Download - Ganotice Jr Ppt

8/9/2019 Ganotice Jr Ppt

1/35

1


2/35

2


3/35

3


4/35

4


5/35

5


6/35

Model 1. A hypothesized conceptual model (serial model) depicting the role of

facilitating conditions and sense of self as predictors of achievement goals and

achievement. Note. Solid lines represent positive relations and dashed lines represent

negative relations.

6


7/35

Model 2. The hypothesized conceptual model (parallel model) depicting the role of

facilitating conditions and sense of self as predictors of achievement via achievement

goals. Note. Solid lines represent positive relations and dashed lines represent negative

relations.

ParentSupport

TeacherSupport

Peer Help

Negative Parent

Influence

Negative Peer

Influence

Sense ofPurpose

Sense ofReliance

Positive Self-

Concept

Negative Self-

Concept

MasteryGoals

Performance

Goals

Performance

-Avoidance

Social Goals

Extrinsic

Goals

Achievement

7


8/35

8


9/35

9


10/35


11/35

Positive SocialSupport

Teacher SupportParent Support

Peer Help

Negative SocialSupport

Negative ParentInfluence

Negative PeerInfluence

Self Reliance Sense of Purpose Positive Self-Concept

Negative Self-Concept

Mastery Goal PerformanceGoal

Performance-Avoidance

Social Goal Extrinsic Goal

Achievement inChemistry

FacilitatingConditionsQuestionnaire(FCQ)

Sense of SelfScale (SOS)

Inventory ofSchoolMotivation(ISM)

First QuarterChemistryAchievementTest (FQCAT)

11


12/35

12


13/35

13


14/35

First

Wave

Second

Wave

Third

Wave

14


15/35

15

Model RMSEA NFI NNFI CFI

Model 1 Serial

model.19 .96 .82 .96

Model 2

Parallel model.08 .99 .97 .99

Note:RMSEA = root mean squareerror approximation (.05-.08 good fit); NFI

= normed fit index, (.95-1.00 good fit); NNFI = non-normed fit index and CFI= comparative fit index (>.97 good fit, >.97 acceptable fit)

The model that better describes therelationship of facilitating conditions, senseof

self, and achievement

Findings


16/35

16


17/35

Variable Public Private df F p Eta squareM M

Facilitating Conditions

Parent support 3.45 4.57 1, 1692 518.98 .01 0.23

Teacher support 3.41 4.41 1, 1692 855.79 .01 0.33

Peer help 3.44 4.57 1, 1692 1056.27 .01 0.38

Negative parent influence 3.14 1.44 1, 1692 988.64 .01 0.36

Negative peer influence 2.91 1.46 1, 1692 635.81 .01 0.27Sense of Self

Sense of purpose 3.68 4.67 1, 1692 440.11 .01 0.20

Sense of reliance 3.34 4.45 1, 1692 290.95 .01 0.14

Negative self-concept 2.69 2.06 1, 1692 127.086 .01 0.06

Positive self-concept 3.67 4.47 1, 1692 558.12 .01 0.24

Achievement Goals

Mastery goals 3.72 4.57 1, 1692 474.73 .01 0.21

Performancegoals 3.34 4.17 1, 1692 290.95 .01 0.14

Socialgoals 3.86 4.27 1, 1692 188.95 .01 0.10

Extrinsic goals 3.65 4.49 1, 1692 473.66 .01 0.21 Performance-avoidance 2.81 1.89 1, 1692 302.00 .01 0.15

Findings Differences of facilitating conditions, sense of self, and achievementgoals of the participants frompublic and private schools


18/35

rivate school students have ahigher provision for positive

facilitating conditions(parent, teacher and peer

help), better positive senseof

self (e.g., senseof purpose,senseof reliance, positiveself-concept) and higher ininternally-referenced (e.g.,

mastery goals) and

externally-referenced goals(e.g., performance, social andextrinsic goals).

18


19/35

Thederived-model


20/35

20

Findings Difference in First Quarter ChemistryAchievement


21/35

Findings

PathGroup

Parameter

estimateP

Mastery goals > achievementPu

lic 1.

.

**

Private .

.

Performance goals > achievementPu

lic.

1

.

Private 1. 7

. 1 *

Social goals > achievementPu

lic .2

. 2

Private 1.7

.

**

Extrinsic goals > achievementPu

lic -1.17

.

**

Private

.

2 .

**

Performance-avoidance > achievementPu

lic -1. 27 . 1 *

Private -1.

2.

7**

* Significant at .

** significant at . 1

21

Description

Public schools students are moreintrinsically-motivated learners

Private school students are moreextrinsically-motivated learners.


22/35

Findings

Parent support, negativepeer influence (-) Mastery goals

Peer elp, negative parentinfluence (-), negative peerinfluence (-)

Perfor ance goals

Social goals

Parent support, teac ersupport

trinsic goals

Parent support (-), peer

elp (-), negative parentinfluence, negative peerinfluence

Perfor ance-

avoidance goals

>

>

>

>

>

Parent support, teachersupport, peer help, negativeparent influence (-)

Mastery goals

Parent support, teachersupport Performance goals

Parent support, teachersupport

Social goals

Parent support, teachersupport

Extrinsic goals

Negative peer influence Performance-avoidance goals

>

>

>

>

>

Note:

ll relationships contained in the ta le are significant

22

It is apparent that more facilitating conditions were given to private school

students which predicted a number of subsequent achievement goals.

Interesting differences may be noted, like in terms of social goals, these goalswere not predicted by social support of public school participants but it did for

private school students.


23/35

Findings

Sense of purpose, senseofreliance, positive self-concept

Mastery goals

Sense of purpose, senseofreliance, negative self-concept (-), positive self-concept

Performance goals

Social goals

Sense of purpose, senseofreliance, negative selfconcept (-), positive self-concept

Extrinsic goals

Sense of purpose (-), sense

of reliance (-), negativeself-concept, positive self-concept (-)

Performance-

avoidance goals

>

>

>

>

>


Mastery goals


Performance goals

Positive self-concept negativeself-concept (-), Social goals

Sense of purpose, senseof

reliance Extrinsic goals

Senseof purpose, senseofreliance

Performance-avoidance goals

>

>

>

>

>

Note: All relationships contained in the table are significant

In somewhat similar fashion, senseof self constructs were able to predict achievement

goals of the two groups of students. Noteddifference, however, is on social goals

where these goals were predicted by positive and negative self-concept for privateschools but noneof the senseof self constructs predicted social goals of public school

participants.


24/35

Findings

PathGroup

Parameterestimate

p

Parent support > achievementPublic 0.637 0.342 Private 8.283 0.006

Teacher support > achievementPublic 3.317 0.000

Private 0.407 0.568

Peer help > achievementPublic 1.388 0.117Private 7.228 0.009

Negative parent influence >achievement

Public -0.584 0.034 Private -0.804 0.140

Negative peer influence >achievement

Public -0.924 0.022 Private -1.986 0.000

Predictors (Public)

Teacher support

Negative parent influence (-)

Negative peer influence (-)

Predictors (Private )

Parent support

Peer help

Negative peer influence (-)

p < .05,

p < .01

24


25/35

Findings

PathGroup

Parameterestimate

p

Senseof purpose > achievementPublic 0.016 0.980Private 0.448 0.628

Senseof reliance > achievement

Public 0.559 0.376

Private 2.531 0.003

Negative self-concept > achievementPublic -0.372 0.239Private -1.375 0.007

Positive self-concept > achievementPublic 1.268 0.021 Private 1.073 0.155

Predictors (Public)

Positive self-concept

Predictors (Private)

Senseof reliance Negative self-concept

p < .05, p < .01

25


26/35


27/35

27


28/35

28


29/35

29


30/35

30


31/35

31


32/35

32


33/35

33


34/35

34


35/35

35

Salamat

po!

Thank youfor

listening!

Download - Ganotice Jr Ppt

Top Related