotional engagement. Findings showed that behaviorally engaged students with higher levels of emotional engagement reported higher perceptions of autonomy support from teachers, identified regulation, intrinsic motivation, and mastery-approach goal orientation than did behaviorally engaged students with lower levels of emotional engagement. Implications for education and future research are discussed.. Over the past decade, research on motivational processes and dynamics has received increased attention in the field of education (Murphy & Alexander, 2000; Pintrich, 2000). Given that students vary considerably in their engagement and enthusiasm for schoolwork, the motivation behind the engagement is crucial in understanding.

(2) 314. THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL. and predicting subsequent engagement and learning (Miserandino, 1996; Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon, & Deci, 2004). Two prominent approaches that have sparked great interest among motivational researchers are self-determination and achievement goal theory (Ames, 1992; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Ryan & Deci, 2000a; Wolters, 2004). In spite of an abundant literature in Western contexts, research documenting the utility of these two theories for understanding non-Western students’ motivational processes as well as academic engagement is far from complete (Wolters, 2004). The goal of the present research was to shed further light on how these two approaches to motivation are related to each other and to a variety of behavioral and emotional outcomes within the Taiwanese classroom context.. dertaken out of interest and enjoyment inherent in the activity. In contrast, extrinsically motivated behaviors are carried out for the outcome that is separable from the activity itself. According to SDT, however, extrinsic motivation is not invariantly controlled. Through the process of internalization, initially controlled behaviors can become autonomous (Ryan & Deci, 2000a; Vansteenkiste, Zhou, Lens, & Soenens, 2005). Internalization refers to individuals’ natural tendency to “take in” regulations or social values (e.g., school-related behaviors). Self-determination theory proposes that internalization is an innate tendency that promotes the development of selfdetermined motivation. Depending on the degree to which initially external regulations have been transformed into internal regulations, three types of extrinsic motivation are differentiated (Otis, Grouzet, & Pelletier, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000a; Vansteenkiste et al., 2005, 2006). External regulation is the least autonomous form of extrinsic motivation. When externally regulated, individuals’ behaviors are controlled by such external contingencies as rewards, punishments, and deadlines. The pressuring contingencies have not been internalized at all. With introjected regulation, a second type of extrinsic motivation, individuals have partially internalized the behavioral regulation but have not yet accepted it as their own. In this case, people engage in an activity because of internal pressure, such as contingent self-worth and feelings of guilt and shame. Finally, identified regulation refers to a fuller internalization in which the individual identifies with the value of an activity and thus accepts regulation of the activity as his or her own. When people recognize the personal relevance of an activity, they are more likely to engage in the activity volitionally and willingly. Although still extrinsic in nature, identification is considered self-determined because the process is characterized by an internal perceived locus of causality (Vansteenkiste et al., 2006).. Self-Determination Theory: A Multidimensional Conceptualization of Motivation Self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000a) has focused on the quality of learners’ motivation rather than the quantity of motivation that learners display for a particular learning activity (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Quality of motivation refers to the type or kind of motivation that underlies the learner’s engagement. By examining the quality of motivation, SDT has proven useful in explaining variation in students’ learning strategies, performance, and persistence (Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci, 2006). Self-determination theory posits that motivated behaviors vary in the extent to which they are autonomous versus controlled. Behaviors regulated by autonomous motivation involve the experience of volition and choice, whereas controlled behaviors are experienced as being pressured or coerced (Black & Deci, 2000; Williams & Deci, 1996). Within SDT, intrinsic motivation is seen as the prototype of autonomy. Intrinsically motivated behaviors are un-. MARCH 2008.

(3) GOALS AND ENGAGEMENT. Self-determination theory assumes that these different types of motivation lie along a continuum of autonomy from external to internal (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2002). Ryan and Connell (1989) tested this postulate and found that external, introjected, identified, and intrinsic regulations were intercorrelated according to a quasi-simplex pattern, suggesting an underlying continuum. Along the continuum of relative autonomy, behaviors regulated either by external contingencies or introjected demands are defined as controlled. These two forms of regulation are sometimes combined into a controlled motivation composite (e.g., Vallerand, Fortier, & Guay, 1997; Vansteenkiste et al., 2005). By contrast, intrinsic motivation and the well-internalized form of extrinsic motivation such as identified regulation are considered autonomous. These two types of motivation are often combined into a composite of autonomous motivation (e.g., Black & Deci, 2000; Vansteenkiste, Lens, De Witte, De Witte, & Deci, 2004; Vansteenkiste et al., 2005). A variety of previous studies have shown the advantages of autonomous compared with controlled motivation for learning. Autonomous motivation has been associated with higher perceived academic competence (Fortier, Vallerand, & Guay, 1995), enjoyment of school (Miserandino, 1996), higherquality learning (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987), less superficial information processing (Vansteenkiste, Simons, et al., 2004), less defensive coping styles (Ryan & Connell, 1989), lower dropout rates (Vallerand et al., 1997), greater creativity (Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri, & Holt, 1984), higher well-being (Black & Deci, 2000; Levesque, Zuehlke, Stanek, & Ryan, 2004), and higher academic achievement (Black & Deci, 2000; Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2005).. Autonomy-Supportive Social Contexts Given the optimal effects of autonomous motivation on a wide range of achievement-. 315. relevant outcomes, SDT researchers have explored the social contexts that may induce autonomous regulation. In autonomysupportive contexts, an individual in a position of authority takes the other’s perspective, allows opportunities for selfinitiation and choice, provides a meaningful rationale for requirements, and acknowledges the other’s feelings while minimizing the use of pressures and demands (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994). Self-determination theory contends that autonomy-supportive environments tend to maintain or enhance intrinsic motivation and facilitate the internalization of extrinsic motivation. In turn, intrinsic and well-internalized extrinsic motivations are likely to foster adaptive learning outcomes. Indeed, previous evidence has indicated that autonomy-supportive contexts are associated with more intrinsic motivation (Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman, & Ryan, 1981) and internalization (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989), better conceptual learning (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987), more positive affect (Ryan & Grolnick, 1986), higher well-being (Levesque et al., 2004), and greater academic competence and achievement (Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2005).. Achievement Goal Theory In addition to SDT, as an alternative and complementary view of individuals’ motivation and behavior in educational settings (Miserandino, 1996), achievement goal theory has also provided a lens through which to examine students’ motivation and achievement-related outcomes (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Wolters, 2004). Achievement goals refer to the purposes or reasons for a person’s pursuit in an achievement situation. Different purposes result in different patterns of cognition, affect, and behavior (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Maehr, 1989; Urdan & Midgley, 2003). To date, a full 2 ⫻ 2 crossing of the performance-mastery and approach-avoidance distinctions has been proposed by achievement goal theorists to account for the broad.

(4) 316. THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL. spectrum of competence-based strivings (Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Elliot & Thrash, 2001; Pintrich, 2000). Mastery-approach goals motivate individuals to increase their competence or achieve task mastery. Masteryavoidance goals represent striving to avoid losing one’s skills and abilities or a lack of task mastery. Performance-approach goals focus students on demonstrating their ability relative to others or proving their self-worth. Finally, performance-avoidance goals lead students to avoid appearing incompetent or less able than others. In empirical work, three of the four goals in the 2 ⫻ 2 conceptualization (i.e., mastery-approach, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals) have been explored frequently because of the prevalence of these goals in most achievement settings (for a review, see Wolters, 2004). Mastery-approach goals are associated with a range of adaptive outcomes including preference for challenging work, high intrinsic motivation, absorption during task engagement, effort while studying, persistence in the face of setbacks, willingness to seek help with schoolwork, the use of cognitive and metacognitive (selfregulatory) strategies, and long-term retention of information (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Wolters, 2004). Performance-approach goals have been found to have both positive and negative features. This type of goal is linked to a variety of positive outcomes such as higher levels of aspiration, absorption during task engagement, effort exertion, persistence at academic tasks, intrinsic motivation, and performance attainment (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Elliot et al., 1999; McGregor & Elliot, 2002; Skaalvik, 1997; Wolters, 2004). Also, performanceapproach goals have been shown to be related to such negative outcomes as test anxiety and help avoidance (Elliot et al., 1999; Middleton & Midgley, 1997). With regard to performance-avoidance goals, prior evi-. dence has indicated that such goals are correlated with a host of negative outcomes including threat-related affect while studying, reduced intrinsic motivation, low absorption during task engagement, reluctance to seek help with schoolwork, test anxiety, superficial processing of information, and poor performance (Church, Elliot, & Gable, 2001; Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Elliot et al., 1999; McGregor & Elliot, 2002; Skaalvik, 1997; Wolters, 2004). There has been a lack of empirical attention to mastery-avoidance goals in the achievement goal literature. To address the need to account for the varieties of competence-based strivings as thoroughly as possible, more attention to this construct ought to be an important issue on the research agenda (Elliot, 1999; Elliot & Thrash, 2001). Accordingly, I examined a 2 ⫻ 2 achievement goal conceptualization within the Taiwanese classroom context.. Effects of Cultural Contexts Whereas considerable empirical research reviewed above corroborated the beneficial effects of autonomy-supportive experiences, an influential cultural analysis (Markus & Kitayama, 1991, 2003) seems to challenge the applicability of the SDT perspective on autonomy versus control to non-Western cultures. Their self-systems theory suggests that the exact content and structure of the self may differ considerably by culture. Individuals in Western cultures possess a model of the self as fundamentally independent. A conception of the self as an autonomous, independent person enables members of Western cultures to desire a sense of autonomy and strive to express their unique attributes. For these individuals, the provision of autonomy support may be essential to the formation of their self-identity (Iyengar & Lepper, 1999). In contrast, individuals in many nonWestern, and particularly East Asian, cultures possess a more interdependent model MARCH 2008.

(5) GOALS AND ENGAGEMENT. of the self (Iyengar & Lepper, 1999; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). This view of the self portrays the individual not as separate from the social context but as more connected with others. Members of more interdependent cultures strive to fit in with relevant others, to fulfill obligations, and to maintain harmony among people (Hsu, 1985; Miller, 1988; Triandis, 1995). For individuals holding the independent view of the self, autonomy and its expression are often afforded primary significance, whereas for those who possess a more interdependent model of the self, autonomy may be secondary to, and constrained by, the primary task of interdependence (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Accordingly, individuals possessing interdependent selves might sometimes prefer to submit to choices expressed by significant others for the sake of the superordinate cultural goal of belongingness (Iyengar & Lepper, 1999). For example, studies of Chinese society showed that, instead of exercising personal choice, Chinese people tend to act primarily in accordance with the anticipated expectations of others and social norms (Bond, 1986; Yang, 1981). In terms of achievement motivation, the motive to achieve may not necessarily reflect the person’s internal wishes. It can have social or collective origins. Children are striving to live up to the expectations of reciprocally interdependent others, such as family and teachers (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Some recent findings in culture and motivation research appear to lend support to the notion of the self-systems theory. Iyengar and Lepper’s study (1999) indicated that contexts providing autonomy support may not always bring forth the highest levels of intrinsic motivation. They found that, whereas Anglo American children displayed more intrinsic motivation when they made their own task choices than when choices were made for them by others, Asian American children were most intrinsically motivated when choices were made for them by significant and trusted. 317. others. Clearly, the exercise of choice per se may be relatively less crucial for Asian American children. Instead, having choices made by relevant in-group members seems more intrinsically motivating, for it may help to promote harmony and to fulfill the goal of belonging to the group. These striking findings question the universality of the contention of SDT. Iyengar and Lepper (1999) argued that the effects of the cultural context on individuals’ motivational processes may be even stronger among local residents of Asian collectivist cultures (p. 364). Hence, it would be informative to examine whether their findings regarding Asian American children’s motivational styles also apply to Taiwanese students. In addition to the role in SDT constructs, culture may also play an integral role in the development of the individual’s goal orientations (Elliot, Chirkov, Kim, & Sheldon, 2001). Education in the Chinese family is associated with collectivistic values. Academic excellence of the child is an important source of pride for the entire family, whereas academic failure may be regarded as a stigma to the family (Salili, 1995). The collectivistic emphasis on connections with others may foster the individual’s fear of rejection as a result of academic failure. Cross-cultural comparisons have revealed that, relative to individualism, collectivism is associated with higher fear of failure and more avoidance-based coping strategies (Abe & Zane, 1990; Eaton & Dembo, 1997). Elliot et al. (2001) also found that people from collectivistic countries (South Korea and Russia) adopted more avoidance goals than those from an individualistic country (the United States). It is interesting to investigate how achievement goals operate in another collectivistic society, namely, the Taiwanese context. To sum up, the present study was designed to examine how Taiwanese junior high school students’ achievement goal orientations, perceptions of autonomy support from teachers, and self-regulatory styles were related to one another and to.

(6) 318. THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL. determine the ability of these constructs to explain students’ behavioral as well as emotional engagement in schoolwork. Specifically, I attempted to answer the following questions: (a) Are there any withinsubject differences among Taiwanese students’ achievement goal orientations and self-regulatory styles? (b) Do students’ perceptions of autonomy support from teachers and achievement goal orientations predict their self-regulatory styles? (c) Do students’ perceptions of autonomy support from teachers, achievement goal orientations, and self-regulatory styles predict their behavioral and emotional engagement in schoolwork? (d) Do behaviorally engaged students’ perceptions of autonomy support from teachers, achievement goal orientations, and self-regulatory styles differ according to their levels of emotional engagement?. assistants were in each class for the data collection. They assured students of the confidentiality of their self-reports and encouraged them to respond to the items as accurately as possible. When the students filled out the questionnaires, the two assistants walked around to check skipped items and ensure quality responses.. Method Participants The participants included 343 eighthgrade Taiwanese students from 12 classes in three junior high schools. Participating schools were located in the northern part of Taiwan. All principals granted initial consent for data to be collected in their schools. The 174 girls (51%) and 169 boys ranged in age from 13 years, 0 months to 15 years, 1 month (M ⫽ 14 years, 3 months). The school districts were primarily middle class in terms of socioeconomic status. All of the participants were Taiwanese. Guidelines for the proper treatment of human subjects were followed. Procedure The data were collected at the beginning of the year in eighth grade (September). Students were invited to fill out a few questionnaires (described in detail below) voluntarily during regular class time. Participants took approximately 30 minutes to complete the whole survey. Two research. Measures Participants were instructed to respond to all items on five-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (not at all true of me) to 5 (very true of me). A Chinese version of this selfreport survey was employed. To ensure adequate translation, the guidelines of the International Test Commission (Hambleton, 1994) were followed. All questionnaires were translated into Chinese and then back-translated into English. Achievement goals. The questionnaire assessing children’s achievement goal orientations was developed based on the work of Elliot and McGregor (2001) and Pintrich (2000). This questionnaire is composed of four scales for each of the achievement goals. Four scores representing mastery-approach (e.g., “I want to learn as much as possible from this class”; six items; ␣ ⫽ .84), mastery-avoidance (e.g., “It is important for me to avoid losing what I have learned from this class”; six items; ␣ ⫽ .90), performance-approach (e.g., “It is important for me to do well compared to others in this class”; six items; ␣ ⫽ .88), and performance-avoidance goals (e.g., “I just want to avoid doing poorly in this class compared with others”; five items; ␣ ⫽ .75) for each student were created accordingly. To evaluate the assumption that these four types of personal goal orientations represented different underlying constructs, I completed a confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL 8.52 (Jo¨reskog & So¨rbom, 2002). Maximum likelihood was used as the estimation method (Hoyle & Panter, 1995). In the model tested, items from each scale were hypothesized to load only onto their MARCH 2008.

(7) GOALS AND ENGAGEMENT. respective latent variables. Results suggested that this model represented an adequate fit to the data, ␹2(224, N ⫽ 343) ⫽ 711.24, p ⬍ .01, ␹2/N ⫽ 2.07, RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) ⫽ .07, GFI (goodness-of-fit index) ⫽ .90, NFI (normed fit index) ⫽ .95, NNFI (nonnormed fit index) ⫽ .96, CFI (comparative fit index) ⫽ .96, IFI (incremental fit index) ⫽ .96, RFI (relative fit index) ⫽ .94. Although the value of RMSEA was greater than .05, a number of researchers have suggested that values in the range of .05 to .08 indicate reasonable fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; McDonald & Ho, 2002). Further, the ␹2/N ratio was less than 5.0, showing a good fit. In addition, any model with a fit index above .90 was considered acceptable (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Perceived autonomy support. Students’ perceptions of autonomy support provided by their teachers were assessed by the Learning Climate Questionnaire (LCQ; Williams & Deci, 1996). The scale has 14 items that measure the degree to which students perceive their instructors as supporting their autonomy (e.g., “I am able to be open with my instructor during class”; “I feel that my instructor accepts me”; ␣ ⫽ .92). Higher scores represent higher perceived autonomy support. In the model tested in the confirmatory factor analysis, the 14 items were hypothesized to load onto one latent factor. Results suggested that this model represented a reasonable fit for the proposed structure of the scale, ␹2 (77, N ⫽ 343) ⫽ 232.05, p ⬍ .01, ␹2/N ⫽ .68, RMSEA ⫽ .07, GFI ⫽ .91, NFI ⫽ .97, NNFI ⫽ .98, CFI ⫽ .98, IFI ⫽ .98, RFI ⫽ .96. Self-regulatory styles. I used the SelfRegulatory Style Questionnaire—Academics (SRQ-A; Connell & Ryan, 1987; Ryan & Connell, 1989) to assess the extent to which students perceived themselves to be autonomously versus externally motivated for school-related activities. Participants were required to indicate their reasons for doing academic tasks such as homework and studying. These reasons were represented. 319. by the four subscales differentiated along a continuum of autonomy according to selfdetermination theory: external regulation (i.e., motivated by pressure from external contingencies such as rewards, expectations, and punishments; e.g., “Because I’ll get in trouble if I don’t”; nine items; ␣ ⫽ .77); introjected regulation (i.e., motivated by internal compulsions and obligations; e.g., “Because I will feel bad about myself if I don’t do it”; nine items; ␣ ⫽ .86); identified regulation (i.e., motivated by personal commitments; e.g., “Because I want to understand the subject”; seven items; ␣ ⫽ .86); and intrinsic motivation (i.e., motivated by inherent task pleasure and satisfaction; e.g., “Because I enjoy doing my homework”; seven items; ␣ ⫽ .86). The validity and reliability of this measure in the Taiwanese sample have been sustained (d’Ailly, 2003). Also, correlations for study variables shown in Table 1 suggested that the four self-regulatory types did conform to a simplex-like (ordered correlation) structure in the present sample, with each subscale correlating more positively (or less negatively) with subscales closer to it and less positively (or more negatively) with subscales farther from it (Guttman, 1954). In addition to the four types of self-regulation, according to SDT and previous studies (e.g., Sheldon, Ryan, Deci, & Kasser, 2004), I created an autonomous motivation composite by averaging the scores for identified and intrinsic regulation, r ⫽ .53, p ⬍ .001, ␣ ⫽ .87, and I formed a controlled motivation composite by averaging the scores for external and introjected regulation, r ⫽ .55, p ⬍ .001, ␣ ⫽ .91. Academic engagement. In the current study, engagement was hypothesized to be a manifestation of active behaviors and positive emotions. I assessed students’ academic engagement by using scales adapted from the Rochester Assessment of Intellectual and Social Engagement (RAISE) measuring the extent to which students acted in certain ways or felt certain emotions in classroom settings (Miserandino, 1996). The.

(8) 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. M SD. *p ⬍ .05. **p ⬍ .01.. ... .54** .63**. 2. .50** .35** .15** .21** .49** .50** .69** .57** .57** .21** .63** .46** .61** .36** ⫺.35** ⫺.13* ⫺.40** .24** .57** .45** .65** .45** ⫺.20** .02 ⫺.37** .47** .45** .19** ⫺.50** ⫺.28** 3.56 3.33 .83 .93. ... .62** .60** .05. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.. Mastery-approach goal Mastery-advoidance goal Performance-approach goal Performance-avoidance goal Perceived autonomy support External regulation Introjected regulation Identified regulation Intrinsic motivation Involved Persisting Avoiding Ignoring Participating Curiosity Anxiety Anger Enjoyment Boredom. 1. Variable. .... 4. .30** .02 .35** .33** .66** .63** .56** .50** .46** .04 .37** ⫺.07 .42** ⫺.08 ⫺.15* .03 ⫺.20** .02 .43** .10 .42** .11 ⫺.01 .12* .44** .42** .22** ⫺.14** ⫺.29** .08 3.15 3.12 .93 .83. ... .65**. 3. ... .06 .36** .56** .40** .55** .39** ⫺.18** ⫺.34** .46** .56** ⫺.29** ⫺.10 .54** ⫺.42** 3.33 .82. 5. 7. ... .56** ... ⫺.10 .65** ⫺.10 .24** ⫺.03 .33** .07 .34** .16** ⫺.08 .12* ⫺.17** .15** .45** .05 .47** .21** .07 .16** .35** ⫺.02 .19** .09 ⫺.24** 2.91 2.80 .72 .84. 6. ... .72** .65** .55** ⫺.28** ⫺.35** .58** .68** ⫺.14** ⫺.22** .41** ⫺.51** 3.31 .85. 8. ... .48** .50** ⫺.24** ⫺.23** .50** .67** ⫺.06 ⫺.17** .37** ⫺.37** 2.47 .87. 9. ... .59** ⫺.51** ⫺.56** .62** .58** ⫺.38** ⫺.27** .48** ⫺.61** 3.43 .70. 10. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. ... ⫺.50** ... ⫺.30** .57** ... .51** ⫺.25** ⫺.31** ... .60** ⫺.31** ⫺.32** .62** ... ⫺.22** .50** .48** ⫺.13* ⫺.27** ... ⫺.20** .01 .04 .07 ⫺.17** .21** . . . .35** ⫺.32** ⫺.42** .40** .54** ⫺.57** ⫺.05 ... ⫺.41** .60** .68** ⫺.38** ⫺.50** .60** ⫺.03 ⫺.60** . . . 3.13 2.69 2.64 3.30 2.88 2.32 3.14 3.66 2.61 .90 .87 .91 .93 .90 .84 1.08 .83 .90. 11. TABLE 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study Variables (N ⫽ 343).

(9) GOALS AND ENGAGEMENT. scale assessing behavioral engagement is composed of five subscales including involved (e.g., “I listen carefully in class”; five items; ␣ ⫽ .68), persisting (e.g., “If a problem is really hard, I keep working at it”; four items; ␣ ⫽ .89), avoiding (e.g., “When I have a hard problem on a test, I skip it”; four items; ␣ ⫽ .76), ignoring (e.g., “When I’m in class, I usually think about other things”; three items; ␣ ⫽ .78), and participating (e.g., “I participate in class discussions”; two items; ␣ ⫽ .78). Another five indicators were also included in the scale assessing emotional engagement: curiosity (e.g., “When I’m doing my work in class, I feel interested”; four items; ␣ ⫽ .83), anxiety (e.g., “When my teacher first explains new material, I feel scared”; three items; ␣ ⫽ .64), anger (e.g., “When I can’t solve a problem in class, I feel angry”; two items; ␣ ⫽ .80), enjoyment (e.g., “When I’m in school, I feel happy”; four items; ␣ ⫽ .71), and boredom (e.g., “When I’m doing my work in class, I feel sleepy”; five items; ␣ ⫽ .82). Separate scores for each of the behavior and emotion factors were created by averaging students’ responses for each of the subscales. To test the validity of these subscales, Miserandino (1996) performed separate factor analyses with promax rotation on the items. The factors of the scale assessing behavioral engagement accounted for 49% of the variance, whereas the factors of the scale assessing emotional engagement accounted for 47% of the variance. I conducted another principal-component factor analysis to examine the validity of the scales. Results showed that 65.26% of the total variance was accounted for by the five indicators of the behavioral engagement scale. The five factors of the emotional engagement scale accounted for 64.59% of the total variance.. Results Mean Differences among Achievement Goals and Self-Regulatory Styles Table 1 also provides descriptive information. To explore Taiwanese students’ self-reported tendencies toward personal goal orientations as well as self-regulatory. 321. styles, repeated-measures ANOVAs with Greenhouse-Geisser correction were performed separately. Using the Bonferroni method to correct for inflated probability levels associated with significance when conducting multiple tests, I found significant within-subjects effects on students’ achievement goal orientations, F(2.88, 984.11) ⫽ 41.21, p ⬍ .001, ␩2 ⫽ .11, and their self-regulatory styles, F(2.29, 784.09) ⫽ 120.89, p ⬍ .001, ␩2 ⫽ .26. Post hoc analysis suggested that, in terms of achievement goal orientations, Taiwanese students rated mastery-approach goals (M ⫽ 3.56) higher than the other three types of goals. Further, students had significantly higher scores on mastery-avoidance goals (M ⫽ 3.33) than they did on both performance-approach (M ⫽ 3.15) and performance-avoidance goals (M ⫽ 3.12). As for the mean differences among students’ self-regulatory styles, post hoc analysis showed that students scored higher on identified regulatory style (M ⫽ 3.31) than they did on other types of regulations. Nonetheless, another form of autonomous motivation, intrinsic motivation, was rated the lowest (M ⫽ 2.47). Regression Analyses Results from the regression analyses are presented first for outcomes regarding students’ self-regulatory styles, then for their behavioral engagement in academic work, and finally for emotional engagement. The alpha level used to determine the significance of all of these analyses was set at .01. I used this more conservative level to reduce the possibility of making a Type I error arising from completing a series of analyses with related outcomes (Wolters, 2004). While performing the regression analyses, I ran VIFs in each set of the analyses. I used this procedure to identify multicollinearity that might have resulted from high correlations among study variables. Results showed that no values were above.

(10) 322. THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL. TABLE 2. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Self-Regulatory Styles (N ⫽ 343) Introjected Regulationb. External Regulationa Variable Step 1: Intercept Perceived autonomy support Step 2: Intercept Perceived autonomy support Mastery-approach goal Mastery-avoidance goal Performance-approach goal Performance-avoidance goal. ␤. Identified Regulationc. B. SEB. ␤. B. SEB. .09 .07. .06. .07. .04 .38. .05. .04 .37*** .57. .05. .09 ⫺.01 ⫺.12 .01 .28 .23. .06 .08 .07 .07 .07. ⫺.01 ⫺.12 .01 .28*** .23**. .06 .18 .01 .08 .43 .25. .05 .06 .06 .06 .05. .17*** .01 .07 .42*** .24***. .05 .29 .34 .15 .16 .06. .04 .05 .05 .05 .05. .28*** .34*** .15** .16** .06. B. SEB. ␤. Intrinsic Motivationd SEB. ␤. .03 .56*** .42. .05. .40***. .05 .17 .38 .01 .17 .05. .05 .07 .07 .06 .06. .16** .36*** .01 .16** .05. B. R2 ⫽ .01, p ⬎ .05 for step 1; change in R2 ⫽ .16, p ⬍ .001 for step 2. R2 ⫽ .14, p ⬍ .001 for step 1; change in R2 ⫽ .38, p ⬍ .001 for step 2. cR2 ⫽ .31, p ⬍ .001 for step 1; change in R2 ⫽ .27, p ⬍ .001 for step 2. dR2 ⫽ .16, p ⬍ .001 for step 1; change in R2 ⫽ .20, p ⬍ .001 for step 2. **p ⬍ .01. ***p ⬍ .001. a. b. 5.0 (VIFs from 1.34 to 2.59), indicating that there was no problem with multicollinearity. Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Self-Regulatory Styles This set of regression analyses focused on the predictors of students’ perceived autonomy represented by their selfregulatory styles. External regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, and intrinsic motivation were regressed separately on the hierarchical regression models. Table 2 shows results from the regressions predicting students’ selfregulatory styles. In these analyses, the order of entry in the regression model was assigned according to theoretical considerations. Predictors that were presumed to be causally prior were given higher priority of entry (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Because the perceived learning climate may shape academic motivation within the individual (Ryan & Deci, 2000a), students’ perceptions of autonomy support from their instructors were given the highest priority of entry across the groups of predictor variables. External regulation. In the first step of the analysis, students’ perceptions of autonomy support provided by their teachers. were entered. Perceived autonomy support did not significantly predict students’ motivation arising from pressuring external contingencies, however. Results from step 2 indicated that adding the four types of achievement goal orientations increased the amount of variance explained by 16% for external regulation, F(5, 337) ⫽ 12.85, p ⬍ .001. Both performance-approach (␤ ⫽ .28, p ⬍ .001) and performance-avoidance goals (␤ ⫽ .23, p ⬍ .01) emerged as significant positive predictors of external regulation. Introjected regulation. The amount of variance explained by the predictor variable in the first step of the analysis was significant for introjected regulation, F(1, 341) ⫽ 53.52, p ⬍ .001. Perceived autonomy support in the learning environment emerged as a significant predictor of introjected regulation, ␤ ⫽ .37, p ⬍ .001. Adding the four types of goal orientations in step 2 increased the amount of variance explained for this selfregulatory style by 38%, F(5, 337) ⫽ 71.44, p ⬍ .001. When other variables were controlled for, performance-approach (␤ ⫽ .42, p ⬍ .001) and performance-avoidance goals (␤ ⫽ .24, p ⬍ .001) were significant predictors of introjected regulation. The association between perceived MARCH 2008.

(11) GOALS AND ENGAGEMENT. autonomy support and introjected regulation also remained significant, ␤ ⫽ .17, p ⬍ .001. Identified regulation. The variable entered in step 1 (i.e., perceived autonomy support) predicted a significant amount of the variance in identified regulation, F(1, 341) ⫽ 154.84, p ⬍ .001. Students with higher perceptions of autonomy support in the classroom context tended to report higher levels of identified regulation, ␤ ⫽ .56, p ⬍ .001. Results from the second step of the analysis indicated that adding four types of achievement goals increased the amount of variance explained in identified regulation by 27%, F(5, 337) ⫽ 94.05, p ⬍ .001. Perceived autonomy support remained a significant predictor of this selfregulatory style, ␤ ⫽ .28, p ⬍ .001. Additionally, mastery-approach (␤ ⫽ .34, p ⬍ .001), mastery-avoidance (␤ ⫽ .15, p ⬍ .01), and performance-approach goals (␤ ⫽ .16, p ⬍ .01) significantly predicted identified regulation. Intrinsic motivation. The first predictor variable, perceived autonomy support, explained a significant amount of the variance in intrinsic motivation, F(1, 341) ⫽ 65.56, p ⬍ .001. Students who perceived higher levels of autonomy support from their instructors were more likely to be motivated intrinsically, ␤ ⫽ .40, p ⬍ .001. In step 2, personal goal orientations were entered in the equation. Adding these variables increased the amount of variance explained in intrinsic motivation by 20%, F(5, 337) ⫽ 39.01, p ⬍ .001. When other predictors were controlled for, mastery-approach (␤ ⫽ .36, p ⬍ .001) and performanceapproach (␤ ⫽ .16, p ⬍ .01) goals significantly predicted intrinsic motivation. Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Behavioral Engagement Table 3 provides the results of the hierarchical regressions predicting students’ behavioral engagement in academic work. Students’ perceived autonomy support within the classroom was entered in step 1 and predicted a significant amount of the. 323. variance in involvement, F(1, 341) ⫽ 144.05, p ⬍ 001; persistence, F(1, 341) ⫽ 61.67, p ⬍ .001; avoiding, F(1, 341) ⫽ 11.90, p ⬍ .01; ignoring, F(1, 341) ⫽ 43.18, p ⬍ .001; and participation, F(1, 341) ⫽ 90.65, p ⬍ .001. Perceived autonomy support was a significant predictor for each component of students’ behavioral engagement (for involvement, ␤ ⫽ .55, p ⬍ .001; for persistence, ␤ ⫽ .39, p ⬍ .001; for avoiding, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.18, p ⬍ .01; for ignoring, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.34, p ⬍ .001; for participation, ␤ ⫽ .46, p ⬍ .001). Results from step 2 indicated that adding the four types of achievement goals increased the amount of variance explained by 18% for involvement, F(5, 337) ⫽ 61.13, p ⬍ .001; 23% for persistence, F(5, 337) ⫽ 42.20, p ⬍ .001; 14% for avoiding, F(5, 337) ⫽ 14.61, p ⬍ .001; 8% for ignoring, F(5, 337) ⫽ 16.14, p ⬍ .001; and 18% for participation, F(5, 337) ⫽ 43.38, p ⬍ .001. When other predictors were accounted for, students who expressed a stronger focus on mastery-approach goals tended to report higher levels of involvement (␤ ⫽ .44, p ⬍ .001), persistence (␤ ⫽ .52, p ⬍ .001), and participation (␤ ⫽ .33, p ⬍ .001) and lower levels of avoiding (␤ ⫽ ⫺.44, p ⬍ .001) and ignoring (␤ ⫽ ⫺.35, p ⬍ .001). Performanceavoidance goals positively predicted students’ reported avoiding (␤ ⫽ .28, p ⬍ .001), suggesting that students who were focused on not appearing incompetent tended to avoid engaging in schoolwork. In step 3, the controlled motivation composite and the autonomous motivation composite were entered. Adding these variables increased the amount of variance explained for involvement by 6%, F(7, 335) ⫽ 54.50, p ⬍ .001; for persistence by 4%, F(7, 335) ⫽ 35.58, p ⬍ .001; for avoiding by 3%, F(7, 335) ⫽ 12.79, p ⬍ .01; for ignoring by 3%, F(7, 335) ⫽ 12.78, p ⬍ .01; and for participation by 4%, F(7, 335) ⫽ 35.02, p ⬍ .001. When other predictors were accounted for, students experiencing pressure and control to study tended to report higher levels of avoiding (␤ ⫽ .19, p ⬍ .01) and ignoring (␤ ⫽ .17, p ⬍ .01) and lower levels.

(12) .05 .05 .06 .06 .06 .06 .05 .07 .06 .06 .06 .05 .06. ⫺.10 .32 .47 .13 ⫺.03 ⫺.04. ⫺.10 .25 .32 .12 .01 ⫺.02 ⫺.21 .36. SEB. ⫺.11 .58. B. .24*** .30*** .11 .01 ⫺.02 ⫺.20*** .35***. .30*** .44*** .11 ⫺.03 ⫺.04. .55***. ␤. ⫺.08 .06 .42 ⫺.08 .09 .01 ⫺.12 .32. ⫺.07 .13 .55 ⫺.06 .11 .01. ⫺.09 .41. B. .05 .07 .06 .07 .06 .06 .07. .05 .07 .07 .06 .06. .05. SEB. .39***. ␤. .06 .39*** ⫺.08 .09 .01 ⫺.11 .31***. .12 .52*** ⫺.06 .11 .01. Persistingb. ⫺.04 .04 ⫺.37 .03 ⫺.09 .25 .20 ⫺.24. ⫺.04 ⫺.01 ⫺.47 .02 ⫺.06 .29. ⫺.07 ⫺.19. B. .06 .08 .08 .08 .07 .07 .08. .06 .08 .08 .07 .07. .06. SEB. ␤. .03 ⫺.34*** .03 ⫺.09 .24*** .19** ⫺.23**. ⫺.01 ⫺.44*** .02 ⫺.06 .28***. ⫺.18**. Avoidingc. b. a. R2 ⫽ .30, p ⬍ .001 for step 1; change in R2 ⫽ .18, p ⬍ .001 for step 2; change in R2 ⫽ .06, p ⬍ .001 for step 3. R2 ⫽ .15, p ⬍ .001 for step 1; change in R2 ⫽ .23, p ⬍ .001 for step 2; change in R2 ⫽ .04, p ⬍ .001 for step 3. cR2 ⫽ .03, p ⬍ .01 for step 1, change in R2 ⫽ .14, p ⬍ .001 for step 2; change in R2 ⫽ .03, p ⬍ .01 for step 3. dR2 ⫽ .11, p ⬍ .001 for step 1; change in R2 ⫽ .08, p ⬍ .001 for step 2; change in R2 ⫽ .03, p ⬍ .01 for step 3. eR2 ⫽ .21, p ⬍ .001 for step 1; change in R2 ⫽ .18, p ⬍ .001 for step 2; change in R2 ⫽ .04, p ⬍ .001 for step 3. **p ⬍ .01. ***p ⬍ .001.. Step 1: Intercept Perceived autonomy support Step 2: Intercept Perceived autonomy support Mastery-approach goal Mastery-avoidance goal Performance-approach goal Performance-avoidance goal Step 3: Intercept Perceived autonomy support Mastery-approach goal Mastery-avoidance goal Performance-approach goal Performance-avoidance goal Controlled motivation Autonomous motivation. Variable. Involveda. .07 ⫺.18 ⫺.32 ⫺.05 ⫺.05 .09 .18 ⫺.12. .09 ⫺.20 ⫺.37 ⫺.05 .01 .13. .09 ⫺.36. B. .06 .09 .08 .08 .08 .07 .08. .06 .08 .08 .08 .08. .06. SEB. ␤. ⫺.17** ⫺.29*** ⫺.05 ⫺.05 .09 .17** ⫺.11. ⫺.18** ⫺.35*** ⫺.05 .01 .13. ⫺.34***. Ignoringd. TABLE 3. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Behavioral Engagement (N ⫽ 343). ⫺.05 .17 .24 .04 ⫺.01 .10 .02 .26. ⫺.03 .24 .34 .06 .04 .12. ⫺.05 .48. B. .05 .07 .06 .06 .06 .06 .07. .05 .07 .07 .06 .06. .05. SEB. ␤. .17** .23** .04 ⫺.01 .10 .02 .26***. .23*** .33*** .06 .04 .12. .46***. Participatinge.

(13) GOALS AND ENGAGEMENT. of involvement (␤ ⫽ ⫺.20, p ⬍ .001). By contrast, when other predictors were controlled for, students who were autonomously motivated tended to report higher levels of involvement (␤ ⫽ .35, p ⬍ .001), persistence (␤ ⫽ .31, p ⬍ .001), and participation (␤ ⫽ .26, p ⬍ .001) and lower levels of avoiding (␤ ⫽ ⫺.23, p ⬍ .01). Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Emotional Engagement Results from the regressions predicting students’ emotional engagement in schoolwork are presented in Table 4. The amount of variance explained by the variable in the first step of these analyses (i.e., perceived autonomy support) was significant for curiosity, F(1, 341) ⫽ 153.92, p ⬍ .001; anxiety F(1, 341) ⫽ 32.30, p ⬍ .001; enjoyment, F(1, 341) ⫽ 139.65, p ⬍ .001; and boredom, F(1, 341) ⫽ 71.61, p ⬍ .001. Perceived autonomy support positively predicted such academic emotions as curiosity (␤ ⫽ .56, p ⬍ .001) and enjoyment (␤ ⫽ .54, p ⬍ .001), whereas this variable negatively predicted anxiety (␤ ⫽ ⫺.29, p ⬍ .001) and boredom (␤ ⫽ ⫺.42, p ⬍ .001). Results from the second step of these regressions indicated that adding the four types of achievement goals increased the amount of variance explained by 19% for curiosity, F(5, 337) ⫽ 68.06, p ⬍ .001; 10% for anxiety, F(5, 337) ⫽ 15.59, p ⬍ .001; 27% for anger, F(5, 337) ⫽ 26.90, p ⬍ .001; 7% for enjoyment, F(5, 337) ⫽ 38.30, p ⬍ .001; and 14% for boredom, F(5, 337) ⫽ 30.77, p ⬍ .001. When other predictors were accounted for, students who scored higher on mastery-approach orientation tended to report higher levels of curiosity (␤ ⫽ .46, p ⬍ .001) and enjoyment (␤ ⫽ .36, p ⬍ .001) and lower levels of anxiety (␤ ⫽ ⫺.27, p ⬍ .001) and boredom (␤ ⫽ ⫺.42, p ⬍ .001). Performance-avoidance goals positively predicted anxiety (␤ ⫽ .29, p ⬍ .001) and boredom (␤ ⫽ .21, p ⬍ .001), indicating that students who wished to avoid seeming incompetent appeared to experience higher. 325. levels of maladaptive emotions. In terms of the emotion of anger, when other predictors were controlled for, both masteryavoidance and performance-approach goals positively predicted this type of emotion, ␤ ⫽ .31, p ⬍ .001 and ␤ ⫽ .24, p ⬍ .001, respectively. Adding students’ reported controlled and autonomous motivation in step 3 increased the amount of variance explained for curiosity by 11%, F(7, 335) ⫽ 75.59, p ⬍ .001; for anxiety by 2%, F(7, 337) ⫽ 12.88, p ⬍ .01; for enjoyment by 2%, F(7, 337) ⫽ 29.18, p ⬍ .01; and for boredom by 5%, F(7, 337) ⫽ 26.83, p ⬍ .001. When other predictors were controlled for, controlled motivation positively predicted anxiety (␤ ⫽ .21, p ⬍ .01) and boredom (␤ ⫽ .18, p ⬍ .01). In contrast, students with higher levels of autonomous motivation tended to report higher levels of curiosity (␤ ⫽ .51, p ⬍ .001) and enjoyment (␤ ⫽ .19, p ⬍ .01) and lower levels of boredom (␤ ⫽ ⫺.31, p ⬍ .001). Mean Differences between Behaviorally Engaged Students with Different Levels of Emotional Engagement To determine whether behaviorally engaged students’ motivational profiles varied with their emotional engagement in schoolwork, I performed multivariate analysis of variance. First, a behavioral engagement composite and an emotional engagement composite were created separately by averaging the scores for the five subscales of each engagement mode. Students who scored above the mean on both the behavioral and emotional engagement composite were identified as high-behavior/highemotion students, whereas students scoring above the mean on the behavioral engagement composite and below the mean on the emotional engagement composite were identified as high-behavior/lowemotion students. In total, 171 out of 343 students met this definition, including 129 high-behavior/high-emotion and 42 high-.

(14) .05 .05 .06 .06 .06 .03 .04 .06 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05. ⫺.02 .32 .47 .04 .01 .03. ⫺.04 .20 .27 .01 ⫺.04 .02 ⫺.09 .52. SEB. ⫺.03 .57. B. .20*** .26*** .01 ⫺.04 .02 ⫺.09 .51***. .31*** .46*** .04 .01 .03. .56***. ␤. .03 ⫺.28 ⫺.26 .11 ⫺.07 .25 .21 ⫺.02. .05 ⫺.26 ⫺.28 .11 .01 .30. .06 ⫺.31. B. .06 .08 .07 .08 .07 .07 .08. .06 .08 .07 .07 .07. .05. SEB. ␤. ⫺.27*** ⫺.25*** .10 ⫺.07 .24*** .21** ⫺.02. ⫺.25*** ⫺.27*** .11 .01 .29***. ⫺.29***. Anxietyb. .003 ⫺.10 .11 .33 .25 .05 .03 ⫺.09. .002 ⫺.12 .07 .33 .24 .05. ⫺.01 ⫺.11. B. .06 .08 .07 .07 .06 .06 .07. .06 .07 .07 .07 .06. .06. SEB. Angerc. ⫺.10 .11 .32 .24 .05 .03 ⫺.09. ⫺.11 .07 .31*** .24*** .05. ⫺.10. ␤. b. a. R2 ⫽ .31, p ⬍ .001 for step 1; change in R2 ⫽ .19, p ⬍ .001 for step 2; change in R2 ⫽ .11, p ⬍ .001 for step 3. R2 ⫽ .09, p ⬍ .001 for step 1; change in R2 ⫽ .10, p ⬍ .001 for step 2; change in R2 ⫽ .02, p ⬍ .01 for step 3. cR2 ⫽ .01, p ⬎ .05 for step 1; change in R2 ⫽ .27, p ⬍ .001 for step 2; change in R2 ⫽ .01, p ⬎ .05 for step 3. dR2 ⫽ .29, p ⬍ .001 for step 1; change in R2 ⫽ .07, p ⬍ .001 for step 2; change in R2 ⫽ .02, p ⬍ .01 for step 3. eR2 ⫽ .17, p ⬍ .001 for step 1; change in R2 ⫽ .14, p ⬍ .001 for step 2; change in R2 ⫽ .05, p ⬍ .001 for step 3. **p ⬍ .01. ***p ⬍ .001.. Step 1: Intercept Perceived autonomy support Step 2: Intercept Perceived autonomy support Mastery-approach goal Mastery-avoidance goal Performance-approach goal Performance-avoidance goal Step 3: Intercept Perceived autonomy support Mastery-approach goal Mastery-avoidance goal Performance-approach goal Performance-avoidance goal Controlled motivation Autonomous motivation. Variable. Curiositya. ⫺.10 .41 .30 ⫺.14 .02 ⫺.09 ⫺.11 .19. ⫺.10 .44 .38 ⫺.14 .01 ⫺.11. ⫺.10 .57. B. .06 .07 .07 .07 .06 .06 .07. .05 .07 .07 .06 .06. .05. SEB. .54***. ␤. .39*** ⫺.29*** ⫺.12 .02 ⫺.09 ⫺.10 .19**. .42*** .36*** ⫺.12 .01 ⫺.11. Enjoymentd. TABLE 4. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Emotional Engagement (N ⫽ 343). .09 ⫺.17 ⫺.31 ⫺.01 ⫺.10 .19 .19 ⫺.32. .08 ⫺.23 ⫺.45 ⫺.02 ⫺.08 .22. .10 ⫺.44. B. .06 .08 .07 .07 .06 .06 .07. .06 .07 .07 .07 .06. .05. SEB. ␤. ⫺.16** ⫺.29*** ⫺.01 ⫺.09 .18 .18** ⫺.31***. ⫺.21 ⫺.42*** ⫺.02 ⫺.08 .21***. ⫺.42***. Boredome.

(15) GOALS AND ENGAGEMENT. 327. TABLE 5. Differences between Behaviorally Engaged Students with Different Levels of Emotional Engagement High-Behavior/ High-Emotion (n ⫽ 129). Perceived autonomy support Mastery-approach goal Mastery-avoidance goal Performance-approach goal Performance-avoidance goal External regulation Introjected regulation Identified regulation Intrinsic motivation. High-Behavior/ Low-Emotion (n ⫽ 42). M. SD. M. SD. F (Univariate Analyses). 3.79a 4.06a 3.59a 3.44a 3.16a 2.84a 3.01a 3.85a 2.95a. .67 .70 .89 .85 .64 .79 .82 .65 .78. 3.31b 3.65b 3.54a 3.37a 3.36a 2.99a 2.93a 3.47b 2.42b. .63 .59 .72 .92 .65 .75 .75 .70 .79. 16.09*** 11.12** .12 .26 3.25 1.21 .25 10.66** 14.42***. NOTE.—Different subscripts denote significant differences (p ⬍ .05) in means according to Tukey’s criteria. **p ⬍ .01. ***p ⬍ .001.. behavior/low-emotion students. Table 5 presents the means and standard deviations of the dependent variables according to these students’ group membership. The assumption for the MANOVA had been examined before the analysis was performed. Because cell sizes for the independent variables were unequal, I conducted Box’s M test first to check for the homogeneity of covariance matrices. The result of this test was not significant (F ⫽ 1.35, p ⬎ .05), indicating the confirmation of this assumption (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). The MANOVA revealed significant effects for emotional engagement, Hotelling’s t ⫽ .24, F(9, 161) ⫽ 4.37, p ⬍ .001, ␩2 ⫽ .20. Results of the univariate analyses indicated significant effects of emotional engagement on perceived autonomy support from teachers, F(1, 169) ⫽ 16.09, p ⬍ .001, ␩2 ⫽ .09; identified regulation, F(1, 169) ⫽ 10.66, p ⬍ .01, ␩2 ⫽ .06; intrinsic motivation, F(1, 169) ⫽ 14.42, p ⬍ .001, ␩2 ⫽ .08; and mastery-approach goals, F(1, 169) ⫽ 11.12, p ⬍ .01, ␩2 ⫽ .06. High-behavior/highemotion students scored significantly higher on perceived autonomy support (M ⫽ 3.79 vs. M ⫽ 3.31), identified regulation (M ⫽ 3.85 vs. M ⫽ 3.47), intrinsic motivation (M ⫽ 2.95 vs. M ⫽ 2.42), and mastery-approach orientation (M ⫽ 4.06 vs. M ⫽ 3.65) than did high-behavior/low-. emotion students. Evidently, even within the selective group of behaviorally engaged students, these students’ emotional experiences associated with school activities were likely to vary as a function of the quality of their motivational processes (i.e., the extent to which students were autonomously motivated).. Discussion The present research advances the understanding of how constructs of SDT and achievement goal theory are related to each other and to students’ engagement in schoolwork in the Taiwanese classroom context. Markus and Kitayama (2003) have maintained that experiences of autonomy may not be vitalizing to individuals in collectivistic cultures because such experiences are incongruent with the emphases on conformity, social cohesion, and harmonious group functioning in collectivistic cultural contexts. Further, these and other cross-cultural researchers argued that nonWestern students might even flourish when they are required to live up to pressuring internal or external expectations (Iyengar & Lepper, 1999; Markus & Kitayama, 2003). Results of the current study, however, conflict with their argument. Taiwanese students experiencing pressure and.

(16) 328. THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL. control to study tend to report maladaptive patterns of learning. By contrast, autonomous motivation positively predicts students’ optimal engagement in academic work. Below, several important findings are discussed.. as uninteresting (Otis et al., 2005). Results of the present study clearly indicate that Taiwanese students recognize the personal relevance of school activities and accept regulation of these activities as their own. It is also noteworthy that these students rated intrinsic motivation the lowest. Due to the very selective and competitive educational systems, Taiwanese junior high school students have to compete with their peers to gain admission to good schools at the next level. Such practices may lead students to focus on competition rather than enjoyment inherent in learning activities. These findings reveal that, instead of intrinsic interest, Taiwanese students appear to be motivated to engage in schoolwork by a fuller internalization of values of schoolrelated behaviors, namely, identified regulation.. Motivational Characteristics of Taiwanese Students Results of repeated-measures ANOVAs indicate significant within-subjects effects on Taiwanese students’ achievement goal orientations and self-regulatory styles. Although findings from previous studies (Elliot et al., 2001; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Markus, Kitayama, & Heiman, 1996) have indicated that collectivists, relative to individualists, engage in more avoidance regulation, the evidence from my study suggests that students within the Taiwanese classroom score higher on masteryapproach goals than they do on other types of goal orientations. It appears that, compared to their counterparts from other collectivistic countries of East Asia, Taiwanese students are more approach oriented at the goal level of analysis. In Chinese culture, exertion of effort is highly valued. Pupils in Taiwan are influenced by Confucian doctrines such as “being diligent in study means devoting one’s effort to it for a long time” (Confucius, Zi Zhang chapter). The culturally prescribed belief in hard work is likely to inspire Taiwanese students to adopt mastery-approach goals to enhance ability. In terms of self-regulatory styles, Taiwanese students have higher scores on identified regulation than they do on other types of regulation. With the cultural background described previously, Taiwanese students are socialized to identify with the value of school activities. Prior evidence showed that identified regulation ensures the execution of important behaviors that are not interesting (Koestner & Losier, 2002). In comparison with leisure-based activities, school activities are often perceived. Predictors and Effects of SelfRegulatory Styles Results of regression analyses show that students’ perceived autonomy support from teachers positively predicts introjected, identified, and intrinsic regulation. Although it is unexpected that students’ perceptions of autonomy support in the learning environment predict introjected regulation, a form of controlled motivation, such findings are in line with results of Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, and Briere’s study (2001). These researchers examined persistence in competitive swimming in a sample of adolescent Canadian swimmers and found that swimmers’ perceptions of coaches’ autonomy support positively predicted self-determined motivation (intrinsic motivation and identified regulation) as well as introjected regulation. As for predicting effects of achievement goals on self-regulatory styles, both performance-approach and performanceavoidance goals positively predict controlled motivation (external and introjected regulation). In spite of the common focus on the individual’s comMARCH 2008.

(17) GOALS AND ENGAGEMENT. petence relative to others, performanceapproach and performance-avoidance goals are functionally separate (Elliot, 1999; Elliot & Church, 1997). The simultaneous adoption of approach and avoidance goals focuses individuals’ attention on incompatible possibilities (i.e., trying to do better than others vs. trying not to appear worse than others). As a consequence, it is likely to give rise to a great deal of conflict in the process of self-regulation, the two forms of non-self-determined motivation in this case. Identified regulation and intrinsic motivation are positively predicted by the approachfocused goals (mastery and performanceapproach goals). In other words, these two forms of self-determined motivation appear to be instigated by a positive or desirable event or possibility, whether the focus is on learning as much as possible or demonstrating ability relative to others (Elliot, 1999). In addition to approach-focused goals, masteryavoidance goals also predicted identified regulation. The contribution of this type of goal in explaining identified regulation sustains the validity of a 2 ⫻ 2 achievement goal conceptualization. Identified regulation takes place when the person recognizes an activity as personally valuable (Deci et al., 1994). It seems reasonable that students who manage to avoid a lack of task mastery are likely to endorse the value and importance of schoolwork. With respect to the effects of selfregulatory styles on students’ academic engagement, in accordance with previous evidence (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Miserandino, 1996; Vansteenkiste et al., 2005), results of hierarchical regression analyses show the beneficial effects of self-determined motivation. When other predictors are controlled, students who engage in schoolwork out of inherent interest or internalized values report more involvement, participation, curiosity, and enjoyment. Further, autonomous motivation is associated with less avoiding and boredom. The adaptiveness of experiences of autonomy among Taiwanese students clearly sustains the claim of SDT that. 329. the concept of autonomy would be applicable in non-Western cultures that embrace collectivistic values (Ryan & Deci, 2000a; Vansteenkiste et al., 2005).. Autonomy-Supportive Environments and Academic Engagement A number of cross-cultural researchers (Iyengar & Lepper, 1999; Markus & Kitayama, 1999, 2003) have argued that the promotion of autonomy is a less culturally congruent experience in non-Western cultures. Findings from the current study, however, show the advantages of promoting autonomy even for nonWestern individuals. When achievement goal orientations and self-regulatory styles are controlled for, Taiwanese students who perceive higher levels of autonomy support provided by teachers report more involvement and participation and experience higher levels of curiosity and enjoyment while studying. Moreover, students’ perceptions of autonomy support are linked to less maladaptive patterns of engagement including ignoring, anxiety, and boredom. It should be noted that these beneficial effects of autonomy support are independent of personal autonomy, suggesting the unique role that autonomy-supportive environments play in fostering optimal academic functioning. Results of the present study validate the contention of SDT that autonomy-supportive contexts should facilitate adaptive learning because such contexts tend to satisfy rather than thwart the learner’s basic need for autonomy (Vansteenkiste et al., 2006). Achievement Goals and Academic Engagement Even when constructs from SDT (i.e., students’ self-regulatory styles and perceived autonomy support from teachers) are accounted for, effects of students’ achievement goal orientations on their behavioral and emotional engagement in schoolwork remain significant. As expected,.

(18) 330. THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL. results of the present study confirm the adaptive effects of mastery-approach goals consistently found in Western samples (e.g., Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Elliot et al., 1999; Wolters, 2004). In comparison with the powerful effects of mastery-approach goals on academic functioning, both mastery-avoidance and performance-approach goals show relatively limited predictability after controlling for constructs from SDT. Such findings are intriguing, given that performance-approach goals were found to be related to a wide range of achievement-relevant outcomes in previous studies (e.g., Elliot & McGregor, 2001; McGregor & Elliot, 2002; Skaalvik, 1997; Wolters, 2004). Nevertheless, as I reported earlier, performance-approach goals are linked to all forms of self-regulation in the present study. The considerable amount of shared variance between this type of goal and self-regulation may explain why the effect of performance-approach goals is statistically insignificant when self-regulatory styles are controlled for. Effects of performance-avoidance goals on academic engagement found in this study are congruent with the familiar view of this type of goal as detrimental (Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Middleton & Midgley, 1997). Students who are focused on avoiding the appearance of incompetence report more avoiding, anxiety, and boredom while studying. All in all, when constructs related to autonomy are accounted for, mastery-approach and performance-avoidance goals remain important for explaining Taiwanese students’ academic functioning.. students with lower levels of emotional engagement. The high consistency between levels of behavioral and emotional engagement suggests that these students engage in academic work out of inherent interest and personal conviction about competence development such that they are likely to experience positive emotions for the task. By contrast, students with lower emotional engagement do not perform learning behaviors because of perceiving choice, usefulness, and enjoyment. They engage in school activities because they think they should, despite not feeling free and not believing in the value of the task. Needless to say, these students are unlikely to find school activities enjoyable and experience adaptive emotions for them. Tensions between behaviors and emotions might therefore result (Deci et al., 1994). This finding further supports the positive effects of a fuller internalization of behavioral regulations on students’ emotional well-being, as SDT suggests (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000a).. Profiles of Behaviorally Engaged Students with Different Levels of Emotional Engagement A unique finding of this study is that behaviorally engaged students with higher levels of emotional engagement report higher perceptions of autonomy support from teachers, identified regulation, intrinsic motivation, and mastery-approach goal orientation than do behaviorally engaged. Implications for Classroom Practice In light of the advantages of the experience of autonomy even for non-Western students found in the current study, teachers should adopt an autonomy-supportive rather than controlling style to enhance students’ self-determined motivation and academic functioning. If students feel pressured to engage in schoolwork, either because of external or introjected regulation, their emotional well-being is likely to be undermined. According to SDT, the promotion of autonomy can be accomplished by understanding students’ perspective, responding to their needs and concerns, encouraging them to solve problems in their own way, supporting their experimentation, and providing choice (Black & Deci, 2000; Vansteenkiste et al., 2006). Another implication that can be drawn from the findings concerns the importance of cultivating students’ mastery-approach MARCH 2008.

(19) GOALS AND ENGAGEMENT. goal orientation. As results of this study suggest, the beneficial effects of masteryapproach goals remain significant even when the advantages of autonomy-related constructs for students’ academic engagement are accounted for. Findings from the present research call for learning contexts in which the adoption of mastery-approach goals is encouraged. In classrooms where personal improvement is emphasized, selfreferenced standards are used, effort expenditures are valued, and challenging work is provided, students are more likely to espouse a mastery-approach orientation (Ames, 1992; Kaplan, Middleton, Urdan, & Midgley, 2002; Wolters, 2004). Limitations and Future Research Although the results of the present study provide insights into teacher practices, several limitations need to be addressed in future research. First, the present study examines effects of students’ perceptions of autonomy support provided by teachers on their self-determined functioning and academic engagement. Other sources of autonomy support (e.g., parental autonomy support) may also play a vital role in determining the individual’s selfregulation. Future research focusing on multiple sources of effects would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the influences of social contexts on students’ achievement striving. Second, the regression procedure I employed in the current research does not allow illumination of the pathways among students’ perceived autonomy support, self-regulatory styles, achievement goal orientations, and academic engagement. It is likely that self-regulatory styles and achievement goal orientations mediate the effect of the social environment on a person’s academic functioning. Future research using structural equation modeling to test the hypothesized pathways is encouraged. Finally, because of the correlational na-. 331. ture of the design, conclusions regarding clear causal relations between autonomy support and other variables of interest cannot be drawn. Experimental research that involves manipulating autonomy support and longitudinal studies that explore the long-term effect of autonomy-supportive contexts on student motivation might help clarify the direction of this effect. Such research has the potential to help teachers create classrooms fostering self-determined motivation as well as adaptive patterns of learning. Note This study was supported by grant no. NSC 95-2413-H-004-019 from the National Science Council, Taiwan. Special thanks go to Chih-Che Lin and Rei-Shuan Wang for their assistance with this project.. References Abe, J., & Zane, N. (1990). Psychological maladjustment among Asian and white American college students: Controlling for confounds. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 437– 444. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271. Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84, 740 – 756. Bond, M. H. (1986). The psychology of the Chinese people. New York: Oxford University Press. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136 –162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Church, M. A., Elliot, A. J., & Gable, S. L. (2001). Perceptions of classroom environment, achievement goals, and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 43–54. Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). SelfRegulatory Style Questionnaire: A measure of external, introjected, identified, and intrinsic.

(20) 332. THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL. reasons for initiating behavior. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester. d’Ailly, H. (2003). Children’s autonomy and perceived control in learning: A model of motivation and achievement in Taiwan. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 84 –96. Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119 –142. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and the “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to assess adults’ orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflection on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 642– 650. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. (1988). A socialcognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256 –273. Eaton, M., & Dembo, M. (1997). Differences in the motivational beliefs of Asian American and non-Asian students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 433– 440. Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169 –189. Elliot, A. J., Chirkov, V. I., Kim, Y., & Sheldon, K. M. (2001). A cross-cultural analysis of avoidance (relative to approach) personal goals. Psychological Science, 12, 505–510. Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218 –232. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 ⫻ 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519. Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. L. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam performance: A mediational analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 628 – 644. Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2001). Achievement goals and the hierarchical model of achievement motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 139 –156.. Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Guay, F. (1995). Academic motivation and school performance: Toward a structural model. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 257–274. Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 890 – 898. Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’s selfregulation and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 143–154. Guttman, L. (1954). A new approach to factor analysis: The radix. In P. Lazerfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking in the social sciences (pp. 258 –348). Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Hambleton, R. K. (1994). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests: A progress report. Bulletin of the International Test Commission, 10, 229 –244. Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 158 –176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hsu, F. L. K. (1985). The self in cross-cultural perspective. In A. J. Marsella, G. A. De Vos, & F. L. K. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and self (pp. 24 –55). London: Tavistock. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 349 –366. Jo¨reskog, K., & So¨rbom, D. (2002). LISREL 8.52. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software. Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2002). Achievement goals and goal structures. In C. Midgley (Ed.), Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning (pp. 21–53). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Koestner, R., & Losier, G. F. (2002). Distinguishing three ways of being internally motivated: A closer look at introjection, identification, and intrinsic motivation. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 101–121). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K. (1984). Setting limits on children’s behavior: The differential effects of controlling versus informational styles on intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal of Personality, 52, 233– 248. MARCH 2008.

(21) GOALS AND ENGAGEMENT. Levesque, C., Zuehlke, A. N., Stanek, L. R., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Autonomy and competence in German and American university students: A comparative study based on self-determination theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 68 – 84. Maehr, M. L. (1989). Thoughts about motivation. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Goals and cognitions (Vol. 3, pp. 299 –315). New York: Academic Press. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. K. (1991). Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224 –253. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. K. (2003). Models of agency: Sociocultural diversity in the construction of action. In V. Murphy-Berman & J. J. Berman (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Vol. 49. Cross-cultural differences in perspectives on the self (pp. 1–57). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Markus, H., Kitayama, S., & Heiman, R. (1996). Culture and “basic” psychological principles. In C. Higgins & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 857–913). New York: Guilford. McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analysis. Psychological Methods, 7, 64 – 82. McGregor, H., & Elliot, A. (2002). Achievement goals as predictors of achievement-relevant processes prior to task engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 381–395. Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An unexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710 –718. Miller, J. G. (1988). Bridging the contentstructure dichotomy: Culture and the self. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The cross-cultural challenge to social psychology (pp. 266 –281). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Miserandino, M. (1996). Children who do well in school: Individual differences in perceived competence and autonomy in aboveaverage children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 203–214. Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 3–53. Otis, N., Grouzet, F. M. E., & Pelletier, L. G. (2005). Latent motivational change in an academic setting: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 170 –183. Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Briere, N. M. (2001). Associations among. 333. perceived autonomy support, forms of selfregulation, and persistence: A prospective study. Motivation and Emotion, 25, 279 –306. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 92–104. Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749 –761. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68 –78. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). When rewards compete with nature: The undermining of intrinsic motivation and self-regulation. In C. Sansonse & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 13–54). New York: Academic Press. Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-report and projective assessments of individual differences in children’s perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 550 –558. Salili, F. (1995). Explaining Chinese motivation and achievement. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Culture, motivation, and achievement (pp. 73–118). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Kasser, T. (2004). The independent effects of goal contents and motives on well-being: It’s both what you pursue and why you pursue it. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 475– 486. Skaalvik, E. M. (1997). Self-enhancing and selfdefeating ego orientation: Relations with task and avoidance orientation, achievement, self-perception, and anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 71– 81. Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2005). Antecedents and outcomes of self-determination in three life domains: The role of parents’ and teachers’ autonomy support. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 589 – 604. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York: HarperCollins. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview. Urdan, T. C., & Midgley, C. (2003). Changes in the perceived classroom goal structure and pattern of adaptive learning during early ad-.