 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 16, Issue 2, Article 1 (Dec., 2015) |
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics concerning students’ achievement goals (mastery approach, performance approach, mastery avoidance, and performance avoidance goals) and engagement (agentic, behavioral, cognitive, and emotional) were summarized in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively.Table 1. Mean and Standard Deviation Values for Students’ Achievement Goals
M
SD
Mastery Approach Goals 4.34
.77
Performance Approach Goals 4.16
.80
Mastery Avoidance Goals 3.53
.98
Performance Avoidance Goals 3.65
.91
Concerning achievement goals, the highest mean score was obtained for the mastery approach goals sub-scale followed by performance approach goals sub-scale (see Table 1). These results suggested that students tend to study for demonstrating their abilities to others and getting the best grades as well as learning and understanding in science classes. The next highest mean score was on the performance avoidance goals. Although, the mean score was lowest on mastery avoidance goals it was still above the mid-point of five-point scale. Overall, results with respect to students’ approach and avoidance goals tendencies revealed that seventh grade students possess higher levels of approach goals than avoidance goals in science classes.
Table 2. Mean and Standard Deviation Values for Students’ Engagement
M
SD
Agentic Engagement 2.93
.63
Behavioral Engagement 3.36
.59
Cognitive Engagement 3.08
.54
Emotional Engagement
3.20
.67
Examination of the mean scores for student engagement revealed that, on a four-point scale, the highest mean score was obtained for behavioral engagement (see Table 2). This finding implied that students tend to show behaviors such as persistence, effort, concentration, and attention in their science classes at high levels The next highest mean scores, still well-above the mid-point, were obtained on the emotional engagement and cognitive engagement subscales suggesting that students tend to demonstrate positive affective reactions such as interest and enjoyment and use learning strategies to remember, organize, and understand the material to accomplish tasks in the science classes at high levels as well. The lowest mean score was obtained for agentic engagement. Even though the mean score was lowest on this sub-scale, it indicated a moderate level of agentic engagement.
Inferential Statistics
In order to examine how well seventh grade students’ achievement goals predict each aspect of their engagement in science, four separate multiple linear regression analyses were conducted.According to first regression analysis, the linear combination of four predictors; mastery approach, performance approach, mastery avoidance, and performance avoidance goals accounted for 38 % of variance in seventh grade students’ cognitive engagement (R2=.38, F (4, 137) = 20.79, p< .05). More specifically, results showed that mastery approach goals and mastery avoidance goals made a statistically significant contribution to the prediction of students’ cognitive engagement (p <.05), while other two goals failed to achieve significance (p >.05). Among these variables, mastery approach goals made the largest contribution (β= .56, sr2= .25), followed by mastery avoidance goals (β= .19, sr2= .03) to the prediction of cognitive engagement in science (see Table 3). Indeed, mastery approach goals uniquely explained 25 % of variance in cognitive engagement. In addition, inspection of beta values revealed that cognitive engagement was positively related to both mastery approach goals and mastery avoidance goals. These results implied that students having higher levels of mastery approach goals and mastery avoidance goals demonstrate higher levels of cognitive engagement in science.
Table 3. Contribution of Students’ Achievement Goals to Cognitive Engagement
Predictor variables β
p
sr2
Mastery Approach Goals
.56
.00
.25
Mastery Avoidance Goals
.19
.02
.03
Performance Approach Goals
-.02
.82
.00
Performance Avoidance Goals
.01
.88
.00
The second regression analysis results indicated that the linear combination of predictor variables (mastery approach, performance approach, mastery avoidance, and performance avoidance goals) accounted for 41 % of variance in seventh grade students’ emotional engagement (R2=.41, F (4, 137) = 24.22, p < .05). More specifically, as shown in Table 4, results showed that mastery approach goals made a statistically significant contribution to the prediction of students’ emotional engagement (p <.05), while other predictors did not (p >.05). Additionally, examination of the standardized beta values and squared semi-partial correlations revealed that mastery approach goals were positively related to emotional engagement and made the strongest contribution (β= .62, sr2= .31) to explain the variability in emotional engagement. More specifically, mastery approach goals accounted for 31 % of variance in the dependent variable uniquely. These results showed that students with higher levels of mastery approach goals demonstrate higher levels of emotional engagement in science.
Table 4. Contribution of Students’ Achievement Goals to Emotional Engagement
Predictor variables β
p
sr2
Mastery Approach Goals
.62
.00
.31
Mastery Avoidance Goals
.07
.37
.00
Performance Approach Goals
.04
.66
.00
Performance Avoidance Goals
-.03
.76
.00
The third regression analysis conducted for behavioral engagement showed similar results with the emotional engagement. That is, the linear combination of predictor variables accounted for 43 % of variance in seventh grade students’ behavioral engagement (R2=.43, F (4, 137) = 25.49, p< .05) and mastery approach goals made a statistically significant contribution to the prediction of students’ behavioral engagement (p <.05), while other predictors did not (p >.05). A closer inspection of beta coefficients and squared semi-partial correlation showed that mastery approach goals were positively linked to behavioral engagement and made the strongest contribution (β= .61,sr2= .29) to the prediction of this variable (see Table 5). Actually, mastery approach goals uniquely explained 29 % of variance in behavioral engagement. These results implied that students with higher levels of mastery approach goals tend to demonstrate higher levels of behavioral engagement in science classes.
Table 5. Contribution of Students’ Achievement Goals to Behavioral Engagement
Predictor variables β
p
sr2
Mastery Approach Goals
.61
.00
.29
Mastery Avoidance Goals
-.10
.20
.01
Performance Approach Goals
.02
.74
.00
Performance Avoidance Goals
.11
.25
.01
The fourth regression analysis showed that the linear combination of predictor variables accounted for 23 % of variance in seventh grade students’ agentic engagement (R2=.23, F (4, 137) = 10.28, p < .05). Similar to the previous results, as shown in Table 6, mastery approach goals were found to make a statistically significant and the strongest contribution (β= .43; sr2= .14) to the prediction of students’ agentic engagement (p <.05), while other predictors did not (p >.05). Mastery approach goals explained 14 percent of variance in agentic engagement uniquely. These results suggested that students with higher levels of mastery approach goals are likely to show higher levels of agentic engagement in science classes.
Table 6. Contribution of students’ achievement goals to agentic engagement
Predictor variables β
p
sr2
Mastery Approach Goals
.43
.00
.14
Mastery Avoidance Goals
.09
.33
.00
Performance Approach Goals
.07
.49
.00
Performance Avoidance Goals
-.00
.98
.00
