Changes in the perceived classroom goal structure and pattern of adaptive learning during early adolescence

Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003) 524–551 www.elsevier.com/locate/cedpsych

Changes in the perceived classroom goal structure and pattern of adaptive learning during early adolescenceq Tim Urdana,* and Carol Midgleyb a

Department of Psychology, Santa Clara University, 500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA 95053, USA b Combined Program in Education and Psychology, 1400 School of Education Building, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1259, USA

Abstract Despite a recent increase in research on the associations between classroom goal structures, motivation, affect, and achievement, little is known about the effects of changes in the perceived classroom goal structure as students move from one grade level to another. Comparisons of students who perceived an increase, decrease, or no change in the mastery and performance goal structures of their classrooms during the transition to middle school and across two grades within middle school revealed that changes in the mastery goal structure were more strongly related to changes in cognition, affect, and performance than were changes in the performance goal structure. The most negative pattern of change was associated with a perceived decrease in the mastery goal structure. Ó 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Considerable research has documented a decline in academic motivation and performance for many students during early adolescence (see Eccles (Parsons), Midgley, & Adler, 1984 for a review). Some have suggested that these negative patterns are related to physiological and psychological changes associated with puberty and are inevitable. Recent research suggests that the move to middle level schools contributes

q

This study was funded by the William T. Grant Foundation. Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Urdan).

*

0361-476X/$ - see front matter Ó 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00060-7

T. Urdan, C. Midgley / Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003) 524–551

525

to these declines. When students move to middle level schools, they may encounter a learning environment that is less facilitative of motivation and learning than the environment they experienced in elementary school (Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Eccles et al., 1993). Recently, goal orientation theory has provided a lens through which to view the relation between the learning environment and early adolescent development (e.g., Maehr & Anderman, 1993; Midgley, 1993). This theory was developed within a social-cognitive framework that focuses on the aims or purposes that are pursued or perceived in an achievement setting (e.g., Maehr, 1989; Nicholls, 1989). Goals provide a framework within which individuals interpret and react to events, and result in different patterns of cognition, affect, and behavior (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Theorists have described two achievement goals in particular: the goal to develop ability (variously labeled a mastery goal, task goal, or learning goal), and the goal to demonstrate ability or to avoid the demonstration of lack of ability (variously labeled a performance goal, ego goal, or ability goal). Research examining the effects of personal mastery and performance goals has often found a more consistent, and stronger, pattern of relationships between mastery goals and cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes than between performance goals and these outcomes (for reviews see Elliot, 1997; Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, Lehto, & Elliot, 1997; Midgley, 1993; Urdan, 1997a). For example, Urdan (1997b) found that the correlations between both positive and negative orientations of friends and a mastery goal orientation were stronger than the correlations between friendsÕ orientations and performance goals. Kaplan and Midgley (1997) found that mastery goals were moderately correlated with perceived competence in both mathematics and English whereas performance goals were unrelated to perceived competence in either domain. Nicholls, Patashnick, and Nolen (1985) found moderate, positive correlations between personal task (mastery) goals and satisfaction with learning, college plans, and perceived ability but weak or null relationships between personal ego-social (performance) goals and these variables. This research has generally not distinguished between the avoidance and approach components of performance goals, and this may partially explain the stronger associations between mastery goals and outcomes (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Skaalvik, 1997). The approach dimension of performance goals involves wanting to demonstrate competence, often superior competence relative to others. The avoidance dimension of performance goals represents a goal of avoiding appearing incompetent or less competent than others. The question then becomes, what is it that influences whether students espouse mastery or performance goals? Parents and early experiences undoubtedly influence a childÕs personal goals, although research on this relationship is scant. There is, however, growing evidence that the goals that students espouse arise in, are fostered by, and vary with the achievement situation experienced (e.g., Ames, 1990; Meece, 1991; Nicholls et al., 1985; Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan, 1996). If students are in a class where the ‘‘best’’ papers are posted, grading is on a curve, high achievers receive special privileges, and the teacher reminds students frequently of the importance of high grades and mistake-free papers, it makes sense that they would be oriented

526

T. Urdan, C. Midgley / Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003) 524–551

toward demonstrating their ability or hiding their lack of ability. On the other hand, if students are in a class where understanding is emphasized, mastery is the criterion, and effort and improvement are recognized, it makes sense that they would be oriented to developing their ability. We call the emphasis on achievement goals in the learning environment the ‘‘goal structure’’ (e.g., Ames, 1992; Ames & Ames, 1981; Covington & Omelich, 1984). In their study examining the relationship between perceived goal stresses in the classroom and a variety of cognitive outcomes, Ames and Archer (1988) found consistently stronger relationships between a perceived emphasis on mastery goals and these outcomes than between perceived performance goals and outcomes. These results led Ames to suggest that an orientation to mastery goals is particularly powerful. In a study aimed at changing the goal structure in elementary school classrooms, Ames (1990) worked with teachers to develop specific strategies that would enhance the emphasis on mastery goals. At the end of one year, children in the classrooms in which the strategies were introduced reported that their classrooms were more mastery-focused than did children in control classrooms. In addition, at-risk students in treatment classrooms showed a stronger preference for challenging work, had more positive attitudes toward math and school, had higher self-concepts of ability, were more intrinsically motivated, and used more effective learning strategies than did peers in control classrooms (Ames, 1990). Whereas studentsÕ scores on these variables declined significantly over the course of the academic year in control classrooms, there were no such declines among students in the treatment classrooms. In the early 1990s, we conducted our first studies examining the goal structure in elementary and middle level schools. In a cross-sectional study, we found that elementary teachers and students reported that their schools emphasized mastery goals more than did middle school teachers and students. In addition, elementary school teachers reported that they used instructional practices that emphasized mastery goals, and endorsed mastery goals for their students more than did middle school teachers (Midgley, Anderman, & Hicks, 1995). In a longitudinal study (Anderman & Midgley, 1997), students perceived a greater emphasis on mastery goals in the classroom when they were in 5th grade in elementary school than when they were in 6th grade in middle school. Because the study of the association between the classroom goal structures and studentsÕ motivation, affect, and behavior is relatively new, a number of important questions remain. For example, little is known about the effects of moving from a classroom perceived to emphasize one type of goal in 5th grade to a classroom with a different goal structure in 6th grade. Although previous research has demonstrated that, on average, students in the 5th grade of elementary school perceive their classrooms to be more mastery goal oriented and less performance goal oriented than their middle school classrooms in 6th grade, there are undoubtedly some students who perceive little difference in the goal structure of their classrooms before and after the transition. There are also likely to be some students who perceive a greater emphasis on mastery goals or a lesser emphasis on performance goals after the transition to middle school. A comparison of these studentsÕ motivational, behavioral, and

T. Urdan, C. Midgley / Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003) 524–551

527

affective characteristics will shed light on the possible effects of changes in the perceived classroom goal structure across the transition. An additional question that has yet to be examined is whether the changes observed in studentsÕ perceptions of the classroom goal structure, and the related changes in motivation, affect, and behavior, are mirrored in the second year of middle school as students move from 6th to 7th grade. Are students who perceive a change in the classroom goal structure when they make the transition to middle school more likely to experience changes in their motivation, affect, and behavior than students who experience changes in the goal structure during the middle school years? Simmons and her colleagues (e.g., Simmons & Blyth, 1987), who conducted a seminal study of the transition to middle level schools, concluded that young adolescents who experienced several important life changes in coincidence were at greater risk of negative outcomes. Thus, the move to a new, larger, more bureaucratic school environment, in concert with a change in the goal structure, would be expected to have a stronger relationship to student outcomes than a move within the same school environment. In the present study, we examined whether changes in studentsÕ perceptions of the mastery and performance classroom goal structures were associated with changes in their motivation (personal achievement goals, self-efficacy), affect (positive and negative affect at school), and performance (Grade Point Average—GPA) both when making the transition from elementary to middle school and within the first two years of middle school. We examined three hypotheses in this study. First, we hypothesized that changes in the perceived mastery classroom goal structure would be more strongly associated with changes in motivation, affect, and achievement than would changes in the perceived performance classroom goal structure. This hypothesis is based in part on results examining studentsÕ personal goals, which generally find stronger effects for mastery than for performance goals. In addition, previous research examining the effects of mastery and performance classroom goal structures has generally found stronger associations between mastery goal structures and a variety of outcomes than for performance goal structures (e.g., Ames & Archer, 1988; Meece, 1991). Our second hypothesis was about the effects of the direction of change in the perceived classroom goal structures. We believed that perceiving an increase in classroom mastery goal structure over time would be positively associated with changes in personal mastery goals, self-efficacy, and positive affect, whereas the opposite pattern would emerge among students who perceived a decrease in the classroom mastery goal structure. Research has generally failed to find a relationship between personal mastery goals and academic achievement (Harackiewicz et al., 1997), so we did not hypothesize any association between changes in the perceived classroom mastery goal structure and GPA. Of particular interest in this study is whether the effects of moving into classrooms that are perceived to be less mastery oriented has a stronger negative effect than the positive effects of moving into classrooms perceived to have a stronger mastery goal structure. Ames (1990) found that increasing the classroom mastery goal structure tended to offset the general patterns of decline over time in intrinsic motivation, self-concept of ability, attitudes toward

528

T. Urdan, C. Midgley / Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003) 524–551

reading and math, and cognitive strategy use, but she did not examine changes in motivation and performance associated with perceived decreases in the mastery goal structure. We did not have specific hypotheses regarding the different effects of perceived increases and decreases in the mastery goal structure but did examine these differences. Our direction-of-change hypothesis for performance goal structure was that a perceived increase in the performance goal structure would be associated with increases in personal performance goals but weakly or unrelated to the other dependent variables in the study. Our third hypothesis was that the pattern of changes associated with changes in the perceived classroom goal structures would be similar across the transition to middle school (5th to 6th grade) and within the first two years of middle school (6th to 7th grade), but would be stronger across the transition. This hypothesis is based on research that suggests that transition to middle school represents a more profound change in many studentsÕ lives than does the move from one year to the next within middle school.

2. Method 2.1. Design and sample This study is a part of a large-scale longitudinal study following students from the last year of elementary school (1994) to the first year of high school (1999).1 The goal of the study is to understand the relation between the learning environment and the development of early adolescent academic and emotional well-being. Four ethnically and economically diverse school districts in southeastern Michigan participated in the study (Melvindale/North Allen Park, Ypsilanti, Saginaw, and Southfield). Two of the districts had a higher percentage of African-American (65% and 75%) than Caucasian students and the other two districts had a higher percentage of Caucasian students (95% and 62%). One of the three districts had a disproportionate percentage of girls participating in the study (61%). In each district, students moved from elementary to middle school after grade 5. With the help of school district officials, we identified a representative sample of 5th grade classrooms from the pool of elementary schools. We invited all of the students and teachers in those classrooms to participate. Students were in 39 fifth grade classrooms in 21 elementary schools

1

The sample for this study is drawn from the same sample that was reported in studies by Anderman (1999), Anderman and Anderman (1999), and Kaplan and Midgley (1999). Although these previously published studies examined changes in the perceived classroom goal structures over time, the present study differed from the previously published studies in three important ways. First, the present study examined how changes in the perceived classroom goal structures were associated with changes in studentsÕ motivation, affect, and achievement. Second, the present study followed students across three waves and two years (i.e., across the transition to middle school and then from 6th to 7th grade during middle school). Third, the present study did not assume linear associations between changes in the perceived classroom goal structures and outcomes.

T. Urdan, C. Midgley / Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003) 524–551

529

the first year and moved to 10 middle schools the second year. Written permission from parents was required and 83% of the students were given permission. We collected data from 555 students who made the transition from 5th grade in elementary school to 6th grade in middle school. Of that total, 274 were African-American, 281 were European-American. Girls comprised 50% of this sample. We were also able to collect data regarding who qualified for free or reduced-fee lunch from three of the four participating school districts (one district declined to provide access to that information). Forty-six percent (N ¼ 209) of the students for whom these data were available qualified for free or reduced-fee lunch. The participating school districts differed significantly in the percentage of their participating students who qualified for free or reduced-fee lunch (X 2 ¼ 60:13, p < :001) with the percentage of students who qualified for free or reduced-fee lunches ranging from 33% to 77%. We also collected data from 390 students (of the original sample of 555) when they moved from 6th to 7th grade in middle school. Of that total, 222 were African-American, 168 were European-American, 51% were girls, and 45% qualified for free or reducedfee lunch. After the second year of the project, one of the participating districts (the one for whom free/reduced-fee lunch data were not available) dropped out of the study.2 That, along with normal attrition, caused the drop from 555 students in the 5th to 6th grade portion of the study to 390 participants in the 6th to 7th grade shift. 2.2. Procedure and measures The data for this study were collected in the Spring semester of three consecutive years when participants were in the 5th, 6th, and then 7th grades. By this time of the year (i.e., March, April) students were in the classrooms for most of the year and had ample opportunity to develop perceptions of the classroom goal structures. Trained research assistants administered surveys to students in schools during 40-min sessions. Administrators instructed students in the use of anchored scales, urged them to ask questions about any items they found unclear, and assured them that their responses would be kept confidential. All items were read out loud. All items used a Likert-type scale ranging from (1) not at all true to (5) very true. Scales, items, and the Cronbach a for each year are included in Appendix A. In the part of the study following students from 5th to 6th grade, the items were not specific to a subject domain. Rather, items were phrased at the general level (e.g., ‘‘I like school work that IÕll learn from, even if I make a lot of mistakes’’). Items were phrased at the general level in the 5th grade because these elementary school

2

The school district that dropped out of the study had the smallest number of participants (N ¼ 89). Compared with the other three participating districts, this district had a disproportionate percentage of Caucasian participants (96%) and an equal proportion of girls participating in the study (50%). The ANCOVA analyses reported in Tables 1 and 2 were conducted twice, once with the participants from the district that later withdrew from the study and once without. The results were essentially identical, so for increased statistical power we decided to include these participants in the 5th to 6th grade transition portion of the study.

530

T. Urdan, C. Midgley / Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003) 524–551

classrooms were self-contained, with students receiving all of their instruction in the core academic areas from the same teacher. Perceptions of the classroom goal structure in such classrooms are likely to be general rather than domain specific. When students moved into the middle school at 6th grade, however, they had different instructors for different academic subjects. We wanted to be able to compare studentsÕ perceptions of the classroom goal structures in both 5th and 6th grades, so we phrased the items at the general level in both grade levels. However, we also wanted to be able to track studentsÕ goals and perceptions of classroom goal structures during the middle school years when they would receive instruction from different teachers for different academic domains. Therefore, in the 6th to 7th grade portion of the study, most of the items were specific to the math domain (e.g., ‘‘I like math work that IÕll learn from, even if I make a lot of mistakes’’). When in the 6th grade, participants responded to items about goals, self-efficacy, and classroom goal structures that were phrased at both the general and domain-specific level. The exception to this is that the positive and negative affect items were phrased at the general level in both parts of the study. The scales assessing studentsÕ perceptions of the goal structure in the classroom were included in both parts of the study, and are from the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS) (Anderman & Midgley, 2002; Midgley et al., 1997). The scale assessing the mastery goal structure refers to studentsÕ perceptions that the classroom teacher emphasizes understanding new ideas, developing new skills, learning from errors, and experiencing enjoyment. Items include ‘‘Our (math) teacher thinks mistakes are okay as long as we are learning’’ and ‘‘Our (math) teacher wants us to understand our work, not just memorize it.’’ The scale assessing the performance goal structure refers to studentsÕ perceptions that the classroom teacher emphasizes engaging in academic work to demonstrate ability and performing better than others, or not worse than others. Items include ‘‘Our (math) teacher tells us how we compare to other students’’ and ‘‘Our (math) teacher points out those students who get good grades as an example to all of us.’’ Both parts of the study included scales assessing personal achievement goals (mastery and performance) and academic self-efficacy. The 6th to 7th grade study included, as well, a scale assessing performance-avoidance goals.3 These personal goals and self-efficacy scales are from PALS and have been used in a number of studies, demonstrating good reliability and validity (Midgley et al., 1998). Internal reliability analyses for each of these scales, as well as the classroom goal structure scales, were conducted for each wave and these CronbachÕs as are reported in Appendix A. All of the as were acceptable (> :70). In addition, reliability estimates over time were calculated for the personal and classroom goal scales. These analyses revealed moderate stability for the classroom goal structure scales (rÕs ranging from .29 to .38). The stability coefficients for personal goal orientations were somewhat higher (rÕs between .40 to .51). Classroom goal orientations were expected to be

3 The performance-avoidance scale was developed after the students had moved from elementary to middle school (see Middleton & Midgley, 1997 for a description of the development of this scale).

T. Urdan, C. Midgley / Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003) 524–551

531

somewhat less stable because they represent perceptions of the environment, and the environment changed each year as students changed classrooms. Personal goal orientations, in contrast, are comprised both of more stable individual orientations and perceptions of environmental messages, and should therefore be somewhat more stable than perceived classroom goal structures. The personal mastery goal scale assesses studentsÕ orientation to learning, understanding, improvement, and work that is interesting. Items include ‘‘An important reason I do my (math) work is because I like to learn new things’’ and ‘‘I like (math/ school) work that IÕll learn from, even if I make a lot of mistakes.’’ The personal performance-approach goal scale assesses studentsÕ orientation to demonstrating their ability and includes items such as ‘‘I want to do better than other students in my (math) class’’ and ‘‘ItÕs important to me that the other students in my (math) class think I am good at my work.’’ The personal performance-avoidance goal scale (not included in the 5th to 6th grade transition study) assesses studentsÕ orientation to hiding lack of ability in math and includes items such as ‘‘One of my main goals is to avoid looking like I cannot do my math work’’ and ‘‘ItÕs very important to me that I donÕt look stupid in my math class.’’ (See Middleton & Midgley, 1997 for a description of the development of the personal performance-avoidance scale). The academic efficacy scale includes items such as ‘‘IÕm certain I can master the skills taught in school (math) this year’’ and ‘‘Even if the work in school (math) is hard, I can learn it.’’ Both studies also included scales assessing positive and negative affect at school. These scales were developed by Wolters, Garcia, and Pintrich (1992). Wolters and his colleagues reported that these scales demonstrated strong reliability and validity in studies with elementary and middle school students. The positive affect at school scale assesses studentsÕ feelings of enjoyment, enthusiasm, and happiness while at school and includes items such as ‘‘I like being in school’’ and ‘‘I enjoy school.’’ The negative affect at school scale assesses studentsÕ feelings of frustration, anger, and loneliness at school and includes items such as ‘‘I often feel frustrated when I am doing school work’’ and ‘‘I often donÕt feel good about myself when I am in school.’’ StudentsÕ grades were obtained from their school records at the end of each school year. A general grade point average was computed for the 5th to 6th grade study by calculating the average of grades in each of the core academic subjects (language arts, math, science, social studies) for each student. A math grade was recorded at the end of 6th grade and the end of 7th grade for each student as well. Grades ranged from 1 (E) to 13 (A+). StudentsÕ race and gender were also determined from school records.

3. Results The overarching research question in this study was whether changes in studentsÕ perceptions of the classroom goal structures were related to changes in their motivation, affect, and achievement. The first step in examining this question involved creating three groups for each of the two classroom goal structure variables (i.e., mastery and performance goal structures). To create the three groups, we first standardized studentsÕ mastery and performance goal structure scores for both 5th and

532

T. Urdan, C. Midgley / Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003) 524–551

6th grade. Next, we subtracted studentsÕ scores on the 5th grade goal structure scales from their scores on the 6th grade goal structure scales. For example, if a student had a standardized score of 1.0 on the mastery goal structure scale in 6th grade and a score of .3 on the mastery goal structure scale in the 5th grade, the mastery goal structure change score was +.7. The same procedure was used for creating performance goal structure change scores. Next, the distribution of change scores for each of the goal structure variables was divided into three groups: (1) increase in perceived goal structure from 5th to 6th grade; (2) no change4 in perceived goal structure; and (3) decrease in perceived goal structure. We created these three-group variables rather than using a continuous change variable for two reasons. First, we were specifically interested in examining three distinct groups of students: increase in perceived goal structure, no change, and decrease groups. Second, we did not assume that differences between these three groups would be linear, an assumption made by standard regression techniques. The groups were created using .67 standard deviations as the cut-off such that those students in the ‘‘increased’’ groups scored at least two-thirds of a standard deviation above the mean change score, those in the ‘‘decreased’’ groups scored at least two-thirds of a standard deviation below the average change score, and those in the ‘‘no change’’ groups were within .67 standard deviations above or below the mean change score. Two-thirds of a standard deviation above and below the mean were selected as the cut-off points because we wanted to create groups that were substantially different from each other in their degree of change in perceived classroom goal structures yet maintain a large enough number of participants in each group to allow for valid comparisons across groups. For the change in mastery goal structure variable, the resulting groups included 123 students in the ‘‘decreased’’ group, 283 in the ‘‘no change’’ group, and 146 in the ‘‘increased’’ group. The sample sizes for the change in performance goal structure groups were 148, 280, and 127 for the decreased, no change, and increased groups, respectively. The difference in the total sample size for the analyses involving the change in mastery goal structure (N ¼ 552) and the analyses involving the change in performance goal structure (N ¼ 555) is due to missing data for three cases on the mastery goal structure variable. The same procedure was used to create mastery and performance goal structure change groups from grade 6 to grade 7, resulting in sample sizes for the mastery-decrease, mastery-no change, and mastery-increase groups of 109, 182, and 99 cases, respectively.5 The performance-decrease, performance-no change, and perfor4 Although all but one of the analyses of the simple effects for the no-change group produced a significant difference between 5th and 6th graders, it should be noted that the actual differences in the means on most variables is quite small, and the significance of the simple effect is due in part to the relatively large sample size of the no-change group. 5 Note that these goal structure change groups created from the 6th and 7th grade data are new groups. That is, we did not keep the groups created in 5th to 6th grade portion of the study intact and follow them for another year. Rather, we created new groups. These new groups undoubtedly contained some of the same members of the previous groups, but there was considerable movement between groups over time, such that some of the students in the mastery-decrease group in 6th grade became members of the mastery no-change or mastery-increase groups by the 7th grade, for example.

T. Urdan, C. Midgley / Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003) 524–551

533

mance-increase groups included 96, 188, and 106 cases, respectively. Changes from 6th to 7th grade were examined to determine whether the patterns of change that emerged across the transition to middle school (i.e., from 5th to 6th grade) held within the middle school years. In addition, this second study allowed us to examine whether changes measured at the general level were consistent with those examined specifically within the domain of mathematics. To determine whether there were gender or race differences in the composition of the goal structure change groups, v2 analyses were conducted. These analyses revealed a significant difference between boys and girls in their membership in the mastery goal structure change groups from 5th to 6th grade, with boys being slightly over-represented in the mastery-decrease group and girls being slightly under-represented in this group (v2 ¼ 8:34, p < :05). There was also a significant difference between African-American and European-American studentsÕ membership in the three performance goal structure change groups (v2 ¼ 6:37, p < :05). African-American students were slightly over-represented in the performance-decrease group whereas European-Americans were under-represented in this group. The opposite pattern emerged for the performance-increase group. v2 analyses revealed no race or gender differences in group membership for either the mastery or performance goal structure change groups for the 6th to 7th grade analyses. 3.1. Examining the interaction between goal structure groups and time Our first hypothesis was that changes in the perceived classroom mastery goal structure were more strongly associated with changes in studentsÕ motivation, affect, and achievement than were changes in the perceived classroom performance goal structure. To determine whether changes in studentsÕ motivation, affect, and performance from 5th to 6th grade differed according to their membership in each of the goal structure change groups, a series of repeated-measures ANCOVAs were conducted. Goal structure groups (3) was the independent, between-groups factor and time (2) was the within-groups, repeated-measures component. For all of the analyses except the one with 6th grade GPA as the dependent variable, 6th grade GPA was included as a covariate to control for achievement differences. Gender and ethnicity were also included as covariates to control for any differences on the dependent measures by gender or ethnicity. (All possible covariate by independent variable interactions were tested and no significant interactions were found.) The presence of a significant goal structure group
time interaction indicated that the changes observed on a dependent variable from 5th grade to 6th grade differed depending on studentsÕ membership in the three goal structure groups. Tables 1 and 2 contain the adjusted means and standard deviations for each of the three goal structure change groups on each of the dependent variables in both 5th and 6th grade, for the mastery goal structure change groups and performance goal structure change groups, respectively. The F ratios for the groups
time interactions are also presented. Note that the means and standard deviations for the goal structure variables (used to create the three independent groups) are also presented in the tables to demonstrate the amount and direction of changes in studentsÕ perceptions

534

T. Urdan, C. Midgley / Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003) 524–551

Table 1 Repeated measures ANCOVAs: adjusted means and standard deviations on motivational and achievement variables by changes in classroom mastery goal structure, 5th grade to 6th gradeA Dependent variables

Mastery goal structureD 5th Grade 6th Grade Individual mastery goals 5th Grade 6th Grade Self-efficacyD 5th Grade 6th Grade Positive affect in school 5th Grade 6th Grade Negative affect in school 5th Grade 6th Grade Grade point average 5th Grade 6th Grade

Mastery decrease N ¼ 123

Mastery no changeC N ¼ 283

Mastery increase N ¼ 146

4.51B (.50) 2.90a (.73)

4.21B (.70) 3.91b (.78)

3.24B (.85) 4.20c (.68)

3.77B (.84) 2.93a (.99)

3.72B (.96) 3.40b (1.02)

3.44 (.93) 3.50b (.97)

4.27B (.64) 3.88a (.87)

4.18B (.68) 4.07b (.77)

4.12 (.63) 4.20b (.62)

3.15B (1.08) 2.67a (1.04)

3.31B (.93) 3.11b (1.06)

3.00B (1.06) 3.21b (1.05)

2.00B (.82) 2.40a (.94)

2.13 (.82) 2.08b (.80)

2.12 (.79) 2.11b (.80)

8.13B (2.40) 6.89a (3.02)

8.31B (2.38) 7.54b (2.80)

8.35 (2.34) 8.02b (2.68)

F Interaction: mastery change groups by time N ¼ 552 978.54 (g2 ¼ :77)

31.39 (g2 ¼ :11)

13.38 (g2 ¼ :05)

13.26 (g2 ¼ :05)

10.37 (g2 ¼ :03)

5.55 (g2 ¼ :02)

The reported F values came from repeated measures ANCOVAs using the 3-level goal-structurechange variable as the independent variables and gender, ethnicity, and GPA at the end of 6th grade as the covariate. The F value is for the interaction of time by structure groups. Superscripts a, b, and c indicate significant differences between group means on variables measured in 6th grade using univariate post-hoc tests.  p < :05,  p < :01,  p < :001. A Means are adjusted for significant covariates (6th grade GPA, gender, ethnicity). Standard deviations in parentheses. B Indicates within-group, within-cell differences at p < :05. C Although this group is called the ‘‘no change’’ group, there was a significant change from 5th to 6th grade in mastery goal structure. However, this change was small relative to the amount of change in the other two change groups and does not exceed the amount of change observed for the entire 5th and 6th grade sample. D Indicates that the homogeneity of variance assumption has been violated, according to the Box M test. Using adjusted degrees of freedom to account for this violation, the F value is still significant.

T. Urdan, C. Midgley / Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003) 524–551

535

Table 2 Repeated measures ANCOVAs: adjusted means and standard deviations on motivational and achievement variables by changes in classroom performance goal structure, 5th grade to 6 gradeA Dependent variables

Performance decrease

Performance no changeC

Performance increase

N ¼ 148

N ¼ 280

N ¼ 127

3.49B (.79) 2.13a (.63)

2.80 (.89) 2.80b (.82)

2.25B (.80) 3.44c (.74)

2.73 (1.05) 2.44a (1.09)

2.73 (1.13) 2.81b (1.03)

2.54B (.93) 2.91b (1.06)

4.15 (.71) 4.07 (.77)

4.20B (.65) 4.04 (.78)

4.18 (.64) 4.13 (.74)

3.25 (.99) 3.23a (1.08)

3.22B (1.02) 3.03ab (1.05)

3.08 (1.03) 2.88b (1.12)

2.20 (.82) 2.05a (.83)

2.06 (.79) 2.14a (.83)

2.08B (.87) 2.33b (.91)

8.52B (2.51) 7.96a (2.66)

8.30B (2.29) 7.52ab (2.91)

8.02B (2.33) 7.10b (2.84)

967.95

D

Performance goal structure 5th Grade 6th Grade

Individual performance goalsD 5th Grade 6th Grade Self-efficacy 5th Grade 6th Grade Positive affect in school 5th Grade 6th Grade Negative affect in school 5th Grade 6th Grade GPA 5th Grade 6th Grade

F-Interaction: Performance change groups
time N ¼ 555

(g2 ¼ :78)

11.00 (g2 ¼ :05)

ns

ns

6.44 (g2 ¼ :02)

ns

The reported F values came from repeated measures ANCOVAs using the 3-level goal-structurechange variable as the independent variables and gender, ethnicity, and GPA at the end of 6th grade as the covariate. The F value is for the interaction of time by structure groups. Superscripts a, b, and c indicate significant differences between group means on variables measured in 6th grade using univariate post-hoc tests.  p < :05,  p < :01,  p < :001. A Means are adjusted for significant covariates (6th grade GPA, gender, ethnicity). Standard deviations in parentheses. B Indicates within-group, within-cell differences at p < :05.

536

T. Urdan, C. Midgley / Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003) 524–551

Table 2 (continued) C Although this group is called the ‘‘no change’’ group, there was a significant change from 5th to 6th grade in mastery goal structure. However, this change was small relative to the amount of change in the other two change groups and does not exceed the amount of change observed for the entire 5th and 6th grade sample. D Indicates that the homogeneity of variance assumption has been violated, according to the Box M test. Using adjusted degrees of freedom to account for this violation, the F value is still significant.

of the classroom goal structures from one year to the next. As the results in these two tables indicate, the association between changes in the perceived classroom goal structure and changes in motivation, affect, and achievement were stronger and more consistent in those analyses involving the classroom mastery goal structure than the classroom performance goal structure. All of the F values in Table 1 were significant, and most were quite large, compared with generally smaller F values, including three non-significant interactions for the analyses involving self-efficacy, positive affect in school, and GPA, in Table 2. 3.2. Direction of changes in goal structures Our second research question involved the importance of the direction of changes in the perceived classroom goal structure. We wanted to determine whether perceived declines in the classroom goal structures were more or less strongly associated with changes in motivation, affect, and achievement than were increases in the perceived goal structures over time. First, examining the results for the 5th to 6th grade transition summarized in Table 1, it appears that the most negative pattern of changes in motivation, affect, and achievement was associated with a perceived decline in the classroom mastery goal structure. Specifically, individual mastery goals, self-efficacy, positive affect, and GPA were all significantly lower, and negative affect was higher, in 6th grade than in 5th grade within the group that perceived a decline in the classroom mastery goal structure from 5th to 6th grade. In both the no-change and the perceived increase groups in Table 1, there were fewer significant differences between the 5th and 6th grade means, and the differences between the adjusted means were smaller in these groups than in the mastery-decrease group. The tests of simple effects within the cells in Table 1 and the post-hoc analyses of 6th grade means both revealed that the most negative pattern of change in the motivation, affect, and achievement variables occurred among the students in the mastery-decrease group. It is worth noting, however, that an analysis of the main effects for time revealed a significant decline in self-efficacy (F ¼ 8:56, p < :01, g2 ¼ :02), personalmastery goals (F ¼ 17:93, p < :001, g2 ¼ :03), positive affect (F ¼ 7:21, p < :01, g2 ¼ :02), and GPA (F ¼ 51:15, p < :001, g2 ¼ :09) from 5th to 6th grade. As the lack of significant differences between the means of students in the mastery-increase group from 5th to 6th grade reveals, these general declines were not evident among students who perceived an increase in the classroom mastery goal structure from one year to the next. For positive affect, the negative trend was actually significantly reversed among students in the mastery-increase group. For the two

T. Urdan, C. Midgley / Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003) 524–551

537

significant performance goal structure change groups by time interactions, the largest differences over time were found in the performance goal structure increase group. Both personal performance goals and feelings of negative affect in school increased significantly from 5th to 6th grade in the performance goal structure increase group. 3.3. Comparing results across transition with changes during first two years of middle school Our third hypothesis was that although the pattern of changes in motivation, affect, and achievement associated with changes in the perceived classroom goal structures would be similar both across the transition to middle school and during the first two years of middle school, the magnitude of the effects of changes in perceived classroom goal structures would be stronger across the transition. To see if the pattern of stronger changes associated with the perceived classroom mastery goal structure that was found across the transition to elementary school, with variables measured at the general level, also emerged during the middle school years and with variables measured at the domain specific level (math), with the exception of the affect variables which were still measured at the general level, the same set of analyses were conducted as students moved from 6th to 7th grade. These results are presented in Tables 3 and 4 for changes in the classroom mastery and performance goal structures, respectively. As with the analysis involving the 5th to 6th grade transition, the effects involving changes in the perceived mastery goal structure were generally stronger than those involving changes in the performance goal structure from 6th to 7th grade. Specifically, we found significant goal structure change group
time interactions on all of the dependent variables except for one (negative affect) for the mastery goal structure change groups (Table 3) but had three nonsignificant and three significant interactions for the analyses involving performance goal structure change groups (Table 4). In this set of analyses, we were also able to distinguish between the approach and avoidance aspects of personal performance goals. As the results in Table 4 reveal, changes in the perceived classroom performance goal structure were associated with changes in personal performance-avoidance goals from 6th to 7th grade, but, unlike the results found in the 5th to 6th grade portion of the study, were unrelated to changes in personal performance-approach goals. Overall, it appears that the magnitude of the effects associated with changes in perceived classroom goal structures were quite similar both across the transition and during the first two years of middle school. At both times, there were more effects associated with changes in the classroom mastery goal structure than with changes in the performance goal structure. Regarding the comparability of results involving the direction of changes in classroom goal structures for the two time periods examined in this study, the pattern of results involving the mastery goal structure change groups across the transition was partially replicated in the study that looked at change from 6th to 7th grade (see Table 3), but there were some notable exceptions. First, personal mastery goal

538

T. Urdan, C. Midgley / Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003) 524–551

Table 3 Repeated measures ANCOVAs: adjusted means and standard deviations on motivational and achievement variables by changes in classroom mastery goal structure, 6th grade to 7th gradeA Dependent variables

Mastery decrease

Mastery no changeC

Mastery increase

N ¼ 109

N ¼ 182

N ¼ 99

678.29

D

Mastery goal structure, math 6th Grade 7th Grade

Individual mastery goals, mathD 6th Grade 7th Grade Self-efficacy, math 6th Grade 7th Grade Positive affect in school 6th Grade 7th Grade Negative affect in school 6th Grade 7th Grade Mathematics grade 6th Grade 7th Grade

F-Interaction: mastery change groups by time N ¼ 390

B

B

B

4.19 (.75) 2.60a (.85)

3.80 (.89) 3.63b (.92)

2.83 (.84) 4.09c (.76)

3.42B (.97) 3.02a (1.05)

3.34 (1.11) 3.40b (1.10)

2.96B (1.09) 3.45b (1.07)

4.28B (.85) 3.92 (.92)

4.16B (.81) 3.96 (.87)

3.91 (.89) 4.10 (.81)

3.15B (1.06) 2.93 (1.17)

3.19 (1.06) 3.19 (1.05)

2.86B (1.09) 3.25 (1.12)

2.13 (.85) 2.09 (.78)

2.14 (.85) 2.06 (.68)

2.06 (.82) 1.97 (.67)

7.06B (3.30) 5.74a (3.58)

7.62B (3.23) 6.57b (3.48)

7.39 (3.10) 7.09b (3.24)

(g2 ¼ :78)

19.09 (g2 ¼ :10)

10.08 (g2 ¼ :05)

7.41 (g2 ¼ :04)

ns

3.29 (g2 ¼ :01)

The reported F values came from repeated measures ANCOVAs using the 3-level goal-structurechange variable as the independent variables and gender, ethnicity, and math grade at the end of 7th grade as the covariates. The F value is for the interaction of time by structure groups. Superscripts a, b, and c indicate significant differences between group means on variables measured in 6th grade using univariate post-hoc tests. A Means are adjusted for significant covariates (7th grade math grade, gender, ethnicity). B Indicates within-group, within-cell differences at p < :05. C Although this group is called the ‘‘no change’’ group, there was a significant change from 5th to 6th grade in mastery goal structure. However, this change was small relative to the amount of change in the other two change groups and does not exceed the amount of change observed for the entire 5th and 6th grade sample.

T. Urdan, C. Midgley / Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003) 524–551

539

Table 3 (continued) D Indicates that the homogeneity of variance assumption has been violated, according to the Box M test. Using adjusted degrees of freedom to account for this violation, the F value is still significant. * p < :05. ** p < :01. *** p < :001.

orientation increased significantly from 6th to 7th grade among those students who perceived an increase in the classroom mastery goal structure, but decreased significantly for those students who perceived a decrease in the mastery goal structure over time. A similar pattern emerged for the analysis involving positive affect as the dependent variable. In addition, the significant increase in negative affect found among the mastery decrease group when they transitioned from 5th to 6th grade was no longer present when students moved from 6th to 7th grade. A comparison of the differences found across the transition to middle school (5th to 6th grade) with those found during middle school (6th to 7th grade) among the performance goal structure change groups reveals similar directions of change for self-efficacy, negative affect, and GPA. However, there were also some interesting differences over time, most notably for the personal performance goals. When assessed at the general level and without separating the approach and avoidance components of personal performance goals, students who perceived an increase in the performance goal structure reported endorsing personal performance goals significantly more, whereas students in the no change and performance goal structure decrease groups did not change significantly in their performance goal orientation from 5th to 6th grade (Table 2). But when moving from 6th to 7th grade, there were no significant increases in personal performance-approach or personal performance-avoidance goals regardless of perceived changes in the classroom performance goal structure. In fact, within-group comparisons revealed that students significantly decreased in both types of personal performance goals from 6th to 7th grade in all groups except for the performance goal structure increase group, in which there were no changes in personal performance goals over time.

4. Discussion Taken together, these results suggest that both across the transition from elementary to middle school and within the middle school years, whether the variables are measured at the general or domain specific level, those students who perceive a decrease in the emphasis on mastery goals in their classrooms from one year to the next also experience decreases in their scores on a variety of adaptive motivational and achievement variables. Those students who perceive an increase in the classroom mastery goal structure seem able to avoid the general decline in motivation, affect, and achievement many early adolescent students experience, and in some cases actually had higher personal mastery goal orientation and positive affect in school as they moved from 6th to 7th grade.

540

T. Urdan, C. Midgley / Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003) 524–551

Table 4 Repeated measures ANCOVAs: adjusted means and standard deviations on motivational and achievement variables by changes in classroom performance goal structure, 6th grade to 7th gradeA Dependent variables

Performance goal structure, mathD 6th Grade 7th Grade Individual performance goals, approach, math 6th Grade 7th Grade Individual performance goals, avoid, math 6th Grade 7th Grade Self-efficacy, math 6th Grade 7th Grade Positive affect in school 6th Grade 7th Grade Negative affect in school 6th Grade 7th Grade Mathematics grade

Performance decrease

Performance no change

Performance increase

N ¼ 96

N ¼ 188C

N ¼ 106

F Interaction: performance change groups
time N ¼ 390 768.92

3.54B (.79) 1.95a (.59)

2.70B (.87) 2.42b (.83)

2.24B (.76) 3.28c (.83)

(g2 ¼ :80)

ns 2.94B (1.19) 2.55 (1.11)

2.70B (1.12) 2.44 (1.01)

2.78 (1.16) 2.66 (1.10) 6.64

2.58B (1.12) 1.91 (.81)

2.33B (1.02) 2.01 (.87)

2.31 (.94) 2.11 (.90)

4.16 (.89) 4.03 (.86)

4.06B (.86) 3.87 (.90)

4.20 (.80) 4.08 (.85)

3.00 (1.20) 3.23 (1.17)

3.09 (1.04) 3.19 (1.10)

3.19 (1.03) 2.94 (1.06)

2.21 (.89) 2.02 (.72)

2.13 (.84) 2.01 (.71)

2.03 (.82) 2.14 (.76)

7.39B (3.25) 6.59 (3.27)

7.63B (3.33) 6.58 (3.51)

6.93B (2.97) 6.08 (3.60)

(g2 ¼ :05)

ns

4.37 (g2 ¼ :02)

4.74

ns

The reported F values came from repeated measures ANCOVAs using the 3-level goal-structurechange variable as the independent variables and gender, ethnicity, and math grade at the end of 7th grade as the covariates. The F value is for the interaction of time by structure groups. Superscripts a, b, and c indicate significant differences between group means on variables measured in 6th grade using univariate post-hoc tests.

T. Urdan, C. Midgley / Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003) 524–551

541

Table 4 (continued) A

Means are adjusted for significant covariates (7th grade math grade, gender, ethnicity). Indicates within-group, within-cell differences at p < :05. C Although this group is called the ‘‘no change’’ group, there was a significant change from 5th to 6th grade in mastery goal structure. However, this change was small relative to the amount of change in the other two change groups and does not exceed the amount of change observed for the entire 5th and 6th grade sample. D Indicates that the homogeneity of variance assumption has been violated, according to the Box M test. Using adjusted degrees of freedom to account for this violation, the F value is still significant. * p < :05. ** p < :01. *** p < :001. B

Previous research examining the motivation, cognitions, and behavior of early adolescent students before and after the transition to middle level schools has established a number of important points. First, students often experience a decline in motivation and academic performance after the transition to middle level schools (Eccles & Midgley, 1989). Second, the middle school environment is perceived by both teachers and students as less mastery goal oriented than the elementary school environment (Anderman & Anderman, 1999) and sometimes more performance goal oriented (Midgley et al., 1995). Combined with research conducted both in the laboratory and in classrooms that demonstrates a relationship between environmental goal structures and student motivation, cognition, and behavior, this research suggests that when students make the transition to middle level schools, they are likely to move into classrooms that emphasize performance goals more and mastery goals less, and are likely to experience corresponding shifts in their motivation and behavior in school. Despite these general trends, there is little doubt that some students perceive little difference in the goal structures of their classrooms before and after the transition, and that some other students may actually perceive the opposite trend: an increase in emphasis on mastery goals or a decrease in emphasis on performance goals in their middle school classrooms. Recent studies of mastery and performance goal structures have contributed to our understanding of what occurs within classrooms, but much remains unknown about the effects of moving from one classroom goal structure to another. Thus, while it has been well documented that goal structures of classrooms change across the transition from elementary to middle school, it remains unclear what effects these differences might have on students. In this study we have begun to unravel some of the associations between these changes in perceived goal structures and studentsÕ academic-related behaviors, cognitions and affect. Furthermore, although patterns of decreasing motivation across the transition have been documented in a number of studies (see Eccles & Midgley, 1989, for a review), the present study indicates that students do not necessarily perceive a less adaptive classroom goal structure (i.e., more performance focused and less mastery focused) or espouse a less adaptive personal goal orientation after the transition. In contrast to the general trend, a significant proportion of students actually perceived a greater emphasis on mastery goals in their middle

542

T. Urdan, C. Midgley / Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003) 524–551

school classrooms and an increase in their own personal mastery goal orientation. Similarly, many students perceived their middle school classrooms as having a weaker performance goal structure than their elementary classrooms and were less likely to adopt personal performance goals. The majority of students reported relatively small differences in the perceived goal structures of their classrooms before and after the transition to middle school. 4.1. The strength and direction of effects associated with changes in goal structures Because research examining both personal achievement goals and perceived classroom goal structures has generally demonstrated more consistent and stronger effects of mastery goals than performance goals (e.g., Ames, 1992; Urdan, 1997a, 1997b), our first hypothesis was that changes in the perceived mastery goal structure would be more consistently and strongly related to changes in studentsÕ motivational, behavioral, and affective outcomes than would perceived changes in the classroom performance goal structure. This hypothesis was supported. Consistent with previous research, our results indicated that as students moved from 5th to 6th grade, they perceived their classrooms to be less mastery goal oriented, endorsed personal mastery goals less strongly, had less positive affect, had lower academic self-efficacy, and lower GPAs. For each of these variables, the changes across the transition were associated with changes in studentsÕ perceptions of the mastery goal structure of their classrooms. For the most part, students who reported a decline in the mastery goal structure of their classrooms across the transition also reported the steepest decline in adaptive outcomes (i.e., self-efficacy, personal mastery goals, positive affect, GPA) and the steepest increase in negative affect. Similar to the results reported by Ames (1990), we found that among those students reporting an increase in the mastery goal structure of their classrooms after the transition, the general negative pattern of change in motivation, affect, and achievement was either not evident or, on some variables, reversed. These results suggest that whereas a perceived increase in the mastery goal structure from one year to the next has benefits, the costs associated with a perceived decrease in the mastery goal structure are even stronger. Although our second hypothesis was that a perceived increase in the mastery goal structure would be associated with increases in motivation, affect, and performance, it appears that the strongest results were associated with a perceived decrease in the classroom mastery goal structure. Perhaps mastery goal messages in the classroom are more salient to students when they are first perceived to be removed than when they are perceived to be added. In other words, students may not notice the presence of mastery goal messages in the classroom as much as they notice their absence. This may be particularly true when students move from what has been described as the more nurturing environment of the elementary school classroom to the more impersonal middle school classroom environment (Eccles & Midgley, 1989). The associations between perceived changes in the performance goal structure across the transition and the motivational, affective, and behavioral outcomes examined in this study were generally fewer with significant time by performance structure change interactions found only for negative affect and personal performance goals.

T. Urdan, C. Midgley / Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003) 524–551

543

As hypothesized, for both of these results we found the largest effects in the performance-increase group, although the differences in the means on these variables within the performance-increase group were fairly closely mirrored by the opposite pattern within the performance-decrease group. We suspect that the generally weaker pattern of results associated with changes in the perceived classroom performance goal structure is attributable to two causes. First, the effects of performance goal messages on studentsÕ motivation, affect, and achievement may be more mixed than the effects of mastery goal messages. Whereas mastery goals, and by extension mastery goal structures, are generally associated with positive or null effects across students, the effects of performance goals and goal structures may differ depending on a variety of student characteristics, including the achievement level of students, their perceived competence, gender, and ethnic or cultural background (Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Midgley, Arunkumar, & Urdan, 1996; Urdan, 1997b). Second, our measure of the classroom performance goal structure did not distinguish between the approach and avoidance components of performance goals. Just as recent research has demonstrated that personal performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals influence motivation and performance in different ways (Harackiewicz et al., 1997; Elliot, 1997; Elliot & Sheldon, 1997; Middleton & Midgley, 1997), so might there be different effects of performance-approach and performance-avoidance goal structures. Although we have tried to develop reliable scales assessing separate classroom performance-approach and performance-avoidance goal structures, we have not yet been successful. Recent observational studies of classroom goal processes (e.g., Patrick, Anderman, Ryan, Edelin, & Midgley, 1999; Urdan, Kneisel, & Mason, 1999) may help us develop such scales. By operationalizing classroom performance goal structure as a unitary construct, the strength of the relationships between this goal structure and motivation, affect, and performance outcomes may have been muted. On the other hand, it may be that the classroom performance goal structure is a unitary construct that is interpreted differently by different students, leading them to adopt either performance-approach or performance-avoidance goals (Urdan, 2003). This possibility needs to be explored in future research. 4.2. Comparing results across the transition with results within the middle school years Our third hypothesis was that the changes in motivation, affect, and achievement associated with changes in the perceived classroom goal structures would be larger across the transition to middle school than they would be during the first two years of middle school. Our results suggest otherwise. For the most part, the relationships between changes in perceived classroom goal structures and changes in the motivational, affective, and achievement outcomes that were found across the transition were replicated within the first two years of middle school and when assessing variables at the domain specific, rather than the general, level. The additional stress of moving to middle level schools does not appear to exacerbate the magnitude of the effects of changes in perceived classroom goal structure on motivation, affect, and achievement. Although previous research has documented that the transition to middle school can be a stressful time in studentsÕ lives (e.g., Simmons & Blyth,

544

T. Urdan, C. Midgley / Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003) 524–551

1987), the effects of these transitional stresses apparently affect motivation, affect, and achievement independently of any effects associated with changes in the perceived classroom goal structures. Although the size of the changes in the motivation, affect, and achievement variables associated with changes in the perceived classroom goal structures were quite similar across the transition and within the first two years of middle school, there were some interesting differences in the direction of the changes and in which change groups the largest differences were found. Whereas the changes in the means were largest among students in the mastery goal structure decrease group on every dependent variable from 5th to 6th grade, the differences within this group from 6th to 7th grade tended to be smaller on two of the variables (personal mastery goals and selfefficacy) and there were actually larger differences in the means among students in the mastery increase group during the two middle school years. It also appears that the pattern of change among the performance goal structure change groups differed somewhat across the two time periods of the study. For example, all three of the performance goal structure change groups reported a decline in their pursuit of personal performance-approach goals from 6th to 7th grade whereas when students made the transition to middle school, the performance goal structure increase group reported an increase in their endorsement of personal performance-approach goals. In addition, the pattern of changes on the positive affect variable among the three performance goal structure change groups was different for the two portions of the study. Whereas all three groups reported a small decline in positive affect across the transition to middle school (thereby producing a non-significant time by performance goal structure change group interaction), during the two years within middle school two of the three change groups reported modest increases in positive affect with only the performance goal structure increase group reporting a decline in positive affect. These shifting patterns of results on some of the dependent variables from the transition to the within-middle-school time periods may be explained by a number of factors. First, although the transition to middle school may not influence the magnitude of the effects of classroom goal structures on motivation, affect, and achievement, it may influence the salience of the presence or absence of mastery goal messages in the classroom. As mentioned earlier, when moving from the smaller and perhaps more comfortable elementary school environment to the middle school environment, students may be particularly aware of decreases in the emphasis on mastery goals in the classroom, creating stronger effects on motivation and affect among those students who perceive a decrease in the mastery goal structure. Once familiar and comfortable with the middle school environment, however, increases in the mastery goal structure become as salient as decreases, and the effects of these two types of change become more even. The shifting patterns of results found among the performance goal structure change groups reveal that the overall general decline in positive affected associated with the transition to middle school, perhaps as a result of the dramatic change in school organization and feel, disappears during the first two years of middle school and perhaps becomes more susceptible to the specific goal emphasis in the classroom. In addition, it appears that although some students

T. Urdan, C. Midgley / Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003) 524–551

545

experience a substantial increase in their endorsement of performance approach goals upon entering middle school as they encounter a new and larger group of students with whom they can engage in social comparison, within the first two years of middle school this competitive focus appears to subside among students regardless of the perceived performance goal structure in their classrooms. The shifting patterns of change over the course of this study may also be partly attributable to differences between variables measured at the general level during the transition portion of the study to the mathematics-specific measures used in the 6th to 7th grade portion of the study. Some research suggests that the emphasis on performance goals and social comparison is particularly strong in middle school math classrooms (Eccles & Midgley, 1989). It tends to be a domain where teachers believe there is a need for tight structure, concepts must be learned sequentially, and where opportunities for social comparison are frequent (Stodolsky & Grossman, 1995). In addition, it is a subject in which students often feel less engaged, efficacious, and interested compared to the domains of social studies and English (Stodolsky, 1988; Wigfield & Eccles, 1994). In such a context, perceived increases in the mastery goal structure over time may be particularly salient for students and have larger effects on their personal mastery goal endorsement and feelings of self-efficacy than would increases in the mastery goal structure in other classes. This interpretation does not explain why students across performance goal structure change groups decreased their endorsement of personal performance-approach goals from 6th to 7th grade. The means presented in Table 4 reveal an overall decrease in studentsÕ perceptions of the classroom performance goal structure from 6th to 7th grades. Although mathematics classrooms tend to have a stronger emphasis than classrooms in other academic subjects on performance goals, the students in this study perceived an overall decrease in the emphasis on performance goals in the classroom during the first two years of middle school within the domain of mathematics. This was coupled with an overall decrease in studentsÕ adoption of personal performance-approach goals during middle school. 4.3. Summary Taken together, the results from this study suggest that (a) studentsÕ perceptions of changes in the mastery goal structure of their classrooms are more strongly related to motivation, cognitions, affect, and performance than are their perceptions of changes in the performance goal structure; (b) the most troubling pattern of change in motivation, affect and achievement appears to be associated with decreases in the perceived mastery goal structure of classrooms across the transition to middle school; and (c) the stronger effects associated with changes in the perceived mastery goal structure are prevalent both during the transition to middle school and during the transition from 6th to 7th grade within middle school. These results both support and extend previous research in a number of ways. First, they corroborate the findings of those who have documented the stronger and more consistent pattern of results associated with mastery goals than with performance goals (Ames & Archer, 1988; Elliot, 1997; Urdan, 1997a). Second, they add to the

546

T. Urdan, C. Midgley / Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003) 524–551

research that has documented general shifts in perceived goal structures over time (e.g., Anderman & Midgley, 1997; Midgley et al., 1995) by noting that there are differences among students in their perceptions of goal structure changes over time. Moreover, they highlight the particularly negative pattern of changes associated with perceived declines in the classroom mastery goal structure over time, and the protective effect of a perceived increase in the mastery goal structure for some outcomes. 4.4. Implications and limitations These results have important implications for those interested in using achievement goal theory to guide educational reform. First, our results suggest that efforts to increase the emphasis on mastery goals in the classroom may bear more fruit than will efforts to decrease the emphasis on performance goals, a point Ames (1990, 1992) has made in the past. AmesÕ (1990) experiment designed to increase the mastery goal structure of elementary classrooms represents an important step in this direction. Moreover, our results suggest that simply guarding against a decrease in the perceived mastery goal structure from one year to the next, rather than actually trying to create an increasingly stronger emphasis on mastery goals in the classroom with each successive year of schooling, may be enough to offset the downward trend of motivation, affect, and achievement in school. Second, our results suggest that reform efforts should not limit their focus to changes at the grade level immediately following the transition to middle school (in this study, the 6th grade). Although efforts to smooth the transition to middle level schools are needed and worthwhile (Midgley & Urdan, 1992), our results suggest that the need to increase studentsÕ perceptions of a mastery goal structure in their classrooms persists in the grade levels beyond the transition year. The implications and interpretations of the results from this study are tempered by a number of factors. One limitation of these studies, as described earlier, may be our inability to distinguish between the approach and avoidance components of a classroom performance goal structure. A second limitation of this study is that it relied on student reports of their motivation, affect, and perceptions of the classroom goal structures. Because of the correlational nature of these data, it is unwise to make causal inferences from these results. For example, studentsÕ perceptions of the changes in the goal structure of their classrooms may have been influenced by changes in their goals, self-efficacy, affect in school, and performance over time rather than vice-versa. In the future, research using experimental and/or qualitative methods should be conducted to further examine the relationship between classroom goal structures, motivation, affect, and performance. Another possible limitation of this study involves the use of change scores. Such scores have often been criticized, primarily because when using change scores there is often a regression-to-the-mean effect (cf. Crano & Brewer, 1973). Although there may have been some regression to the mean in this study (e.g., students who were in very high or very low mastery goal structure classrooms in 5th grade may have shifted to a more moderate perception of the classroom goal structure in 6th grade),

T. Urdan, C. Midgley / Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003) 524–551

547

we do not believe this phenomenon explains the central findings of this study. Recall that our primary research question was whether changes in the perceived mastery and performance classroom goal structures had equally strong associations with changes in motivation, affect, and achievement variables. Regression to the mean effects should be equal across the mastery and performance goal structure change groups, yet the changes in the motivation, affect, and achievement variables were substantially stronger for the analyses involved changes in the mastery goal structure. Similarly, these effects were stronger among the mastery-decline than the mastery-increase groups, although both of these groups should be equally affected by regression to the mean. Therefore, we do not believe that our most important results are merely an artifact of regression to the mean effects. Operationally defining achievement as grades rather than, or in addition to, standardized test scores represents another limitation in this study. As Jussim (1991) and others have noted, teacher-assigned grades often include a consideration of factors other than pure academic performance. These other factors include neatness and promptness of work, teacher preferences for certain students based on personality or behavioral characteristics, and attendance records. Standardized achievement test scores, although subject to their own share of criticism, are generally free of these subjective factors. Unfortunately, standardized achievement test scores were not available for these students at all three grade levels and were therefore not included in this study. Taken together these studies broaden our understanding of changes that students encounter as they move through school and how the differences in classroom environment may play a role in shaping the studentsÕ cognitions, affect, and achievement. The studies described above may begin to shed light on some of the problems students encounter in middle and high school as they move between classes with different goal emphases. It is important for researchers to begin the task of understanding how multiple classroom contexts interact with student characteristics to influence the motivation, affect, and achievement of students.

Acknowledgments Special thanks to the students and teachers who helped us examine and understand these issues.

Appendix A. Survey items and reliability coefficients Mastery goal structure a ¼ :78, .79, .81, (for 5th, 6th, 7th grade respectively) My (math) teacher thinks mistakes are okay as long as we are learning. My (math) teacher wants us to understand our work, not just memorize it. My (math) teacher really wants us to enjoy learning new things. My (math) teacher recognizes us for trying hard. My (math) teacher gives us time to really explore and understand new ideas.

548

T. Urdan, C. Midgley / Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003) 524–551

Performance goal structure a ¼ :73, .73, .73 My (math) teacher points out those students who get good grades as an example to all of us. My (math) teacher lets us know which students get the highest scores on a test. My (math) teacher makes it obvious when certain students are not doing well on their math work. My (math) teacher tells us how we compare to other students. Only a few students do really well in my (math) class. My (math) teacher calls on smart students more than on other students. Personal mastery goal orientation a ¼ :84, .86, .80 I like school (math) work that IÕll learn from, even if I make a lot of mistakes. An important reason I do my school (math) work is because I like to learn new things. I like school (math) work best when it really makes me think. An important reason why I do my work in school (math) is because I want to get better at it. I do my school (math) work because IÕm interested in it. An important reason I do my school (math) work is because I enjoy it. Personal performance-approach goal orientation a ¼ :86, .85, .84 I would feel really good if I were the only one who could answer the teachersÕ questions in (math) class. ItÕs important to me that the other students in my (math) class think I am good at my work. I want to do better than other students in my (math) class. I would feel successful in school (math) if I did better than most of the other students. IÕd like to show my teachers that IÕm smarter than the other students in my (math) class. Doing better than other students in school (math) is important to me. Personal performance-avoidance goal orientation a ¼ :82, .78 (6th and 7th grades only) ItÕs very important to me that I donÕt look stupid in my math class. An important reason I do my math work is so that I wonÕt embarrass myself. The reason I do my math work is so the teacher doesnÕt think I know less than others. The reason I do my math work in this class is so others wonÕt think IÕm dumb.* One reason I might not participate in math class is to avoid looking stupid. One of my main goals in math is to avoid looking like I canÕt do my work. Self efficacy a ¼ :78, .86, .84 IÕm certain I can master the skills taught in school (math) this year. I can do even the hardest work in my (math) classes if I try.

T. Urdan, C. Midgley / Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003) 524–551

549

If I have enough time, I can do a good job on all my (math) classwork. I can do almost all the work in school (math) if I donÕt give up. Even if the (math) work is hard, I can learn it. IÕm certain I can figure out how to do even the most difficult school (math) work. Positive affect a ¼ :82, .83, .88 I like being in school. I often feel excited and enthusiastic at school. I enjoy school. I am happier when I am at school than when I am not at school. Most of the time, being in school puts me in a good mood. Negative affect a ¼ :69, .75, .71 I often feel frustrated when I am doing school work. I am often angry when IÕm at school. I often feel lonely at school. School often makes me feel bad. I feel tense and anxious much of the time IÕm in school. I often donÕt feel good about myself when IÕm in school.

References Ames, C. A. (1990). The relationship of achievement goals to student motivation in classroom settings. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston. Ames, C. A. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271. Ames, C., & Ames, R. (1981). Competitive and individualistic goal structures: The salience of post performance information for causal attributions and affect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 411–418. Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: StudentsÕ learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260–267. Anderman, L. H. (1999). Classroom goal orientation, school belonging, and social goals as predictors of studentsÕ positive and negative affect following the transition to middle school. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32, 89–103. Anderman, L. H., & Anderman, E. M. (1999). Social predictors of changes in studentsÕ achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 21–37. Anderman, E., & Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in personal achievement goals and the perceived classroom goal structures across the transition to middle level schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 269–298. Anderman, E., & Midgley, C. (2002). Methods for studying goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning. In C. Midgley (Ed.), Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning (pp. 1– 20). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1984). Task-oriented versus competitive learning structures: Motivational and performance consequences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 159–168. Crano, W. D., & Brewer, M. B. (1973). Principles of research in social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273. Eccles (Parsons), J. E., Midgley, C., & Adler, T. F. (1984). Grade-related changes in the school environment: Effects on achievement motivation. In J. G. Nicholls & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), The

550

T. Urdan, C. Midgley / Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003) 524–551

development of achievement motivation (Vol. 3, Advances in motivation and achievement pp. 283–331). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage/environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for early adolescents. In R. E. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 139–186). New York: Academic Press. Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & Mac Iver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage/environment fit on young adolescentsÕ experiences in schools and families. American Psychologist, 48, 90–101. Elliot, A. J. (1997). Integrating the ‘‘classic’’ and the ‘‘contemporary’’ approaches to achievement motivation: A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461–475. Elliot, A. J., & Sheldon, K. M. (1997). Avoidance achievement motivation: A personal goal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 171–185. Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12. Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Lehto, A. T., & Elliot, A. J. (1997). Predictors and consequences of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest and making the grade. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1284–1295. Jussim, L. (1991). Grades may reflect more than performance: Comment on Wentzel, (1989). Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 153–155. Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (1997). The effect of achievement goals: Does level of academic efficacy make a difference? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 415–435. Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (1999). The relationship between perceptions of the classroom goal structure and early adolescentsÕ affect in school: The mediating role of coping strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 11, 187–212. Maehr, M. L. (1989). Thoughts about motivation. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Goals and cognitions (Vol. 3). Research on motivation in education. New York: Academic Press. Maehr, M. L., & Anderman, E. (1993). Reinventing schools for early adolescents: Emphasazing task goals. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 593–610. Meece, J. L. (1991). The classroom context and studentsÕ motivational goals. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Goals and self-regulatory processes (Vol. 7, Advances in motivation and achievement pp. 261–285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Middleton, M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An under-explored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710–718. Midgley, C. (1993). Motivation and middle level schools. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 8, pp. 217–274). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Midgley, C., Anderman, E., & Hicks, L. (1995). Differences between elementary and middle school teachers and students: A goal theory approach. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 90–115. Midgley, C., Arunkumar, R., & Urdan, T. (1996). ‘‘If I donÕt do well tomorrow thereÕs a reason’’: Predictors of adolescentsÕ use of self-handicapping strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 423–434. Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Maehr, M. L., Urdan, T., Anderman, L. H., Anderman, E., & Roeser, R. (1998). The development and validation of scales assessing studentsÕ achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 113–131. Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hicks, L., Roeser, R., Urdan, T., Anderman, E., Kaplan, A., Arunkumar, R., & Middleton, M. (1997). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning survey (PALS). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1992). The transition to middle school: Making it a good experience for all students. The Middle School Journal, 24, 5–14. Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

T. Urdan, C. Midgley / Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003) 524–551

551

Nicholls, J. G., Patashnick, M., & Nolen, S. B. (1985). AdolescentsÕ theories of education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 683–692. Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., Ryan, A. M., Edelin, K. C., & Midgley, C. (1999). Messages teachers send: Communicating goal orientation. Paper presented at the meetings of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal. Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological environment and early adolescentsÕ self appraisals and academic engagement: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 408–422. Simmons, R. G., & Blyth, D. A. (1987). Moving into adolescence: The impact of pubertal change and school context. Hawthorn, NY: Aldine de Gruyler. Skaalvik, E. M. (1997). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation: Relations with task and avoidance orientation, achievement, self-perceptions, and anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 71–81. Stodolsky, S. S. (1988). The subject matters: Classroom activity in math and social studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Stodolsky, S. S., & Grossman, P. L. (1995). The impact of subject matter on curricular activity: An analysis of five academic subjects. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 227–249. Urdan, T. (1997a). Achievement goal theory: Past results, future directions. In P. R. Pintrich & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 99–142). Greenwich, CN: JAI. Urdan, T. (1997b). Achievement goals and the orientation of friends toward school in early adolescence. Journal of Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 165–191. Urdan, T. (2003). A new measure of perceived classroom goal structures. Manuscript submitted for publication. Urdan, T., Kneisel, L., & Mason, V. (1999). Interpreting messages about motivation in the classroom: Examining the effects of achievement goal structures. In T. Urdan (Ed.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 11). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1994). ChildrenÕs competence beliefs, achievement values, and general selfesteem: Change across elementary and middle school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 107–138. Wolters, C., Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1992). Assessing early adolescents’ school competence and commitment. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan.