Teacher interpersonal behavior and adolescents’ motivation in mathematics: A comparison of learning disabled, average, and talented students

ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Educational Research 43 (2005) 39–54 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures

Chapter 3

Teacher interpersonal behavior and adolescents’ motivation in mathematics: A comparison of learning disabled, average, and talented students Judith M. Lapointea,, Fre´de´ric Legaultb, Seth J. Batistea a University of Houston, USA Universite´ du Que´bec a` Montre´al, Canada

b

Abstract This study examined student perceptions of teacher behavior in three motivational variables (selfefficacy beliefs, intrinsic value, and test anxiety in mathematics) for adolescents enrolled in three distinct schooling tracks. Questionnaires were administered to 111 learning disabled (LD), 224 average (AV) and 258 talented students (TA). Some differences among groups were found on students’ perceptions of teacher behavior as measured by the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction, and on motivational beliefs assessed by the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Overall, the results show that perceptions of teacher proximity and influence have implications for AV and TA motivation, but are not significant in students with learning disabilities. The findings are discussed with special attention given to LD and TA. r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Teacher behavior; Motivation; Middle school; Ability grouping; Mathematics

1. Introduction In 2003, 41 countries from the OECD took part in Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). In 34 of these nations, boys scored significantly higher than girls in mathematics. Ministry of Education, Leisure and Sport of Quebec (2004, 2005) reported that it was due to boys’ higher self-efficacy belief and interest Corresponding author.

E-mail address: [email protected] (J.M. Lapointe). 0883-0355/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2006.03.005

ARTICLE IN PRESS 40

J.M. Lapointe et al. / Int. J. Educ. Res. 43 (2005) 39–54

in this subject. Indeed, it is well documented that these motivational variables are important factors in academic achievement (Berndt & Miller, 1990; Greene, Miller, Crowson, Duke, & Akey, 2004; Jinks & Lorsbach, 2003; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). The province of Quebec ranked third among the 10 Canadian provinces and fifth in comparison to the 41 countries in mathematics. However, like any other nation, a number of Quebec adolescents fail in school: 1/5 of students without disabilities and 3/5 with mild learning disabilities leave secondary school before obtaining a diploma (Ministry of Education of Quebec, 1999). The most typical reasons given by these students is the lack of interest in school and the belief that they will not be able to achieve (Fulk, Brigham, & Lohman, 1998, citing Wagner, 1989; Scanlon & Mellard, 2002). Moreover, contrary to popular belief, many talented students (TA) underachieve (Reis & McCoach, 2000; Whitley, 2001) or leave school because they lack interest or fail (Renzulli & Park, 2002). Early in the 1990s, the need for research in TA motivation was underlined by practitioners who responded to the survey of the National Research Center of the Gifted and Talented (Renzulli, Reid, & Gubbins, 1992). In sum, both low and high ability students, self-efficacy and interest in school learning are pointed out when it comes to academic performance or school dropout. Furthermore, Viau (1999) reported that students often refer to their teachers to explain their motivation—or lack of motivation—for a specific subject. Indeed, it is well documented that teacher behavior and support are closely related to student motivation and achievement (e.g., Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989; Pianta, 1999; Rogers & Freiberg, 1994). In this context, the main goal of this study is to examine student perceptions of teacher behavior in motivational beliefs (self-efficacy, intrinsic value, and test anxiety in mathematics) for Quebec adolescents enrolled in three distinct schooling tracks (that is learning disabled (LD), average (AV) and TA in grades 7 and 8). 2. The expectancy-value model of motivation In this study, the theoretical framework for conceptualizing student motivation is an adaptation of the expectancy-value model of academic motivation (Pintrich, 1989). The model has three components. The expectancy component (self-efficacy) has to do with the belief about the ability to perform a task (can I do this task?), the value component (intrinsic value) refers to the student’s interest and importance given to the task (why am I doing this task?) and the affective component (test anxiety) is the emotional reaction to the task (how do I feel about this task?). The model assumes that cognitive strategies, necessary for academic achievement, are not used without motivation (high self-efficacy, high intrinsic value, and low test anxiety). In their study with seventh-graders, Pintrich, Roeser, and De Groot (1994) found that self-regulation is moderately linked to test anxiety (r ¼
:25 and
.29, po:01), but both cognitive strategies and self-regulation are correlated to self-efficacy (r ¼ :412:67, po:001) and intrinsic value (r ¼ :662:76, po:001). In his review, Pajares (1996b) reported that students with higher self-efficacy beliefs engage in more appropriate cognitive strategies, regardless of their ability level. Thus, self-efficacy and intrinsic value are not only commonly reported to explain students’ performance or decision to leave school: they are at the basis of engagement in learning.

ARTICLE IN PRESS J.M. Lapointe et al. / Int. J. Educ. Res. 43 (2005) 39–54

41

2.1. Self-efficacy In Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory, self-efficacy is defined as ‘‘people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances’’ (p. 391). In the school context, it is what students believe they can or cannot do like solving math problems. In line with Bandura’s theory, Jinks and Lorsbach (2003) identified two major components of self-efficacy that are discussed below: (1) efficacy information is gained from experience; (2) beliefs that people hold about their abilities, whatever actual abilities they have, affect how they behave and perform. Therefore, self-efficacy beliefs, and not only actual abilities, lead to students’ engagement in learning. LD students’ elementary school experience is generally marked by a history of successive failures. Upon entry into secondary school, they are likely to believe that they do not have the ability required to achieve, thus gradually abandoning their efforts. This process called ‘‘learned helplessness’’ (Dweck, 1999) occurs especially when students have an entity view of intelligence, i.e., they believe that their failures are caused by a lack of ability. LD students have lower self-efficacy beliefs than AV (Tabassam & Grainger, 2002). They also make less attribution to efforts and are subject to depressive feelings (Palladino, Poli, Masi, & Marcheschi, 2000). In their review of literature, Ring and Reetz (2000) reported that students without disabilities have a general tendency to attribute success to ability, and failure to external factors, whereas the opposite prevails in LD students. However, the body of empirical studies in this matter was questioned (see Mamlin, Harris, & Case, 2001, for a review). We suggest that learned helplessness can also affect TA through a different path. At the elementary level, these students generally have a long history of performance requiring minimal effort compared to other children. However, when they enroll in secondary classes where they evolve exclusively with high-achievers for the first time, they are more likely to be academically challenged at a higher level and see their performance decrease if they provide only minimal effort. If these students attribute success to intelligence as opposed to effort, this may eventually lead them to believe that they do not have the ability to perform anymore. Whitley (2001) described a typology of students who have the ability to perform, but whose lack of self-efficacy leads them to underachieve. In TA, underachievement involves a discrepancy between potential and performance (Reis & McCoach, 2000). 2.2. Intrinsic value Pintrich (1989) identified two basic components defining intrinsic value in the school context: (1) task value; (2) student’s achievement of goal orientation. Task value refers to the interest, importance and utility attached to success or failure on a task, and is related to the student’s goal orientation. The achievement goal theory proposes that individuals approach two general goals when they engage in a learning task (see Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002, for a review). Students oriented toward the mastery goal tend to be more intrinsically motivated. They are primarily focused on the acquisition of new knowledge and the development of abilities. Students oriented toward the performance goal focus on the demonstration of their abilities, and are more concerned about grades and surpassing others. Their motivation to achieve is more of an extrinsic nature. Both mastery and performance goals may be

ARTICLE IN PRESS 42

J.M. Lapointe et al. / Int. J. Educ. Res. 43 (2005) 39–54

pursued at the same time: Greene et al. (2004) found a correlation of .33 (po:01) in high school students. However, strong performance goal alone may result in detrimental effects on sustainable learning. As noted by Ablard (2002), gifted students with performance goals have more difficulty with coping with increasing task difficulty since they are more concerned about their success than what they might learn. In his study, 25.2% of gifted middle school students had strong performance goals. These students are at risk of underachievement: if they face a decrease in grades, they may begin to show low selfefficacy and become at risk for learned helplessness. 2.3. The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) The present study used the MSLQ (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990), which is based on the expectancy-value model of academic motivation described previously. The instrument assesses students’ motivational beliefs (self-efficacy, intrinsic value, and test anxiety) and self-regulated learning strategies (cognitive strategy use and self-regulation). The correlation between self-efficacy and intrinsic value was .48 (po:001) and both variables were positively linked to cognitive engagement and performance in seventh-graders. Test anxiety was correlated to self-efficacy only (r ¼
:34, po:001). The MSLQ was also used in studies on students with disabilities. Pintrich, Anderman, and Klobucar (1994) compared two groups of fifth-graders with (n ¼ 19) and without (n ¼ 20) learning disabilities. Although the second group showed higher levels of meta-cognitive knowledge, no differences were found on self-efficacy, intrinsic value, and test anxiety. Fulk et al. (1998) compared three groups of middle school students in social studies. They found that LD students (n ¼ 36) were more oriented to work avoidance compared to students with emotional and behavioral disorders (n ¼ 26) and a group of AV achievers (n ¼ 53), and students with EBD reported more test anxiety. However, no differences were found on selfefficacy and intrinsic value among the three groups. A different instrument developed by Parsons (1980, cited by Midgley et al., 1989) was used to examine students’ value of math in the study conducted by Midgley et al. (1989). The value of math was measured by two distinct variables: (1) intrinsic value (referring to enjoyment: ‘‘In general, I find working on math assignments very interesting’’), and (2) importance and usefulness (‘‘For me, being good at math is very important’’). From a sample of 1301 students at the middle school level, it was found that high-achievers showed higher scores on both variables than lowachievers. 3. Transition to secondary school and emergence of schooling tracks Several studies showed that transition from elementary to secondary school tends to bring a decrease in adolescents’ motivation for math. For example, Midgley et al. (1989) found that students’ value of math was generally higher in grade 6 than after the transition to secondary school (grade 7), and also declined over the year after the transition. In the Pajares and Graham (1999) study, students’ value of math decreased during the first year at the secondary level although self-efficacy and test anxiety did not vary significantly. Anderman (1998) found that the gap in math and science achievement between LD students and non-LD students was reduced for adolescents who did not make a school transition before 9th grade. It is noteworthy that teachers and students perceive the middle school culture as more performance-focused and less mastery-focused compared to

ARTICLE IN PRESS J.M. Lapointe et al. / Int. J. Educ. Res. 43 (2005) 39–54

43

elementary schools (Midgley, Anderman, & Hicks, 1995) and this is true for both high- and low-achievers regarding math (Anderman & Midgley, 1997). The Quebec elementary school philosophy tends to avoid LD students repeating a year even though objectives for a specific grade level are not all met. Inclusion of these students in regular classrooms is also strongly encouraged. However, the transition to secondary school at age 12 (and mandatory for all 13-year-old students regardless of their actual academic level), is often marked with the increase in ability grouping for LD students, and ‘‘concentration’’ options for TA. For example, LD students may join groups where they will have more hours devoted to their first language and math, and 3 years to complete the first 2 years of secondary school. On the other hand, TA may be eligible for classes where they spend less time on some subjects, since they can go through the curriculum faster, and devote more time to a ‘‘concentration’’ domain (sport, art, etc.). Compared to elementary schools, ability grouping is very prominent at the beginning of secondary school in Quebec. In this context, Bouffard and Couture (2003) examined a number of motivational variables among 61 LD students, 105 AV and 60 high achievers enrolled in three different schooling tracks in the same French-Canadian secondary school. In mathematics, perceived competence and performance goals were higher in high achievers. LD students were less willing to make efforts in their learning (work avoidance) than AV and high achievers. They also reported lower scores on judgments of usefulness in math and the use of meta-cognitive strategies. In all groups, perceived competence was positively correlated to academic achievement. 4. The role of teacher behavior in student motivation Teacher support is one of the most frequently reported factors effecting motivation and academic achievement (Garmezy, 1994; Pianta, 1999; Viau, 1994). More specifically in middle school settings, perceived teacher support is linked to students’ interest in academic subjects (Wentzel, 1998). Yet, in mathematics, it was found from student perceptions and external observations that secondary teachers are less warm and supportive at the beginning of the year than elementary teachers at the end of the previous year (Feldlaufer, Midgley, & Eccles, 1988). Students’ perceptions of teacher caring predicted academic effort in a 3-year study conducted by Wentzel (1997) with 375 students from grades 6 through 8. At the end of the 3 years, the author asked participants to describe caring and uncaring teachers. Notably, a caring teacher ‘‘makes class interesting’’, ‘‘pays attention’’, ‘‘listens’’, ‘‘trusts me’’, ‘‘acts as a friend’’, and ‘‘asks if I need help’’. Uncaring examples include: ‘‘screams’’, ‘‘yells’’, ‘‘embarrasses’’, ‘‘insults’’ and ‘‘doesn’t try to help you’’. These characteristics are closely related to the proximity axe of the two-dimensional (2-D) Model for Interpersonal Teacher Behavior described by Wubbels and Brekelmans (this issue). Effectively, descriptions of caring teachers correspond to cooperation (helping/friendly and understanding) at the right end of the proximity axe, whereas non-caring characteristics are included in opposition (dissatisfied and admonishing) at the left end. According to Wubbels, Brekelmans, den Brok, and van Tartwijk (2006), studies conducted with the Questionnaire for Teacher Interaction (QTI), which was developed from the 2-D model, found positive links between affective outcomes (subject-specific motivation) and both axes of the QTI (proximity and influence), especially with proximity. This is in line with studies conducted on Quebec adolescent populations. In one study

ARTICLE IN PRESS 44

J.M. Lapointe et al. / Int. J. Educ. Res. 43 (2005) 39–54

(Lapointe, 1998), middle school students reported higher level of engagement in learning when they perceived high cooperation and low opposition from their teachers. Lapointe and Legault (1999) examined four categories of students according to their perceptions of teacher behavior on the basis of proximity (high/low) and influence (high/low). Not only did students who perceived high proximity and high influence from their teachers scored significantly higher than the three other categories on engagement, but the high-proximity/ low influence category also scored significantly higher on engagement than the two lowproximity categories. In the study conducted by Midgley et al. (1989), the decline in students’ value of math during and after the transition to secondary school was strongly linked to perceptions of teacher support. Students moving from high- to low-supportive teachers during transition to secondary school showed a decline in their valuing of math, but students moving from low- to high-supportive teachers showed an increase in intrinsic value (enjoyment) toward math. Students of teachers perceived to be low in support showed a decrease in value of math during the same school year. Research shows that the decline in motivation upon entry into middle school is strongly related to learning environment characteristics (Midgley, 1993). Patrick, Turner, Meyer, and Midgley (2003) found that students report less math avoidance in supportive classrooms. Midgley et al. (1989) found that low-achieving students moving from teachers high in perceived support in grade 6 to low in perceived support in grade 7 showed a steeper decline than high-achievers in perceptions of usefulness and importance of math after transition to junior high school. In Koutsoulis’ study (2003), high school students were asked to identify characteristics defining teacher effectiveness. Low-achievers considered human characteristics of the teacher (understanding and friendly behaviors) as being more important, whereas high-achievers preferred teachers to be knowledgeable and clever. This suggests that low-achievers are more sensitive to teacher support. On the basis of their review of literature, Rousseau and Potvin (1993) concluded that although some studies showed that high-achievers would give a better evaluation of their teacher than lowachievers, many did not find any difference, including in their own study. 5. Objectives On the basis of the literature review, it appears that self-efficacy and intrinsic value for math are correlated and likely to decline after the transition to secondary school where schooling tracks emerge. However, perceptions of teacher interpersonal style, especially in terms of teacher support, are linked to students’ motivational variables and may attenuate the decline. The body of empirical studies comparing students from various levels of learning abilities (high, average, low) in this domain is rather small and inconclusive. In this context, the present study has three objectives: 1. LD, AV, and TA means and variations in self-efficacy, intrinsic value, and test anxiety in mathematics will be compared. 2. Perceptions of math teachers’ interpersonal behavior will be compared with LD, AV, and TA. 3. The link between students’ perceptions of their math teachers’ interpersonal behavior and their motivational beliefs (self-efficacy, intrinsic value, and test anxiety) will be examined for the three groups (LD, AV and TA).

ARTICLE IN PRESS J.M. Lapointe et al. / Int. J. Educ. Res. 43 (2005) 39–54

45

6. Method 6.1. Participants Seventh (n ¼ 285; mean age ¼ 13.72) and eighth (n ¼ 308; mean age ¼ 14.67) graders from two Quebec schools located in the Quebec city area (middle to upper-middle SES class) participated in this study. Seven classes were composed of LD students (74 boys; 37 girls), eight of AV students (121 boys; 103 girls) and eight of TA (99 boys; 159 girls). LD students had accumulated 2 years of delay in their learning in both mathematics and French at the end of elementary school, so they benefited from smaller class sizes from grade 7, where more teaching time was devoted to these subjects. At the other end, students who were in the upper 50% range when graduating from elementary school were invited to take a selection exam. Only the students who were rated in the top 50% on the basis of the exam could participate in a program for talented/gifted students where the curriculum includes more teaching time in English and Spanish as second and third language, biology, arts, and intercultural activities. 6.2. Procedure and Instruments Measures were taken in September (T1), in December (T2), and in April (T3). The questionnaire on motivational variables was administered during T1 and T3. Students’ perceptions of their math teacher’s interpersonal behavior were assessed during T2. Students’ motivational variables were assessed using three scales of the MSLQ (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990), that is self-efficacy (9 items: a ¼ :90; original subscale: a ¼ :89, sample item: ‘‘I know I will be able to learn the material for this class’’), intrinsic value (9 items: a ¼ :87; original subscale: a ¼ :87, sample item: ‘‘I like what I am learning in this class’’), and test anxiety (4 items: a ¼ :82; original subscale: a ¼ :75, sample item: ‘‘I have an uneasy, upset feeling when I take a test’’). Students were asked to respond to each item in reference to the math subject. Students’ perceptions of their math teacher’s interpersonal behavior were assessed using the validated French version (Lapointe & Legault, 1999) of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (Wubbels & Levy, 1993). The French version includes eight subscales of four items. We obtained the following Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each subscale (1999 study; actual study): leadership (.82; .83); helping/friendly (.85; .88); understanding (.80; .87); student responsibility/freedom (.62; .70); uncertain (.72; .65); dissatisfied (.73; .78); admonishing (.79; .82); and strict (.69; .66). 7. Results The first objective was to compare means and variations of students’ self-efficacy, intrinsic value, and test anxiety in math between fall and spring. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with repeated measures revealed a significant main effect among LD, AV, and TA (F ¼ 4:66, df ¼ 6984, po:001), but not between fall and spring (F ¼ 2:26, df ¼ 3491, p ¼ :08). However, the interaction was significant (F ¼ 4:37, df ¼ 6984, po:001). Follow-up univariate analyses showed significant interactions between group and time on all variables (Table 1). Post hoc analyses revealed that, in the fall, TA showed higher means than LD and AV students on self-efficacy (F ¼ 10:27,

ARTICLE IN PRESS 46

J.M. Lapointe et al. / Int. J. Educ. Res. 43 (2005) 39–54

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and F values on self-efficacy, intrinsic value, and test anxiety by students’ level of learning abilities in fall and spring Students’ level of learning abilities Self-efficacy Learning disabled Average Talented Intrinsic value Learning disabled Average Talented Test anxiety Learning disabled Average Talented

Fall

Spring

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

3.33 (.74) 3.44 (.83) 3.71 (.88)

3.48 (.78) 3.39 (.85) 3.49 (.89)

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

3.44 (.74) 3.56 (.77) 3.69 (.82)

3.57 (.8) 3.38 (.78) 3.51 (.84)

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

2.8 (.97) 2.36 (.99) 2.1 (.97)

2.76 (.07) 2.41 (.92) 2.42 (1.06)

Group F

Time F

Group  Time F

3.99*

1.31

7.30**

1.93

4.21*

5.49**

4.26*

3.12**

12.20***

po:05,   po:01:

df ¼ 2584, po:001) and intrinsic value (F ¼ 5:01, df ¼ 2583, po:01). However, there was a decrease during the year in TA students’ means of self-efficacy (F ¼ 19:65, df ¼ 1231, po:001) and intrinsic value (F ¼ 13:39, df ¼ 1, 232, po:001). AV students’ means on intrinsic value decreased as well (F ¼ 10:5, df ¼ 1176, po:01). On the contrary, LD students’ means increased during the year but this was not significant. At the end of the year (spring), there were no significant differences among the three groups on means of self-efficacy and intrinsic value. Regarding test anxiety, LD students’ means remained higher than AV and TA both in the fall (F ¼ 23:36, df ¼ 2581, po:001) and in the spring (F ¼ 3:78, df ¼ 2516, po:05). In the fall, AV students’ mean was also significantly higher than TA, and TA mean increased between fall and spring (F ¼ 23:50, df ¼ 1232, po:001). A series of ANOVA were also performed including students’ gender (  2) and level of learning abilities (  3). At the po:01 level, boys at all levels of learning abilities showed higher means in self-efficacy and lower means in test anxiety. AV and TA boys also presented higher means in intrinsic value. The second objective was to compare LD, AV and TA perceptions of math teachers’ interpersonal behavior. Table 2 displays means for perceptions of teacher behavior by students’ level of learning abilities (LD, AV and TA). A Tukey test indicated that TA mean on the ‘‘uncertain’’ variable was significantly lower than AV and LD students’ means. LD students’ mean on the ‘‘admonishing’’ variable is higher than other students’ means, and AV students showed a lower mean on the ‘‘strict’’ variable than other groups. There is no

ARTICLE IN PRESS J.M. Lapointe et al. / Int. J. Educ. Res. 43 (2005) 39–54

47

Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations and F values of Perceptions of Teacher Interpersonal Behavior Means (SD)

Students’ perceptions of teacher interpersonal behavior

Level of learning abilities F

1. Learning disabled (LD)

2. Average (AV)

3. Talented (TA)

Girls

Boys

Girls

Boys

Girls

Boys

Leadership

2.35 (.63)

2.32 (.61)

2.42 (.59)

2.20 (.71)

2.39 (.64)

2.32 (.62)

2.44 (.58)

0.97

Helping/ friendly

2.26 (.65)

2.31 (.51)

2.34 (.61)

2.20 (.69)

2.32 (.66)

2.19 (.64)

2.32 (.65)

0.31

Understanding

2.28 (.62)

2.31 (.50)

2.27 (.62)

2.18 (.63)

2.32 (.66)

2.25 (.62)

2.37 (.62)

0.39

Student responsibility / freedom

2.08 (.57)

2.07 (.56)

2.17 (.56)

2.04 (.57)

2.15 (.62)

2.02 (.54)

2.12 (.58)

0.25

Uncertain

1.68 (.60)

1.85 (.51)

1.82 (.58)

1.8 (.65)

1.71 (.61)

1.60 (.63)

1.55 (.52)

7.22** (1,243)

Dissatisfied

1.65 (.58)

1.81 (.40)

1.75 (.49)

1.65 (.58)

1.65 (.57)

1.63 (.62)

1.57 (.60)

2.77

Admonishing

1.64 (.61)

1.79 (.48)

1.89 (.62)

1.61 (.58)

1.61 (.58)

1.60 (.63)

1.57 (.63)

5.00** (142,3)

Strict

2.11 (.61)

2.16 (.62)

2.07 (.56)

1.85 (.58)

1.96 (.56)

2.27 (.62)

2.25 (.58)

18.03*** (1,342)

Tukey test:  po:05,



po:01,



po:001.

significant gender difference except for leadership, where boys’ mean is significantly higher than girls’ (F ¼ 4:41, df ¼ 1, 484, po:05). No interaction gender  level of learning abilities was found significant. The third objective of this study was to examine the links between students’ perceptions of math teacher interpersonal behavior and motivational beliefs for each group of LD, AV and TA. Table 3 shows correlations between students’ perceptions of teachers’ interpersonal behavior in December and motivational variables in April. No correlation between perceptions of teacher behavior and motivational variables was significant in LD. In both AV and TA, self-efficacy and intrinsic value showed significantly positive correlations with leadership, helping/friendly, understanding, and student responsibility/ freedom, and negative correlations with uncertain, dissatisfied, and admonishing, with the exception of the link between uncertain and self-efficacy in TA. In AV, test anxiety was significantly linked to helping/friendly and understanding (negative correlations), and uncertain, dissatisfied, and admonishing (positive correlations). In TA, only teacher’s strict behavior was significantly and positively correlated to test anxiety. The Fisher r-to-Z

ARTICLE IN PRESS J.M. Lapointe et al. / Int. J. Educ. Res. 43 (2005) 39–54

48

Table 3 Correlations between students’ perceptions of teacher’s interpersonal behavior and motivational variables in spring Self-efficacy

Leadership Helping/friendly Understanding Student resp./freedom Uncertain Dissatisfied Admonishing Strict 

po:05,



Intrinsic value

Test anxiety

LD

AV

TA

Fisher Z-test

LD

AV

TA

Fisher Z test

LD

AV

TA

Fisher Z-test


.10
.03
.09
.07
.05 .03 .00 .20

.27** .27** .28** .21**
.22**
.19*
.20*
.05

.38** .33** .32** .30**
.12
.24**
.19**
.10

1o2**,3** 1o2*,3** 1o2**,3** 1o2*,3** ns ns ns 3o1*


.04
.02 .07
.07
.15
.02
.02 .12

.40** .37** .36** .34**
.35**
.32**
.28**
.04

.44** .39** .43** .34**
.23**
.29**
.27**
.03

1o2**,3** 1o2**,3** 1o2*,3** 1o2**,3** ns 1o2*,3* 1o2*,3* ns


.01
.11
.02 .02 .09 .11 .07
.07


.14
.17*
.22**
.14 .27** .20** .15* .12


.13
.06
.04
.12
.00 .11 .06 .16*

ns ns 1**,3*o2 1o2*,3* 1*,3**o2 Ns Ns 1o2*,3**

po:01.LD ¼ learning disabled students, AV ¼ average students, TA ¼ talented students.

transformation test (Glass & Stanley, 1970) was used to compare links among the three levels of student performance. AV and TA showed stronger links than LD between selfefficacy and four teacher behaviors: leadership, helping/friendly, understanding and student responsibility/freedom. The same pattern was repeated for intrinsic value, and also included dissatisfied and admonishing. Analyses also indicated a stronger link between self-efficacy and strict for TA when compared to LD. Among the three groups, test anxiety showed weaker links with student responsibility/freedom and strict in LD, and stronger links with understanding and uncertain in AV. Finally, regression analyses were performed to test the contribution of perceptions of teacher behavior on the prediction of students’ motivational beliefs in spring. Before proceeding to these analyses, we examined correlation coefficients among the eight subscales of the QTI in order to detect possible multi-collinearity. Eleven out of 28 correlation coefficients ranged from .62 to .85 (po:01). Therefore, modifications were made on the variables. The QTI is based on a theoretical model including two axes: influence (Dominance/Submission) and proximity (Opposition/Cooperation): we created two variables corresponding to both axes using Wubbels and Brekelmans’ formula (this issue). Stepwise regression analyses were then performed independently for each level of student performance to test whether the two teacher interpersonal style variables would contribute to the prediction of motivational variables as measured in the spring. Each analysis included the following independent variables: motivational variable as measured in the fall, influence, proximity and gender. Table 4 shows that self-efficacy in the fall is the first predictor of self-efficacy in the spring. Proximity is the second predictor both for AV and TA. Regarding intrinsic value in spring, the best predictor is the same variable as measured in fall. Proximity and influence are the second and third predictors of intrinsic value for both AV and TA. In AV, a fourth variable (gender), also contributed to the prediction of intrinsic value in favor of boys. Finally, test anxiety in the fall is the first predictor of test anxiety in the spring, and proximity is the second predictor for both AV and TA. No variable related to the perceptions of teacher interpersonal style added a significant contribution to the prediction of any of the motivational variables for LD, and no interaction was found to be significant.

ARTICLE IN PRESS J.M. Lapointe et al. / Int. J. Educ. Res. 43 (2005) 39–54

49

Table 4 Standardized beta coefficients, p values and associated statistics for the most parcimonious models describing the relation between spring and fall motivational variables LD Students Dependent variable ¼ self-efficacy (Spring) Self-efficacy (Fall) Proximity R2 SSE

.296* .088 .559

Dependent variable ¼ intrinsic value (Spring) Intrinsic value (Fall) Proximity Influence Gender R2 SSE

.394***

. .155 .549

Dependent variable ¼ test anxiety (Spring) Test anxiety (Fall) Proximity R2 SSE Note: SSE ¼ sum of squared errors.po:05,

.242* .059 1.113 

po:01,



Average Students

Talented Students

.578*** .189** .443 .421

.664*** .227*** .486 .402

.427*** .239*** .160* 175* .397 .378

.505*** .267*** .123*

.383***
.181* .195 .735

.510***
.133* .286 .792

.418 .402

po:001.

8. Discussion The main goal of this study was to examine young adolescents’ perceptions of teacher interpersonal behavior in self-efficacy, intrinsic value, and test anxiety in math. Overall, the results show that students from the three different schooling tracks vary on their motivational beliefs, differ in their perceptions of the teacher, and these perceptions have implications for AV and TA motivation. The first objective of the study was to compare students’ motivational beliefs in math. Pintrich et al. (1994) as well as Fulk et al. (1998) did not observe any differences between students with and without learning disabilities with the use of the MLSQ. In the present study, no differences are detected between AV and LD students regarding self-efficacy and intrinsic value in the fall and in the spring despite the use of larger samples, and even though LD students are enrolled in low-ability classes as opposed to be included in regular classes. However, TA begin the year with significantly higher levels of self-efficacy beliefs and intrinsic value in math than AV and LD students. Pajares (1996a) also found that gifted students reported higher self-efficacy than AV at the middle school level. According to Zeidner (1998), high levels of test anxiety are negatively linked to learning and Pajares (1996a) reported less math test anxiety in gifted students. This is in line with the present study where both in the fall and the spring, the level of test anxiety is higher in LD students, and AV also show a higher level of test anxiety than TA in the fall. In this study, variations of motivational variables over the year follow different patterns linked to students’ learning abilities. In AV, a significant decrease is observed for intrinsic

ARTICLE IN PRESS 50

J.M. Lapointe et al. / Int. J. Educ. Res. 43 (2005) 39–54

value, which was also reported by Midgley et al. (1989) and Pajares and Graham (1999). At one end, LD students’ means of motivational variables remain stable and if there is a tendency to vary, the increase in self-efficacy and intrinsic value as well as the decrease in test anxiety are not significant. At the other end, talented students’ self-efficacy and intrinsic value decline and test anxiety increases significantly. One explanation of these opposite tendencies may be found in the emergence of schooling tracks in secondary school. As explained earlier, Quebec students with disabilities generally evolve academically in regular classes at the elementary level. They are likely to be affected by the learned helplessness syndrome (Dweck, 1999), especially when they have always been compared to students with higher abilities. Therefore, they tend to start the year with lower motivation than other students. However, since they now are in low-ability classes, the instructional and motivational practices used by their teachers are adjusted to their current competence level, according to a person–environment fit perspective (Wigfield, Eccles, & Rodriguez, 1998). They face smaller challenges and gain confidence in their abilities which prevent the decline in self-perceptions. On the contrary, TA who have been selected to enroll in classes for high-achievers have high self-efficacy beliefs supported by years of easy performance in elementary school and confirmed by the enrollment in talented classes. However, as noted by Gavin and Reis (2003), new concepts are presented in more challenging ways in classes for high-achievers. The overachieving elementary student in an AV class becomes only an AV in a secondary talented class: it is possible that perceptions decline in this context unless the learning material and teaching practices are adjusted according to a person–environment fit perspective. The second objective of this study was to compare students’ perceptions of their math teacher’s interpersonal behavior. Differences among groups were found only on teacher behaviors located on the left side of the model of the QTI (uncertain, admonishing and strict). Generally, these behaviors are negatively linked to students’ attitudes (Wubbels, Levy, & Brekelmans, 1997). In LD classes, teachers obtain higher scores on both admonishing and strict behaviors than the AV. In the literature, teacher admonishing behavior is also linked to students’ low performance (see Wubbels et al., 2006). Among arguments against tracking in middle school, Mills (1997) underlines the low expectations held by teachers regarding LD students’ performance. Furthermore, it is well known that these classes are more difficult to manage: student cooperation and engagement on academic tasks is harder to obtain and maintain (Evertson, 1982). Indeed, Bouffard and Couture (2003) reported higher work avoidance and lower scores on judgments of usefulness of math in LD classes compared to AV and high achieving classes. Moreover, teacher stress, which is a cause of teacher attrition in special education (Mills, Brownell, & Smith, 1999), is associated to an authoritarian teaching style (Harris, Halpin, & Halpin, 1985). However, no direct causal links can be put forward in the light of the assumption of Bandura’s social cognitive model (1986), which stipulates that personal factors, behaviors and environment operate as interacting determinants of each other. In talented classes, teachers are perceived as more strict but less uncertain. As discussed earlier, the curriculum becomes more challenging for these students and this could explain why items related to strict behavior such as ‘‘his tests are hard’’ and ‘‘his standards are very high’’ obtain higher scores than in AV classes. The third objective of this study was to examine the links between students’ perceptions of teacher interpersonal behavior and motivational beliefs. AV and TA show similar patterns on self-efficacy and intrinsic value: they are positively linked to all teacher

ARTICLE IN PRESS J.M. Lapointe et al. / Int. J. Educ. Res. 43 (2005) 39–54

51

behaviors on the right side of the model of the QTI (leadership, helping/friendly, understanding, and student responsibility/freedom) and negatively linked to opposition behaviors (dissatisfied and admonishing). Furthermore, teacher proximity plays a role in all three motivation variables for these students: it can attenuate the decline in students’ motivation and increase in anxiety over the year. Teacher influence also has a positive effect in intrinsic value. This pattern is consistent with previous research (Lapointe, 1998; Lapointe & Legault, 1999; Wubbels et al., 2006). According to Renzulli and Park (2002), the presence of a caring adult is also negatively related to the dropout of gifted students. However, the most surprising results are found in LD students who do not follow the same tendency. None of the eight teacher behaviors are significantly linked to motivational variables. A larger sample of LD students could have led to significant results especially between teachers’ strictness and self-efficacy, but the great majority of correlation coefficients are very weak. Midgley et al. (1989) had suggested that low-achievers may be particularly sensitive to teacher support than high-achievers, given that their low performance is not an incentive. On the contrary, since high-achievers are able to achieve easily, they would sustain their motivation and value their work even when their teacher is perceived low in support. The findings of the present study suggest a different pattern. That is, LD students, who are more likely affected by the learned helplessness syndrome, enter into secondary school with well anchored perceptions of self-efficacy and intrinsic value, which are significantly lower than high-achievers, and remain practically stable over the year. These perceptions are so grounded that perceptions of teacher interpersonal style and support/cooperation do not have a significant effect on them. According to Adams, Lenz, Laraux, Graner, and Pouliot (2002), LD students are often affectively disconnected from their teachers which is in line with the present findings. On the contrary, the results show that perceptions of teacher behavior are linked to TA motivation at the middle school level. Gender differences were not the focus of this study, but some results are worth mentioning. Boys show lower levels of test anxiety in each group (LD, AV and TA). In addition, consistent with prior research, they perceive higher levels of self-efficacy. Bouffard and Couture (2003) found that boys in each of the three schooling tracks felt more competent than girls. In the present study, higher levels of intrinsic value are also found in AV and talented boys. Therefore, it appears that boys are less interested in math when they have learning disabilities. In Wentzel’s study (1997), girls perceived teachers as more caring than boys, but the present findings show that gender does not play a significant role in students’ perception of teachers. Boys perceive math teachers as having more leadership, but do not differ from girls on any other type of behavior. To our knowledge, this study is one of the first that has examined the role of perceptions of teacher behavior in students’ motivational beliefs in three different schooling tracks. It appears that perceptions of teacher behavior play a significant role in average and talented young adolescents’ self-efficacy, intrinsic value, and test anxiety in math.

References Ablard, K. E. (2002). Achievement goals and implicit theories of intelligence among academically talented students. Journal for the Gifted Students, 25(3), 215–232.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 52

J.M. Lapointe et al. / Int. J. Educ. Res. 43 (2005) 39–54

Adams, G., Lenz, B. K., Laraux, M., Graner, P., & Pouliot, N. (2002). The effects of ongoing communication between teachers and adolescents with disabilities. Lawrence: The University of Kansas Institute for Academic Access. Anderman, E. M. (1998). The middle school experience: Effects on the math and science achievement of adolescents with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(2), 128–138. Anderman, E. M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in achievement goal orientations, perceived academic competence, and grades across the transition to middle-level schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 269–298. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Engelwood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall. Berndt, T. J., & Miller, K. E. (1990). Expectancies, values, and achievement in junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 319–326. Bouffard, T., & Couture, N. (2003). Motivational profile and academic achievement among students enrolled in different schooling tracks. Educational Studies, 29(1), 19–38. Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis. Evertson, C. M. (1982). Differences in instructional activities in higher- and lower-achieving junior high English and math classes. The Elementary School Journal, 82(4), 329–350. Feldlaufer, H., Midgley, C., & Eccles, J. S. (1988). Student, teacher and observer perceptions of the classroom environment before and after the transition to junior high school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 8, 133–156. Fulk, B. M., Brigham, F. J., & Lohman, D. A. (1998). Motivation and self-regulation. A comparison of students with learning and behavior problems. Remedial and Special Education, 19, 300–309. Garmezy, N. (1994). Reflections and commentaries on risk, resilience, and development. In R. J. Haggerty, L. Sherrod, N. Garmezy, & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, risk, and resilience in children and adolescents: Processes, mechanisms, and interventions (pp. 1–19). New York: Cambridge University Press. Gavin, M. K., & Reis, S. M. (2003). Helping teachers to encourage talented girls in mathematics. Gifted Child Today Magazine, 26(1), 32–44. Glass, G. V., & Stanley, J. C. (1970). Statistical methods in education and psychology. Englewoods Cliff, CA: Prentice-Hall. Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, H. M., Duke, B. L., & Akey, C. (2004). Predicting high school students’ cognitive engagement and achievement: Contributions of classroom perceptions and motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 462–482. Harris, K. R., Halpin, G., & Halpin, G. (1985). Teacher characteristics and stress. Journal of Educational Research, 78(6), 346–350. Jinks, J., & Lorsbach, A. (2003). Introduction: Motivation and self-efficacy belief. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 113–118. Koutsoulis, M. (2003). The characteristics of the effective teacher in Cyprus public high school: the students’ perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Lapointe, J. M. (1998). Style de gestion de classe et attitudes socio-scolaires des e´le`ves du de´but du secondaire [Classroom management style and student attitudes in the beginning of secondary school]. Master thesis, Laval University. Lapointe, J. M., & Legault, F. (1999). Version francophone du Questionnaire for Teacher Interaction en contexte que´be´cois [French version of the Questionnaire for Teacher Interaction in the Quebec context]. Mesure et e´valuation en e´ducation, 22(2–3), 1–20. Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 313–327. Mamlin, N., Harris, K. R., & Case, L. P. (2001). A methodological analysis of research on locus of control and learning disabilities: Rethinking a common assumption. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 214–225. Midgley, C. (1993). Motivation in middle schools. In P. R. Pintrich, & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, vol. 8.: Motivation in the adolescent years (pp. 219–276). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Midgley, C., Anderman, E. M., & Hicks, L. (1995). Differences between elementary and middle school teachers and students: A goal theory approach. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 90–113. Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Student/teacher relations and attitudes toward mathematics before and after the transition to junior high school. Child Development, 60, 981–992.

ARTICLE IN PRESS J.M. Lapointe et al. / Int. J. Educ. Res. 43 (2005) 39–54

53

Mills, R. (1997). Grouping students for instruction: Issues of equity and effectiveness. In J. L. Irvin (Ed.), What current research says to the middle level practitioner (pp. 87–94). Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. Mills, M. D., Brownell, M. T., & Smith, S. W. (1999). Factors that predict teachers staying in, leaving, or transferring from the special education classroom. Exceptional Children, 65(2), 201–218. Ministe`re de l’E´ducation du Que´bec [Ministry of Education of Quebec]. (1999). Adapting our schools to the needs of all students. A new direction for success. Retrieved July 11, 2005, from: http://www.meq.gouv.qc.ca/ REFORME/adap_scol2000/politique.htm Ministe`re de l’E´ducation, du Loisir et du Sport du Que´bec. [Ministry of Education, Leisure and Sport of Quebec]. (2004). The performance of canadian youth in mathematics, reading, science and problem solving. Results for Que´bec students aged 15. Retrieved July 11, 2005, from: http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/sanction/pisa.htm Ministe`re de l’E´ducation, du Loisir et du Sport du Que´bec [Ministry of Education, Leisure and Sport of Quebec]. (2005). Indicateurs de l’e´ducation-E´dition 2005 [Indicators of Education-Edition 2005]. Retrieved July 11, 2005, from: http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/stat/indic05/indicateurs_index.htm Pajares, F. (1996a). Self-efficacy beliefs and mathematical problem-solving of gifted students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(4), 244–325. Pajares, F. (1996b). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543–578. Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(2), 124–139. Palladino, P., Poli, P., Masi, G., & Marcheschi, M. (2000). The relation between metacognition and depressive symptoms in preadolescents with learning disabilities: Data in support of Borkowski’s model. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15(3), 142–148. Patrick, H., Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., & Midgley, C. (2003). How teachers establish psychological environments during the first days of school: Associations with avoidance in mathematics. Teachers College Record, 105(8), 1521–1558. Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Pintrich, P. R. (1989). The dynamic interplay of student motivation and cognition in the college classroom. In C. Ames, & M. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Vol.6. Motivation enhancing environment (pp. 117–160). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40. Pintrich, P. R., Anderman, E. M., & Klobucar, C. (1994). Intraindividual differences in motivation and cognition in students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(6), 360–370. Pintrich, P. R., Roeser, R. W., & De Groot, E. A. M. (1994). Classroom and individual differences in early adolescents’ motivation and self-regulated learning. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14(2), 139–161). Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 152–170. Renzulli, J. S., & Park, S. (2002). Giftedness and high school dropouts: Personal, family, and school-related factors. University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Retrieved July 12, 2005, from: http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/nrconlin.html. Renzulli, J. S., Reid, B. D., & Gubbins, E. J. (1992). Setting an agenda: Research priorities for the gifted and talented through the year 2000. University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Retrieved July 12, 2005, from: http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/ reports/setagenda/setagend.pdf. Ring, M. M., & Reetz, L. (2000). Modification effects on attributions of middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(1), 34–42. Rogers, C., & Freiberg, H. J. (1994). Freedom to learn (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan College Publishing Company. Rousseau, R., & Potvin, P. (1993). Attitudes des e´le`ves ordinaires et en difficulte´ scolaire envers les enseignants [Attitudes of students with and without learning problems towards teachers]. Revue des sciences de l’e´ducation, 19(4), 745–763. Scanlon, D., & Mellard, D. F. (2002). Academic and participation profiles of school-age dropouts with and without disabilities. Exceptional Chidren, 68(2), 239–258. Tabassam, W., & Grainger, J. (2002). Self-concept, attributional style and self-efficacy beliefs of students with learning disabilities with and without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 25, 141–151.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 54

J.M. Lapointe et al. / Int. J. Educ. Res. 43 (2005) 39–54

Viau, R. (1994). La motivation en contexte scolaire [Motivation in school context]. Saint-Laurent, Canada: E´ditions du Renouveau Pe´dagogique Inc. Viau, R. (1999). La motivation dans l’apprentissage du franc- ais [Motivation in the learning of French]. SaintLaurent, Canada: E´ditions du renouveau pe´dagogique. Wentzel, K. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived pedagogical caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 411–419. Wentzel, K. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 202–209. Whitley, M. D. (2001). Bright minds, poor grades. Understanding and motivating your underachieving child. New York: Perigee Books. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., & Rodriguez, D. (1998). The development of children’s motivation in school contexts. In P. D. Pearson, & I.-N. Ashgar (Eds.), Review of research in education (pp. 73–118). Washington: American Educational Research Association. Wubbels, T., & Brekelmans, M. (this issue). Two decades of research on teacher–student relationships in class. Wubbels, T., Brekelmans, M., den Brok, P., & van Tartwijk, J. (2006). An interpersonal perspective on classroom management in secondary classrooms in the Netherlands. In C. M. Evertson, & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of Classroom Management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 1161–1191). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wubbels, T., & Levy, J. (Eds.). (1993). Do you know what you look like? Interpersonal relationship in education. London, Washington, DC: The Falmer Press. Wubbels, T., Levy, J., & Brekelmans, M. (1997). Paying attention to relationships. Educational Leadership, 54(7), 82–87. Zeidner, M. (1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. New York: Plenum Press.