DOCUMENT RESUME ED 374 402 CS 011 831 AUTHOR A derman, Eric M. TITLE Motivation and Cognitive Strategy Use in Reading and Writing. SPONS AGENCY Department of Education, Washington, DC. PUB DATE Dec 92 CONTRACT R117C800003; R215A00430 NOTE 30p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Natis,nal Reading Conference (42nd, an Antonio, TX, December 2-5, 1992). PUB TYPE Speeches/Conference Papers (150) Reports Research/Technical (143) EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Academic Achievement; Affective Behavior; *Cognitive Style; Junior High Schools; Literacy; Reading Research; Sex Differences; *Student Motivation; Writing Research IDENTIFIERS *Middle School Students ABSTRACT A study examined the relationships among early adolescents' motivational goal orientations (task and ability focus), cognitive processing strategies, self-efficacy, and expectancy-valve for literacy activities. These factors appear to vary by gender, academic status (special education, at-risk, and not-at-risk), and grade level. Subjects, 678 middle-school students from a largely "blue collar" district near a major city in the midwest, completed a self-report questionnaire. For students who are learning-focused, findings support use of deep-level cognitive processing strategies such as monitoring of comprehension, paraphrasing, and summarizing; students who are ability-focused tend to use surface-level cognitive processing strategies such as memorization, copying, and rehearsal of information. The relationships between these variables and performance on several standardized measures of language and reading achievement were also measured. Results indicated that (1) self-efficacy was the most powerful predictor of success; and (2) those students who valued literacy activities and were learning-focused tended to do worse on some standardized tests than their peers. Findings suggest that educators should place greater emphasis on the relationships between motivational and affective factors with strategy usage, rather than re.:erring to gender and academic classifications such as "at risk" or "special education" when considering the ways in which adolescents approach reading and writing activities. (Contains 12 references and five tables of data. An appendix presents a list of the constructs and items of the students' scales and four figures of data displaying the motivationa'., affective, cognitive, and achievement-related belief scales.) (RS, *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ***********************************************************************
23
Embed
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 374 402 CS 011 831 …DOCUMENT RESUME ED 374 402 CS 011 831 AUTHOR A derman, Eric M. TITLE Motivation and Cognitive Strategy Use in Reading and Writing. SPONS AGENCY
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 374 402 CS 011 831
AUTHOR A derman, Eric M.
TITLE Motivation and Cognitive Strategy Use in Reading and
Writing.
SPONS AGENCY Department of Education, Washington, DC.
PUB DATE Dec 92
CONTRACT R117C800003; R215A00430
NOTE 30p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theNatis,nal Reading Conference (42nd, an Antonio, TX,
December 2-5, 1992).
PUB TYPE Speeches/Conference Papers (150) Reports
Research/Technical (143)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS *Academic Achievement; Affective Behavior; *CognitiveStyle; Junior High Schools; Literacy; ReadingResearch; Sex Differences; *Student Motivation;Writing Research
IDENTIFIERS *Middle School Students
ABSTRACTA study examined the relationships among early
adolescents' motivational goal orientations (task and ability focus),
cognitive processing strategies, self-efficacy, and expectancy-valvefor literacy activities. These factors appear to vary by gender,
academic status (special education, at-risk, and not-at-risk), and
grade level. Subjects, 678 middle-school students from a largely
"blue collar" district near a major city in the midwest, completed aself-report questionnaire. For students who are learning-focused,findings support use of deep-level cognitive processing strategies
such as monitoring of comprehension, paraphrasing, and summarizing;
students who are ability-focused tend to use surface-level cognitive
processing strategies such as memorization, copying, and rehearsal ofinformation. The relationships between these variables andperformance on several standardized measures of language and reading
achievement were also measured. Results indicated that (1)
self-efficacy was the most powerful predictor of success; and (2)
those students who valued literacy activities and werelearning-focused tended to do worse on some standardized tests thantheir peers. Findings suggest that educators should place greateremphasis on the relationships between motivational and affectivefactors with strategy usage, rather than re.:erring to gender andacademic classifications such as "at risk" or "special education"when considering the ways in which adolescents approach reading and
writing activities. (Contains 12 references and five tables of data.An appendix presents a list of the constructs and items of the
students' scales and four figures of data displaying themotivationa'., affective, cognitive, and achievement-related belief
Motivation and Cognitive Strategyzr Use in Reading and Writingcn%-
111
Eric M. AndermanThe University of Michigan
Combined Program in Education and Psychology
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice or Eclucahonat Resoarch and ihrproverhen:
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)/ CENTER
document has been reproduced as'eceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.
Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.
Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI posiiion or policy.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National ReadingConference, San Antonio, Texas. The research reported in thispaper was supported by grants to Dr. Carol Midgley, PrincipalInVestigator, U.S. Department of Education, #R215A00430, and to Dr.Martin L. Maehr, Principal Investigator, U. S. Department ofEducation, National Center for School Leadership, Urbana, Illinois,#R117C800003. The author would like to express his gratitude forcomments on this paper to Dr. Carol Midgley, Dr. Martin L. Maehr,Timothy Urdan, Stewart Wood, Allison Young, Debra Joscefowitz,Lyn ley Hicks, and Kim Fravil.
All correspondence should be sent to Eric M. Anderman, Combined Programin Education & Psychology, The University of Michigan, 1400C School ofEducation, 610 E. University, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48109.
0
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Motivation and Cognitive Strategy Use in Reading and Writing
Eric M. AndermanThe University of Michigan
Combined Program in Education and Psychology
Abstract
The present study examines the relationships among early adolescents' motivational
goal orientations (task and ability focus), cognitive processing strategies, self-
efficacy, and expectancy-value for literacy activities. These factors appear to vary
by gender, academic status (special education, at-risk, and not-at-risk), and grade
level. Students who are learning focused tend to use deep-level cognitive
processing strategies such as the monitoring of comprehension, paraphrasing, and
summarizing; students who are ability focused tend to use surface-level cognitive
processing strategies such as memorization, copying, and rehearsal of information.
We also examined the relationships between these variables and performance on
several standardized measures of language and reading achievement. While self-
efficacy is the most powerful predictor of success on these tests, w.f., also found th a
those students who value literacy activities and are learning-focused tend to do
worse on some standardized measures than their peers. Implications for educators
and policy-makers are discussed.
3
kjeo -90i ,-10. 1,C1 .1/4 1 e I 10 I P_
Eric M. AndermanThe University of Michigan
Combined Program in Education and Psychology
Considerable research has confirmed that students' achievement goals
are related to distinct patterns of motivation and cognitive strategy use. Two
types of goals have been identified: "task" goals, which focus on task-
mastery, problem solving, and the intrinsic value of learning; and "ability"
goals, which focus on students' grades, relative ability, and performance
compared to others. Students who adopt task focused goals tend to persist at
academic tasks longer and take on challenges, while students who adopt
ability focused goals tend to avoid challenging tasks and to give up when
faced with difficult work (Ames & Archer, 1988; Elliot & Dweck, 1988; Dweck
orientation and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 80, 514-523.
Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Nolen, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and
study strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 269-287.
Pintrich, P.R., dz DeGroot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated
learning components of classroom academic performance. Special
Section: Motivation and efficacy in education: Research and new
directions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.
Young, A.J., Arbreton, A., Sr Midgley, C. (1992, April). Motivational
orientation and cognitive strategy use in four academic domains. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, CA.
12; 5
Tab
le 1
: AN
OV
A R
esul
ts
CO
NST
RU
CT
GE
ND
ER
AC
AD
EM
IC S
TA
TU
SG
RA
DE
INT
ER
AC
TIO
NS
Abi
lity
Focu
s2.
560.
920
0.05
3G
rade
X A
cade
mic
Sta
tus*
Lea
rnin
g Fo
cus
5.41
*2.
48*
1.70
Non
eSu
rfac
e St
rate
gies
15.2
5***
18.1
5***
2.80
Non
eD
eep
Stra
tegi
es10
.12*
*4.
31**
2.73
Gen
der
X A
cade
mic
Sta
tus*
*Se
lf-C
once
pt o
f A
bilit
y1.
347
0.91
0.03
Non
eSe
lf-E
ffic
acy
2.43
18.5
4***
4.27
*N
one
Val
ue8.
09**
3.25
**0.
75N
one
Exp
ecta
ncy
3.76
*12
.01*
**0.
84N
one
***v
.001
Tab
le 2
: Mul
tiple
Cla
ssif
icat
ion
Ana
lysi
s
CO
NST
RU
CT
GE
ND
ER
AC
AD
EM
IC S
TA
TU
SG
RA
DE
LE
VE
L
Lea
rnin
g Fo
cus
Mal
eFe
mal
eL
DA
t Ris
kN
ot a
t Ris
kG
rade
6G
rade
7.
Gra
ndM
ean
-.08
.0.7
7Su
rfac
eSt
raw
ies
Dee
p tr
ateg
ies
.13
.1
.20
-.1.
2.5
-.11
.10
.0-.
14.4
.Se
lf C
once
pt o
fA
bili
.01
-.36
.19
.5.
e :O
w-.
7.1
7-.
17.0
7.5
2al
oe-.
11--
FT"
-.31
-.17
-F1-
3-' .
1''E
xpec
tanc
y-.
07.0
6.7
7
Tab
le 3
: Zer
o-O
rder
Cor
rela
tions
Am
ong
Eng
lish
Scal
es
Abi
lity
Focu
s
Abi
lity
Focu
sD
eep
Stra
tegy
Lea
rnin
gFo
cus
Self
Con
cept
o A
bili
Self
-E
ffic
acy
Surf
ace
Stra
tegi
esV
alue
Exp
ecta
n G
ende
rcy
1.00
Dee
p St
rate
gies
-.25
0**
1.00
Lea
rnin
g Fo
cuse
d-.
346*
*.6
52**
1.00
Self
-Con
cept
Abi
lity
-.13
3**
.292
**.2
73**
1.00
Self
-Eff
icac
y-.
204*
*.3
44**
.324
**.4
40**
1.00
Surf
ace
Stra
tegi
es.4
53**
-.46
0**
-.41
6**
-.30
4**
-.39
5**
1.00
Val
ue-.
204*
*.4
26**
.396
**35
01*
.294
**-.
346*
*1.
00
Exp
ecta
ncy
-.16
9**
.343
**.3
19**
.728
**.4
831*
-.35
4**
A69
**1.
00G
ende
r.0
66.1
381*
.100
*.0
69-.
037
-.16
9**
.124
**.0
91*
1.00
Ris
k Fa
ctor
-.03
6.1
15**
.056
.263
**.2
25**
- .2
34 *
*D
991*
.231
**.0
98*
* 1.
05
Tab
le 4
: Mut
liple
Reg
ress
ions
Pre
dict
ing
Dee
p an
d Su
rfac
e St
rate
gy U
se
Var
iabl
eD
ee S
trat
egie
sSu
rfac
e St
rata
Stra
tegi
esel
f E
cac
y.0
59-.
151*
*G
ende
r.0
52.0
19-.
092*
*.1
34**
*J3
57ci
aTE
dr--
4cat
ion
AIT
Zia
-70-
31af
liM--
-'-.T
164r
"..1
04**
*-.
079*
Abi
lity
Focu
s.0
54.3
19**
*L
earn
ing
Focu
s.4
86**
*-.
056
Exp
ecta
ncy
.017
-.06
7-.
217*
**D
ee S
trat
egy
Use
Su a
ce S
trat
FThs
eM
odi a
e I
ntel
ligen
ce--
-T85
' -0*
.094
4-*
.024
R-S
quar
ed.5
2***
.43*
**
Tab
le 5
: Reg
ress
ions
Pre
dict
ing
Ach
ieve
men
t
Con
stru
ctG
ende
rSe
lf E
ffic
acy
Mod
ifia
ble
Inte
lli:e
nce
Abi
lity
Fccu
s
'V
alue
Lea
rnin
gFo
cus
Surf
ace
'St
rafe
: 'es
Dee
pSt
rafe
: es
R-S
quar
ed
Con
duct
-.16
5r4
.003
.008
-.03
2-.
019
.034
:144
"-.
038
.06*
**C
TB
S
Rea
ding
Perc
entil
e.0
33.2
98"*
-.04
3.0
52-.
153*
**-.
182*
**-.
196'
.038
.14*
"
CT
BS
Rea
ding
(6)
.044
.286
***
-.06
7.0
66-.
144"
-.19
9***
-.19
7***
.060
.14*
**C
TB
S
Lan
guag
ePe
re. (
6).1
54*"
330'
1"-.
033
.056
-.11
0*-.
136"
-.16
1**
.004
.16"
*_P
ert.
Lan
guag
eG
rade
(6)
.169
*".3
27**
*-.
034
.048
-.09
0*-.
169*
*-.
143"
.030
.16*
**
ME
AP
Cat
.
ofA
cliv
't..1
20*
.296
***
-.12
9*.0
03-.
121
.085
-.05
7.0
15.1
2***
ME
AP
Rdg
.St
ory
Sele
ctio
n
I.2
21*"
.265
***
-.11
9*.0
51*
.006
'.0
17-.
101
-.06
2.1
3***
ME
AP
Rdg
.In
fo.
Sele
ctio
n.1
37*
----
----
----
---
---
.04
--E
nglis
hG
rade
(7)
.102
.205
***
-.16
4".0
35.0
58-.
082
-.21
2**
.131
.17*
**
Rea
ding
Gra
de (
6).1
25*
.157
**.0
43.0
21.0
54-.
172*
-.24
1***
-.02
8.1
1"*
Lan
guag
eA
rts
(6)
.149
".2
97**
*.0
34-.
010
.044
-A09
-.16
6*-.
022
.17*
**
CT
BS
Tot
alPe
rcen
tile
I I .0
69.3
18**
*-.
064
.075
-.15
1***
-.15
4"-.
208*
".0
04.1
6"*
Figu
re 1
: Sel
f-E
ffic
acy
and
Self
Con
cept
of
Abi
lity
by A
cade
mic
Sta
tus
Self
-Eff
icac
y &
Sel
f C
once
pt o
f A
bilit
y by
Aca
dem
ic S
tatu
s
3.8
3.61
3.4
3.2
3.0
I
Spe
cial
Edu
catio
nA
t Ris
kN
ot a
t Ris
k
e- --*-
-M
ean
SS
Mle
nglis
h se
lf-co
ncep
t o
Mea
n S
SM
leng
lish
self-
effic
acy
Figu
re 2
: Exp
ecta
ncy
and
Val
ue b
y A
cade
mic
Sta
tus
Exp
ecta
ncy
and
Val
ue b
y A
cade
mic
Sta
tus
4.2
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
Spec
ial E
duca
tion
A
At R
isk
Not
at R
isk
Mea
n SS
Mle
nglis
h va
lue
_ M
ean
SSM
lEng
lish
expe
ctan
cy
r".
Figu
re 3
: M
otiv
atio
nal O
rien
tatio
n by
Aca
dem
ic S
tatu
s
3.6
Mot
ivat
iona
l Ori
enta
tion
by A
cade
mic
Sta
tus
3.4
-
3.2
-
3.0
-
2.8
2.6
Spec
ial E
duca
tion
At R
isk
Not
at R
isk
o M
ean
SSM
1cri
glis
h ab
ility
foc
us
Mea
n SS
Mle
nglis
h le
arni
ng f
ocus
Figu
re 4
: Str
ateg
y U
se b
y A
cade
mic
Sta
tus
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.6
2.4
Cog
nitiv
e St
rate
gy U
sage
by
Aca
dem
ic S
tatu
s
Spec
ial E
duca
tion
At R
isk
Not
at R
isk
Mea
n SS
Mle
nglis
h de
ep s
trat
egie
Mea
n SS
Mle
nglis
h su
rfac
e st
rate
Student ScalesMiddle School Mini Domains English
Constructs and Items
A. Goal Orientation - Ability-Focus (4)12110 I do the work that is required in English, nothing more.12111 I like work in English that is easy.12117 In this class I only study things I know will be on a test or assignment.12128 The main reason I do my work in English is because we get grades.
B. Goal Orientation Task-Focus (4)12113 Understanding the work in English is more important to me than the grade I get.12115 The main reason 1 do my work in English is because it makes me feel good inside.12121 I like English the best when the work is really hard-12123 I like English work that learn from, even if I make a lot of mistakes.
C. Self-Efficacy (4)12109 Even the work in English is hard, I can learn it.12118 No matter how hard I try, there is some English class work I'll never
understand. (recoded).12133 Some of the work we do in English is too difficult for me. (recoded)12136 if I have enough time, I can do even the hardest problems in English.
V. Strategies - Surface (5)2116 When the work in this class is difficult, I either give up or do the easy parts.12125 When I am writing, I stop when rve reached the required length, even if I have
more to say.12131 When I have a writing assignment, I just start writing because I want to finish quickly.12132 When I'm working on something difficult in class, I write down the first answer
that comes to mind..12140 When I have a reading assignment, I read it as quickly as I can.
E. Strategics Deeper (8)12112 I stop once in a while and think over what I'm writing in English.12119 I try to connect new work in this class to what I've learned before.12124 After I write something the first time, I try to make it better.12127 When I am writing a report, I think about the main ideas before I start writing.12129 Whea I make mistakes in English, I try to figure out why.12130 In this class I spend some time thinking about how to do my work before I start it.12135 I try to use the grammar we learn when I write stories.12139 I ask myself questions while I read to make sure I understand.