ED 047 920 AUTHOR TITLE INSTITUTION SFONS AGENCY REPORT NO BJREAU NO PUB UAIE C^NTr,ACT 401E ELKS PRICE. DESCRIPTORS DOCUMENT RESUME 24 RE G03 432 Gaa, John Powers Goal-Setting Behavior, Achievement in Reading, and Attitude Toward Reading Associated with Individual Goal-Setting Conferences. (Part 1 of Two Parts.) Wisconsin Univ., Madison. Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning. Office of Education (DHEW), Washington, b.C. Bureau of Research. 1R-142-1 BR-5-0216 Sep 70 OEC-E-16-1S4 94p. FURS Price MR-$0.65 HC-$3.29 Beginning Reading, Behavior Change, Conference : -, Educational Attitudes, *Elementary School Students, *Goal Orientation, *individual Counseling, Objectives, *Reading Achievement, Rea0ing Development, Reading Instruction, *Re%ding Pc.sParch, Student Attitudes, Student Behavior APSTRACT Pait 1 of a study designed to investigate he effects of individual goal-setting conferences on attitude toward reading and on reading achievement ircludes the introduction, review of literature, and descriptions of methods and results. Two parallel studies were ccnducted, the `.first using third and fourth graders and the second using first and second graders. Subjects were blocked by sex and previous reading achievement and assigned to three treatment groups: (1) weekly individual goal-setting conferences, (2) weekly individual ccnferences without goal-setting, and (3) control. All groups had the same classroom treatment. Reading achievement was tested by an experimenter-devised test and by appropriate subtests of the Wisconsin Tests of Reading Skill Development. Attitude was measured by the Primary Reading Attitude Inventory and by an experimenter-devised scal(:. Effezts of goal setting were also measuted. The results showed that pupils in group 1 set fewee goals, experienced less discrepancy bitween goals sot and achieved, but also indicated loss ccniidonce in the ability to achieve goals. With respect to reading acnievement, younger children shower, significant differences cn standarlized and experimenter- designed '7,easures, but older children did not. No significant differences in attitude were found. (Author/MS)
95
Embed
DOCUMENT RESUME - ERICDOCUMENT RESUME. 24. RE G03 432. Gaa, John Powers Goal-Setting Behavior, Achievement in Reading, and Attitude Toward Reading Associated with Individual Goal-Setting
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
ED 047 920
AUTHORTITLE
INSTITUTION
SFONS AGENCY
REPORT NOBJREAU NOPUB UAIEC^NTr,ACT401E
ELKS PRICE.DESCRIPTORS
DOCUMENT RESUME
24 RE G03 432
Gaa, John PowersGoal-Setting Behavior, Achievement in Reading, andAttitude Toward Reading Associated with IndividualGoal-Setting Conferences. (Part 1 of Two Parts.)Wisconsin Univ., Madison. Research and DevelopmentCenter for Cognitive Learning.Office of Education (DHEW), Washington, b.C. Bureauof Research.1R-142-1BR-5-0216Sep 70OEC-E-16-1S494p.
APSTRACTPait 1 of a study designed to investigate he
effects of individual goal-setting conferences on attitude towardreading and on reading achievement ircludes the introduction, reviewof literature, and descriptions of methods and results. Two parallelstudies were ccnducted, the `.first using third and fourth graders andthe second using first and second graders. Subjects were blocked bysex and previous reading achievement and assigned to three treatmentgroups: (1) weekly individual goal-setting conferences, (2) weeklyindividual ccnferences without goal-setting, and (3) control. Allgroups had the same classroom treatment. Reading achievement wastested by an experimenter-devised test and by appropriate subtests ofthe Wisconsin Tests of Reading Skill Development. Attitude wasmeasured by the Primary Reading Attitude Inventory and by anexperimenter-devised scal(:. Effezts of goal setting were alsomeasuted. The results showed that pupils in group 1 set fewee goals,experienced less discrepancy bitween goals sot and achieved, but alsoindicated loss ccniidonce in the ability to achieve goals. Withrespect to reading acnievement, younger children shower, significantdifferences cn standarlized and experimenter- designed '7,easures, butolder children did not. No significant differences in attitude werefound. (Author/MS)
Report from the Project onSituational Variables andEfficiency of Concept Learning
'/1 2 q
r-
T
Technical Report No. 142 (Part 1 of Two Farts)
GOAL-SETTING BEHAVIOR, ACHIEVEMENT IN READING,AND ATTITUDE TOWARD READING ASSOCIATED WITH INDIVIDUAL
GOAL-SETtiNG CONFERENCES
Report from the Project onSituational Variables AndEfficiency of Concept Learning
by John Powers Caa
Herbert J. Klausmeier and Robert E. Davidson, Principal Investigators
Herbert J. Klau-.1eier, Professor of Educaticnal PsychologyChairman of the Examining Committee
Wisconsin Research and DevelopmentCenter for Cognitive LearningThe University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin
September, 1970
Tt,is Ifet al Report is H dr.( I oral dissertation writing, research suppded by thilicseoit h and IleNelorment Center for Cognitive Learning. Since it has been appri,,,cd by it Uni
ry,imining Committee, it hns not been reviewed by the Cintei It is published by theCentel As a t..coid of some of the Centei's activities ,nd as a service to the student. The boundotir,inal is in The University of Wisconsin Memorial Library.
l'oh!i..bcd by Ole WiCConcin Research and Developmenl ((Wei CoilliNe I earning, supportedI, parr vestal, h and di ve'rprnent ((Hirt by funds In.-111v Vino. (lifire of Educa'llon.INTaiiirrui of Ilealsh. rduc,ciiora. uric! Welfare. eypres,ed hro in do not Iri cs<adlsri reit flic or polo v of ihr Illfriv of rA,,,.,1,4,11 and no official i ndor.i n-cnr. by tfle fii c
it
0R.
NATIONAL EVALUATION COMMITTEESamuel Brownell
cf Urt,p, Elu,o eonG u1 ,rre SchoolYule Un.vert te
Launor F. Cartersc-0, Voe PreeldenTe on
Teo knol oge and De TelopnonlSy,vm N.Terroproent orolom
Francis S. ChoseNefes.,e,COco, ero of (4,Toon
e,T r, of (noog,
Henry Chauncey Elizabeth KoontzC,,, AN, WW1L. ur.l l ,lodr STor..1,11Educ000nol Tee4ng Sector A,Irn nilrot On, U S
Depreddonr of Lobo\No elnIngIon
Marlin Dc. utschDecor, Iner4uee for
De weloprneelol 5,de1rJr", York Med-col College
Patrick SuppesNoel",Deportee,' of MotOernoloeSIonford (./n.vervey
Roderick McPhee *Benton J. Underwoode de n T
School, Honolulu
Jock Edling G. Wesley Sowards(le.ner.tory f d,o4on
FloTolo Spore LInlvervlyDorm., tool- ,-2 Reserach
D re on!,,clenn of Hit,'
P,otesecoDepodrnent of Perehology4401,..00ern Ue,vervey
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER POLICY REVIEW BOARD
Leonard Berkowitzet Cseceolocy
Archie A. BuchmillerDo e ..e Sale S. et onfen feelOT c I P.Alo loT,,Teon
Robert E. Grinder
PT , rT
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Edgar F. BorgatlaI. TT
5.c close
Russell J. HoslerFrotem", CuTTovIvr,
and Inet,coon
Stephen C. Kleene(allege of
le,ere 0,1 Se. e -Tee
Clauston Jenkins Donald J. McCartyAte Alone 0,f00,(pa,' ,Dr,mq Comm,lree for
H ghe, f 4,04 on
Herbert J. KlausmelerDoetIco R & D CenrerR'etero, TO I d.004cer,n1
etTetnology
Robert E. Davidson("o', TtoT,
I I co',onol R10.1 ol,?,
Anne E. Buchanan Fronk H. FarleySt (( 01 Atv, F0enrp,
P h D ee Faro oeol Nee, o'<?,
Ro.in S. ChapmanAte e
FACULTY OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORSVernnn L. Allen
e, N. ,-CC'PV
Ted Czajkowskien1 e c
Frank H. FarleyAnM ore Clete:tor el (4,eo 0,31
r,,,t cio Re
tester S. GolubI re.e, end
'.r,,,01 on and .n ("ol et,
Robert E. Davidson John G. Harveyr,, onc,te 0. 0' .eo,y h'! e".0rlc NI 0 Cv.,,C,',"
Gory A. Davisrrq.,, .11 N,
M. Vert DeVoutt
Herbert J. Klausmoler..P011, 0 I 4 en. o'reolR,r`oloro
Donald tong*Ate .et
MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Herbert J. Xlausmeiero- rt le ve-. et
re. < loc
trIoly K Culling
Thomas A. RombergA TT, a C, c
Dot"Selo& of Pd.aat on
B. Robert Tobochr,IckCho,rnon, Cleporr",erd
of Cur, doutum andIn.lrucr on
Henry C. WeinlickF e,Av Secworr"Vd.cons, f dvooTon A11,0,1op,
Ira Shorkonsky M. Crawford Young,,o< cot R,olettc, of Rol, TTI A atxcve DeonSr FP, IV, Grp o'r Sete.'
Russell .1. Hosler Wayne OttoL, ol CT o 1
In I, ot on or of A I T ere le
'Herbert J. Klausmeier Robert G. PelzoldR
cnolctc,;
James MoserA et Farina' Yo1C,,,,1
Utoot on, Vo I nie Sodolor
Allot are Of:, 0 Or Schoolof f d,no'on
Rrotereor of (j.,^ and0,4 0 M., c
Richard L. VenezkyA it l'a,t Pro'em ' of (egee,1
1,1 of Cce,p,er So eves
Wayne Otto Alan Vaelkeroni Fee oort Voteeto, of Cuoo4.T,
h:e n1 '41 0,1 leo,reioen
Milton 0. Pellar of T
tr ,'',,e en ISr en,:
Lorry WilderA 3, 1.0,0 r'011,, 0
(1,1 on
Thomas A. Romberg Peter Wolffrn ,,.. r I .c
hr O rgrC, Tee
o. ,^-1 00. cnB. Robot Tobochnick, -ore e
AoTonot. or,/
James Waiterlee n en Ner,n
Dan G. WoolpectD
STATEMENT OF FOCUS
The Wisconsin neraarch and Development Center for Cognitive learningfocuses on contributing to a better understanding of cognitive learninv bycniiaten C,1J io.uth and tn the improvement of reInt.L,1 educational practices.The strategy for research and development is comprehensive, it in1 ude5basic research to generate hew kc,ualcdgc isL ut. Lhe conditions and processesof learning and about thn process's of instruction, and the subsequent de-velopment of research-based instructional materials, many of which are de-signed for use by teachers and oth,,rs for use by students. These matet".nlsare tested and refined in school settings. Throughout these opel.atiens be-havioral scientists, curriculum experts, a:ademic scholars, and school peopleinteract, insuring that the results of Center activities are based soundlyon knowledge of subject matter and cognitive learning and that they areapplied to the improvement of educational practice.
This Techhical Report is from the Situational Variables and Efficiencyof Concept Learning Project in Frograu 1. General objectives of the Programare to generate new knowledge Ebout concept learning and cognitive skills,to synthesize existing knowledge, and to develop educational materials sug-gested by the prior activities. Contributing to these Program objectives,the Concept Learning Project has the following five objectives: to identifythe conditions that facilitate concept learning in the school setting andto describe their management, to develop and validate a schema for eval-uating the student's level of concept understanding, to develop and validatea model of cognitive processes in concept learning, to generate knowledgeconcerning the semantic corponents of concept learning, and to identifyconditions assraciatcd with motivation for school learning and to describetheir management.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to express his appreciation to Dr. Herbert J.
Klausmeier who served as his major professor during his doctoral program,
and supervised the preparation of this dissertation.
Appreciation is also extended to Dr. Robert E. Davidson and to
Dr. Joel R. Levin who provided helpful criticism as members of the
reading committee and to Dr. Frank H. Farley and Dr. Semour Spilerman
who served on the examining committee.
The author i^-12btcd to Dr. Doiothy A. grayer for her
c.Dmiuents on the drafts of the proposal and dissertation and to the
staff at Wilson Elementary School in Janesville, Wisconsin.
But most importantly the author wishes to thank his wife, Cynthia,
not only for typing a.id editing this manuscript, but for her understanding
and patience throughout. It is this understanding which has allowed
the attainment of the Ph.D. degree to become a reality.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTSiv
LIST OF TABLESvii.
LIST OF FIGURES
ABSTRACT xi
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION
Method 4
Significance of the Study 7
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERAlutlE 9
III. METHOD 21
Subjects 21
Materials 21
Treatment 25Design 29
Hypothesis Tested 32
IV. RESULTS 35
Unit D 35
Onit B 58
V. DISCUSSION 81
APPENDIX A: STUDENT GOAL - SETTING CHECKLISTS FUR UNIIS D
APPENDIX B: GOAL REMINDER s01 LIS FOR UNI IS I) AND R 9i
AND B
APPENDIX C: tlIECK LISTS FoR 11/THER LVALUAUDN DE );UAL';ATTAINED FUR UN11S D AND IS 10)
APPENDIX 1): GOAL-SEITIN(: CoNEIDENCE KAiING MALL IISLD FUR).NITS D AND B
APPENDIX E: SUBTESTS or -11U WISCONSIN lESTS OF READING SKILLDEVELOPMENT USED IN UNITS D AND IS Iii
APPENDIX F: EXPERIMENTER-DEVELOPED TES1S RIR UNITS D AND B. 122
AP11.NDIX G: READING SKILLS AT1ITUDE QUES11(rNAIRLS USLD IN1311NITS I) AND B
APPENDIX H:
APPENDIX I:
APPENDIX J:
APPENDIX K:
REFERENCES
Page
DATA FOR SUBJECTS IN UNITS D AND B ON ALL
DEPENDENT MEASURES 134
MAGNITUDE, DIRECTION, AND MEAN DIFFERENCESCORES AS A FUNCTION OF TREATMENT IN UNITSD AND B 141
DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIMENTAL POPULATION 144
TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF EXPERIMENTER-LEVELOPED TESTS 146
149
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Schedules for Treatment Groups 30
2 Experimental Design of Proposed Experiment 31
3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance of Scores on AttitudeMeasures for Unit D 37
4 Mean Scores on the Primary Pupil Reading AttitudeInventory and on the Reading Skill Attitude Inventory byTreatment Group and by Sex [or Unit U 39
5 Mean Scores on the Urinary Pupil Reading AttitudeInventory and on the Reading Skill Attitude Inventory byTreatment Group and by Previous Achievement Level forUnit D 41
6 Univarlate Analysis, cf Variance of f.cores ()11 the
Exrerimenter-Developed Synonym and .".!,,tonym AchievementTest for Unit D 43
7 Mean Scores on the Experiment:r-Developed Synonym andAntonym Test by Treatment Group and by Sex for Unit D. . . 44
8 M:2art Scores on the i.xperimenter-Developed Synonym andAntonym Test by Treatment Group and by Previous Achieve-ment Level for Unit D 45
9 Uhivaklate Analysis of Variance of Scores on the Synonymand Antonym Subtest of the WTRSD Battery for Unit D. . . . 48
10 Mean Scores on Clc Synonym an3 Antonym Subtc:-t of theWTRSD Battery by Treatment Group and Sex for Unit D. . . 49
11 Mean Scores on the Synonym and Antonym Subtest of theWIRSD Battery by Treatment Group and Previous Achieve-ment level for Unit I) 50
12 Multivariate Analysis of Variance of Coal-Setting Bfhaviorfor Unit D 51
13 Mean Number of Goals Set, Difference Between Number olGoals Set and Attained, and Confidence Score by TreatmentGroup and Sex for Unit D 56
Po Mean Number of Goals Sri Differture r,etcen Number ofGoal, Set and Attained, and Confidence Score by Irealr-J,ntGroup and Previous Achievement Level for Unit U
Table Page
15 Multivariate Analysis of Variance of Scores on theAttitude Measures for Unit B 59
16 Mean Scores on the Primary ?upil Reading AttitudeInventory and on the Reading Skill Attitude Inventoryby Treatment Group and by Sex for Unit B . . 62
17 Mean Scores on the Prillary Pupil Reading AttitudeInventory rnd on the Reading Skill Attituae Inventoryby Treatment Oroup and by Previous Achievement Levelfor Unit B
18 Multivariate Analysis of Variance of Scores on Experi-menter - Developed Base Words and Compound Words Testsfor Unit B
63
64
19 Mean Scores on the Experimenter-reveloped CompoundWords Test and on the linse Words and Endings Test vv
fcr Unit 67
20 Mean Scores on the Experimenter Developed CompoundWords Test and on the Base Words Ana Endings Test ayTreatment Group and Previous Achievement Level forUnit B 69
21 Multivariate Analysis of Variance of Scores on theLevel B and C BaEc Words Subtests and le.e1 B CompoondWords Subtests of the WIRSD Battery for Unit B 70
22 Mean Scores on the Level B Compound Words Subtest andthe Level B and the Level C Base Words Subtest of theWTRSD Battery 1,y Treatment Group and Sex for Unit B. . . . 73
23 Mean Scores on the Level B Compound Words Subtest andthe Level B and the Level C Base Words Subtest of theWTRSD Battery by Treatment Grp and Previous Achieve-ment Le4e1 for Unit B
24 Multivariate Analysis of Variance of Coal-SettingBehavior for Unit B
25 Mean Number of Goals Set, Difference Between Number ofGoals Set And Attained, and Confidence Score by Treatmc,Group and Sex for Unit 8
26 Mean Number of Coals Set, Difference Between Number ofCoals Set and Attained, And Confidence Score by TreatmentGroup and Previous Achievement Level for Unit B
74
76
/8
7"
Table
27
28
29
Data by Subject on all Dependent M'iasures: Unit D . . . .
Data by Subject on all Dependent Measures: Unit B . . . .
Frequency Table Representing Magnitude and Direction ofDifference Scores (Number of Goals Set Minus Number of
Page
135
138
Goals Attained) as a Function of Treatment: Unit D. . . . 142
30 Mean Difference Scores as a Function of Treatment: Unit D 142
31 Frequency Table Representing Magnitude and DirectionDifference Scores (Number of Coals Eat Minus Number
of
of
Coals Attained) as a Function of Treatment: Unit B. . . 143
:2 Mean Difference Scores as a Function of Treatment: Unit B 143
ij Technical Characteristics of Experimenter-Developed Tests 147
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Mean scores on the Primary Pupil Reading AttitudeInventory and on the Reading Skill Attitude Inventoryby treatment group for Unit D 38
2 Mean scores on the Primary Pupil Reading AttitudeInventory and on the Reading Skill Attitude Inventoryby treatment group and by sex for Unit D 40
3 Mean scores on the experimenter-developed Synonym andAntonym Test by previous achievement level for Unit D . . 46
4 Mean scores on the Synonym and Antonym Subtest of theWTRSD Battery by previous achievement level for Unit D. . 51
5 Mean number of goals set, mean difference between thenumber of goals set and goals attained, and meanconfidence score by treatment group for Unit D 54
6 Mean scores on the Primary Pupil Reading Invento.v andon the Reding Skill Attitude Inventory by treatmentgroup for Unit b 60
7 Mean scores on the experimenter-developed CompoundWords and Base Words Tests by treatment group for Unit B. 65
8 Mean scores on the experimenter-developed CompoundWords and Base Words Tests by previous achievementlevel for Unit B 58
9 Meati scores on the Level Ii Compound Words, Level BBase Words, Level C Base Words Subtests of the WTRSDBattery by treatment group for Unit B 72
10 Mean number of goals set, mean difference between thenumber of goals set and attained and mean confidencescore by treatment group for Unit B
x
77
ABSTRACT
This study was designed to investigage the effects of individual goal-setting conferences on attitudes toward reading and classes in reading skills,reading skill achievement, and goal-setting behavior.
Two parallel studies were conducted using students in Unit D (corres-ponding to Third and Fourth Grades) and Unit B (Corresponding to First andSecond Grades) in a Multi-Unit elementary school. Students in each Unit wereplaced in the experimental population if they had not previously achievedthe reading skill to be studied. Ss were then blocked by sex and previousreading achievement and assigned to ene of three treatment groups: individualgoal - setting conferences, individual conferences, and control.
The Goal-Setting treatment group received an individual goal-settingconference once a week. They were asked to set goals for the coming weekand were given feedback on the accuracy of previous goals and on their achieve-ment in their reading skill class. The Conference treatment group receivedweekly individual conferences, but did not set goals for the coming week.The Control group did not receive any individual conferences but receivedthe same in-class instruction as the other treatment groups.
Achievement level was assessed using two types of measures. In eachUnit the subtest(s) of the Wisconsin Tests of Reading Skill Development(WTRSD) which was appropriate for the reading skill being studied was admin-istered. Ss in each Unit were also given an experimenter-developed test(s)covering the same reading skill.
Three dependent measures were examined in attempting to define theeffects of the goal-setting conferences G. subsequent goal-setting behavior:number of goals set, absolute difference between number of goals set andnurber of goals achieved, and the confidence shown in their ability to attainthe selected goals.
Two instruments were used in each Unit to measure the effect cf theexperime, treatment on attitude. The Primary Pupil Reading AttitudeInventory was used to measure attitude toward reading and an attitude scaledeveloper by ar_ experimenter was used to measure attitude toward thereading skills classes.
The results of the study are as follows:1. The group that participated in the individual goal-setting ccii-
ferences, in comparison with those who did not, set fewer goals,showed a smaller absolute difference between the number of goalstet and number of goals attained, and also indicated less confi-dence in their ability to achieve the goals the: had set.
2. In Unit B, there were significant differences on the WTRSD sub-tests between the group that particiFated in the individual goal-setting conferences and those who did net as well as large, butnot significant, differences on the experimenter-developed measures.There were no significant differences on achievement measures inCnit D.
3. There were no significant differences between treatment groups (11attitude measures in either Unit.
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
The influence of motivation on student achievement is of primary
importance in the classroom. Recent studies at the Wisconsin Research
and Development Center for Cognitive Learning (Kennedy, 1968; Klaus-
Figure 4. Mean scores on the Synonyn and Antonym Subtest of theWTRSD Battery by previous achteverenl level for Unit
52
the absolute difference between the ntuber of goals set and the number
of goals achieved; and the confidence subjects displayed in their ability
to attain their slated goals.
An examination of the multivariate analysts of variance table
(Table 12) reveals that the only significant differences in Loal-
setting behavlor appear as a function of the co darison of the goal-
setting versus non-goal-setting treatments. The significance of the
differences between the two groups reaches the .01 level. When the
scores of the treatment groups are plotted (Figure 5) for each of the
goal-setting behaviors considered, a very interesting relationship
is readily apparent. The goal-setting treatment group on the average
set feor goals, had a smaller difference between the number of goals
set and the number of goals attained, aLl also displayed less confidence
in their ability to attain the goals they had set. Given that the
goal-setting Ss set fewer goals 2nd that they achieved at approximately
the same revel as the other treatment groups, the finding tha. they
sholatd a smaller difference between goals set and attained is not
unexpected. With respect to the numiber f goals set and confidence
in attaining these goals, an examination of the CJal-setting, Chceh
List (Appendix A) and the Goal-Setting Confidence Rating Seal.. (Appendix
1) suggests that the average number of ;oals ,ct and the averago confi-
dence score for the goal-setting Ss revresents a more reasona'Ae L-sliratt
of their abilities rather Can simply indicating "Iowur scores." In
both cases the "scores" would be consistent with the realization that
111 possible goals can be achieved or ouGht to be chosen and that
son e help will probably be required in order lot them t.o mact(r a
given skill.
I.'
53
TABLE 12
Multivariate Analysis of Varianceof Goal-Setting Behavior for linit D
Source df F P <
TreatmentGoal-Setting (G) vs. Non-Goal-Setting (a) 3, 32 7.4103 .0007i,A
Conference (C) vs. Control (C) 3, 32 1.1663 .3377
`ex 3, 32 2.2139 .0989
Trea!_ment by SexG vs. G 3, 32 <1 .7499C vs. C 3, 32 <1 .8642
Previous Achievement Level within Sex 12, 84.9 1.6373 .0965
Treatment by Achievement within SexTreatment by Achievement within Males
G vs. G 6, 64 <1 .6368C vs. 6, 64 1.6569 .3977
Treatment by Achievement within FemalesG vs. G 6, 64 <1 .61g4C vs. C G, 64 1.3514 .-.!Wu
** Significant at the .01 level
54
40
30
MeanTotalScope 20
Goal - Setting Conference
Number of Difference betweengoals set number of goals
set and numberof goas attained
Control
Confidencescore
Figure 5. Mean nurrber of goals set, mean difference between thenumber of goals set and goals attained, and meanconfidence score by treatment group for Unit P.
55
[Although the mean for the goal-setting group is below the means for
the other treatment groups on all three of the variables considered,
an inspection of the univariate Fs suggests that the number of goals
set and the confidence level are the primary measures contributing to
the overall significance. Although this procedure is not exact with
re.spetL-co concroiIing overall Type I error probabilities, it has been
recently shown (Hummel, 1969) that there is a close correspondence in
torus of Type I error probability between this approach and the
appropriate Roy-Bose pest hoc technique.]
A further examination of Table 12 indicates that goal-setting
behavior did not differ significantly by sex and that there was also
no difference as a function of treatment by sex. The means and standard
deviations by sex are given in Table 13.
The differences by achievement groups are shown in Table 14 and
are not significant. Although the high achievement group displayed a
smaller absolute difference between goals set and attained, goal-
setting behavior, as reflected by the joint multivariate test of all
three variables, was not related to previous achievement level.
The comparison of treatment by achievement level in sex also
revealed non-significant differences. No significant differences were
found'in either the goal-setting versus non-goal-setting or the
conference versus control comparisons for either males or females.
Summary of Unit D Results
The effect of the treatment in Unit D is apparent only in relation
to goal-setting behavior. No significant differences were found between
treatment groups on the attitude measures, the experimenter-developed
achievement test, or the criterion-referenced test.
56
TABU: 13
Mean Number o!' Goals Set, Difference L.:,tweco Numberof Coals Set and Attained, nd Confidence Score
Multivariate Analysis of Variance of Scoreson Experimenter-Developed Base Wordsand Compound Words Tests for Unit B
Source df F P
TreatmentGoal-Setting (C) vs. Non-Goal-Setting (6) 2, 32 1.6014 .2174Conterencc (C) vs. Control (C) 2, 32 1.3672 .2694
Sex 2, 32 2.2325 .1218
Treatment by SexC Vs. 6 2, 32 2.0427 .1463C VS. C 2, 32 <1 .5208
Previous Achievement :eve' within Sex 8, 64 4.0343 .0002**
Treatment by Achievement within SexTreatment by Achievement within Males
C vs. 4, 64 <1 .9961C vs. 4. /..4 <1 .9971
Treatment by Achievement within FemalesC vs. 4, 64 <1 .5281C vs. 4, 64 <1 .6654
** Significant at the .01 level
40
30
MeanTotal 20
Score
10
Goal-Setting Conference
Compound Base WordsWords Test Test
Control
65
Figure 7. Mean scores on the experimenter-developed Compound Wordsand Base Words Tests by treatment group for Unit B
66
No significant differences were found on the basis fo sex. Means
and standard deviations by sex on the experimenter-developed tests are
found in Table 19. The analysis also showed no significant differences
in scores as a function_ of treatment by sex. Neither the goal-setting
versus non-goal-setting by sex nor the conference versus control by sex
comparisons approached the level of significance.
The only significant differences in scores on the tests were obtained
by a comparison of reading achievement groups. A plotting of the mean
scores by achievement level (Figure 8) based on the means and standard
deviations given in Table 20 reflects the nature of the significant
differences as the pattern of means is in the expected direction.
Although there was she significant difference by previous achieve-
ment, no significant difference as a function of treatment by previous
achievement by sex was found. There were no differences in the compari-
sons of goal-setting versus non-goal-setting or conference versus
control for either males or females.
Criterion-Referenced Tests
A multivariate analysis of variance was carried out using the scores
on the Level B and Level C Base Words tests and the Level B Compound Words
test of the WTRSD Battery as dependent variables. The results of this
analysis appear in Table 21.
An examination of Table 21 indicates that there were significant
differences (p < .05) in achievement score as a function of the treatment.
The comparison of the goal-setting treatment group with the non-goal-
setting groups showed the scores of the goal-setting Ss to be significantly
67
TABLE 19
Mean Scores on the Experimenter-Developed Compound Words Testand on the Base Words and Endings Testby Treatment Group and Sex for Unit B
Sex
Treatment Group
Goal-SettingMN SD
ConferenceMN SD
ControlMN SD MN
AllSD
MaleCompound Words 33.143 3.891 27 750 5.523 28.889 5.396 29.750 5.343Base Words 42.143 5.460 36.125 8.741 32.222 9.230 36.417 8.807
N7 N8 N9 N24
FemaleCompound Words 30.111 7.253 30.000 4.610 29.889 5.926 30.000 5.791Base Words 39.667 6.124 40,444 3.167 39.444 3.909 39.852 4.418
N9 N9 N9 N27
AllCompound Words 31.438 6.044 28.941 5.031 29.389 5.522 29.882 5.531Base Words 40.750 5.791 38.412 6.587 35.833 7.816 38.235 6,987
N16 N17 N18 N51
MeanTotalScore
40
30
20
10
High
LiCompound Words
Test
Medium
Ease WordsTest
Low
68
Figure K. Moan sores on UR, cxperimtnler-d4'vvlov,vd CQrpowid Wotdsand Base Words Tests by previous achievement levil forUnit 8
6')
TABLE 20
Mean Scores on the Experimenter-Developed Compound Words Testand on the Base Uords and Endings Test
by Treatment Group and by Previous Achievement Level for Unit B
PreviousAchievementLevel
Treatment Group
Goal- SettingMN SD
Conference ControlMN SD MN SD
All
MN SD
HighCompound WordsBase Words
MediumCompound WordsBase Words
LowCompound "ordsBase Words
All
Compound WordsBase Words
35.500 2.16843.833 2.945
N6
33.800 0.44742.200 3.834
N5
24.200 5.80535.600 7.021
N5
31.438 6.04440.750 5.791N16
30.80039400
N5
30.66741.167
N6
25.66734.833
N6
28.94138.412
N17
3.421
3.507
4.5023.189
5.6)09.663
5.0316.587
32.66739.167
N6
30.16736.167
N6
25.33332.167
Y6
29.38935.833
N18
3.8828.589
5.7075.914
4.7618.329
5.5227.816
33.118 3.604
40.882 5.840
N17
31.412 4.374
33.706 5.C22N17
25.118 5.07334.118 8.092N17
29.882 5.531
38.235 6.987
N51
TABLE 21
Multivariate Analysis of Variance of Scoreson the Levels B and C Base Words Subtests and Level BCompound Words Subtests of the WTRSD Battery for Unit B
Source df F p <
TreatmentGoal-Setting (G) vs. Non-Goal-Setting (a) 3, 31 2.9940 .0458*Conference (C) vs. Control (C) 3, 31 2.1740 .1110
Sex 3, i1 <1 .4533
Treatment by SexG vs. G 3, 31 1.0588 .3807C vs. C 3, 31 1.3561 .2744
Previous Achievement Level within Sex 12, 82 2.2758 .v151*
Treatment by Achievement within SexTreatment by Achievement within MalesG vs. G 6, 62 1.2829 .2784C vs. C 6, 62 <1 .7461
Treatment by Achievement within FemalesG vs. r1 6, 62 <1 .6423C vs. C 6, 62 <1 .6146
* Significant At the .05 level
(S 1
70
71
higher. The means for the three treatment groups on each of the measures
are plotted in Figure 9. An examination of the univariate F values shows
that the differences approached (.06,.06), or were less (.013) than,
the .05 level of significance on all achievement measures. This would
seem to indicate that the significant overall difference between treat-
ment groups was consistent across measures and not the results of any
one measure alone.
No significant differences were obtained as a function of sex or
treatment by sex. In neither case did the differences approach the .05
level of significance. The means and standard deviations for achieve-
ment by sex and treatment are found in Table 22.
As was true for all other achievement tests used in the study,
there was a significant difference in scores by previous achievement.
Table 23 shows the means and standard deviations for the achievement
level groups on the criterion-referenced achievement measures. This
type of difference is to be expected and simply indicates those Ss
with high previous achievement perform better than those with low
previous achievement.
Although significant differences were found as a function of
previous achievement, no significant differences were apparent as a
function of the interaction of treatment by previous achievement in
sex were found.
Goal-Setting Behavior
In analyzing the goal-setting behavior of the students, the same
measures were used as in Unit D: number of goals set; absolute difference
between the number of goals set and the number of goals achieved; and
the confidence each student had in his ability to attain his stated goal.
MeanTotal
Score
15
10
5
C
72
Goal- Setting
Level B CompoundWords Test
Conference
Level B BaseWords Test
Control
,..rt
Level C BaseWords Test
Figure 4. reaa scores on the Level h Compouni Words, Level BWords, Level C Base Words Sub tests of the W1l6D !lotteryby treatment group for Unit B
73
TABLE 22
Mean Scores on the Level B Compound Words Subtestand the Level B and the Level C Base Words Subtest
of the WARSD Battery by Treatment Croup and Sex for Unit B
Treatment Group
Sex Goal-Setting Conference Control AllMN SD MN S) MN SD MN SD
Male
B Compound Words 14.143 3.288 10.875 2.642 11.889 3.444 12.208 3.297
B base Words 10.857 1.865 6.000 3.891 7.556 3.812 8.000 3.811C Base Words 12.000 2.944 9.500 2.726 10.000 3.640 10.417 3.202
N7 N8 N9 N24
FemaleB Compound Words 11.667 2.550 12.889 2.571 12.000 3.937 12.852 3.047B Base Words 9.556 2.877 8.11.1 3.060 9.889 2.892 5.185 2 136C Base Words 11.556 2.506 10.444 2.351 8.667 1.80's 10.222 2.470
N9 N9 N9 N27
All
B Compound Winds 13.875 2.802 11.941 2.727 11.944 3.589 12.549 3.1523 Base Words 10.125 2.500 7.118 3.534 8.722 3.495 8.628 3.394C Base Words 11.750 2.621 10.000 2.500 9.333 2.870 10.314 2.81?
N16 N17 N18 N51
74
TABLE 23
Mean Scores on the Level B Compound Words Subtestand the Level B and the Level C Base Words Subtest
of the WTRSD Battery by Treatment Groupand by Previous Achievement Level for Unit B
An examination of the Multivariate Analysis of Variance Table
(Table 24) shows that the only significant effect is that of treatment.
The goal-setting versus non-goal-setting comparison is significant at
the .01 level. When the means for each of the treatment groups on the
three goal-setting measures (Figure 10) are examined, the same relation-
ship which was observed in Unit D is apparent: the goal-setting group
set fewer goals, had a smaller difference between the number of goals
set and achieved, and had a l',der confidence score. As was pointed out
in the discussion of the results of Unit D, this effect seems to be
related to the setting of accurate goals with realistic expectations.
An inspection of the univariate F values for each of the three goal-
setting measures indicates that the goal-setting effect is not due to
a difference on any one measure, but rather is consistent across the
three measures. The level of significance less than .01 on two of the
measures (.001 for number of goals set and .009 for the difference
between number of goals set and achieved) and .05 (.05 on the confidence
in attaining goals set) on the other. Although the univariate F can
only be employed as an estimate in this case, it does indicate a consis-
tent treatment effect.
A further examination of Table 24 indicates that goal-setting
behavior did not differ significantly by sex and that there was also
no difference as a function of treatment by sex. The means and standard
deviations for these comparisons are found in Table 25.
Table 26 shows the means and standard deviations for the goal-
setting measures by previous achievement level. The comparison of
the means indicated that there was no significant differences in goal-
setting behavior as a function of previous achievement levels.
76
TABLE 24
Multivariate Analysis of Varianceof Coal-Setting Behavior for Unit B
Source P <
TreatmentCoal- Setting (G) vs. Non-Coal-Setting (C) 3, 31 5.9376 .0026**Conference (C) vs. Control (C) 3, 31 1.2293 .3157
Sex 3, 31 <1 .6032
Treatment by SexG vs. C 3, 31 <1 .5679C vs. C 3, 31 1.0688 .3766
Previous Achievement Ltwel within Sex 12, 8? 1.1016 .3702
Treatment by Achievement within SexTreatment by Achievement within Males
C vs. aC vs. C
6,
6,
62
621.5107
<1
.1896
.9454Treatment by Achievement within Females
G vs. o 6, 62 <1 .7485C vs. e 6, 62 1.0367 .4105
A* Significaht at the .01 level
MeanTotalScore
30
20
10
GoalSetting
17
Conference ContrrI
Number of Difference betwe,:ngoals set number of goals
set and numberof goals attained
ConfidenceScore
Figure 10. Mean number of goals set, mean difference between thenumber of goals Fot and attained and mean confident'',score by treatm,mt group for Unit B
78
TABLE 25
Mean Number of Goals Sets Difference Between Numberof Goals Set and Attaine!, and Confidence Score