Motivational Factors 1 Running head : MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO ACHIEVEMENT Motivational Factors Contributing to Turkish High School Students ’ Achievement in Gases and Chemical Reactions

This study aimed to investigate the contribution of motivational factors to 10 grade students’ achievement in gases and chemical reactions in chemistry. Three hundred fifty nine 10 grade students participated in the study. The Gases and Chemical Reactions Achievement Test and the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire were administered to measure students’ achievement level and motivational orientations, respectively. The motivational constructs studied were intrinsic goal orientation, extrinsic goal orientation, task value, control of learning beliefs, self-efficacy for learning and performance, and test anxiety. Multiple Regression Correlation analysis indicated that the constructs of intrinsic goal orientation, self-efficacy for learning and performance, and test anxiety each made a statistically significant contribution to the students’ achievement. Suggestions for further research are provided. Motivational Factors 3 Introduction For nearly three decades in education literature, increased attention has been given to self-regulated learning (SRL) in an attempt to understand how students learn (i.e., how students motivate and guide their own learning). SRL is defined as “self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions that are planned and cyclically adopted to the attainment of personal goals” (Zimmerman, 2000, p.14). Accordingly, self-regulated learners are metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in their own learning (Zimmerman, 2002). Although different theories have been proposed to explain features of SRL, most of the definitions include some common features: Students are aware of the processes that improve their academic achievement and they monitor these processes by getting feedback from their previous learning processes. In addition, SRL follows a cyclic path and include motivational processes. Zimmerman (1994) proposes four psychological dimensions in which students can self-regulate their activities. These dimensions are motivation, learning methods, performance outcomes, and physical and social environment. In literature, students’ motivational beliefs (such as goal orientation, personal interest, and self-efficacy beliefs) and cognitive learning strategies (rehearsal, elaboration, organization, goal setting, planning, monitoring etc.) are most commonly studied constructs. In this study, the contribution of students’ motivational orientations to their chemistry achievement was investigated. The question why addresses the motivational dimension. Pintrich and Schunk (2002) define motivation as “the process whereby goal-directed activity is instigated and sustained” (p.5) and underline that motivation is a process rather than a product, and not directly observed but inferred from students’ behaviors. They propose a reciprocal relationship between academic motivation and performance; in other words, students’ motivation influences their learning and/or performance, and what they do and learn, in turn, influences their motivation. Motivated students engage in difficult tasks, expend effort and persist even Motivational Factors 4 when they encounter difficulties; as a result, they increase their academic achievement. Recently developed motivational theories explain the structure of student motivation in conjunction with cognitive theories emphasizing learners’ constructive interpretations of events. Among these theories, the achievement goal orientation theory is the most common one in the achievement motivation literature (Elliot, 1999). This theory explains achievement by proposing a dichotomous achievement goal framework: Goal orientation construct has been characterized as intrinsic (mastery/learning) goals versus extrinsic (performance) goals. Intrinsic goal orientation focuses on task mastery, development of competence, challenge or curiosity; while extrinsic goal orientation focuses on grades, rewards and/or approval from others (Ames, 1992). Intrinsic goals are associated with positive processes or outcomes such as persistence in the face of failure, choosing challenging tasks, using deep-processing strategies and intrinsic motivation (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Harackiewicz, Barron, & Elliot, 2000; Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). In contrast, extrinsic goals are linked with grades and other extrinsic rewards rather than an interest in learning (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Jagacinski & Nicholls, 1987; Harackiewicz, Barron, & Elliot, 2000). Presently, Elliot and his colleagues defined goal constructs in a trichotomous framework: mastery goals, performance-approach goals, and performance-avoidance goals (Elliot, 1999; Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). They hypothesized that students possessing performance-approach goals made positive competency judgments, and those possessing performance-avoidance goals focused on avoiding negative judgments. They hypothesized that students possessing performance-approach goals dealt with attainment of favorable judgments of competence, and those with performance-avoidance goals focused on avoiding unfavorable ones. In the study conducted by Elliot and Church (1997), factor analysis results supported this trichotomous framework, and path analyses revealed that these Motivational Factors 5 constructs had different antecedents and consequences. When antecedents of these goals were investigated, mastery goals were associated with high competence expectancy and achievement motivation. Moreover, performance-approach goals were linked to achievement motivation, high competence expectancy and fear of failure; while performance avoidance goals were linked to low competence expectancy and fear of failure. The present study was guided by dichotomous framework to provide comparability with earlier studies. Another construct explaining student motivation is self-efficacy which is defined as students’ judgments of their capabilities to perform a specific task successfully (Bandura 1997). Self-efficacy is distinguished from outcome expectancy by Bandura (1997). Outcome expectancies refers to children’s beliefs about how well they will do on upcoming tasks, either in the short or long term (Wigfield & Eccles, 1999). Bandura (1997) states that expectancy– value theorists have focused on outcome expectations in their models, and claims that efficacy expectations are more predictive of performance and choice than outcome expectations. Research studies have revealed that students’ self-efficacy beliefs significantly predict achievement motivation (Pajares, 2002; Pintrich & De Groot,1990; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998). In addition, highly self-regulated learners were found to be intrinsically motivated and possessing high self-efficacy beliefs (Schunk & Swartz, 1993; Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994). A third construct commonly studied in achievement motivation literature is students’ task value beliefs which consist of four components: interest value (enjoyment of the activity), attainment value (importance of doing the task well), utility value (applicability of the task for future goals), and cost value (negative aspects of engaging in the task) (Wigfield & Eccles, 1999). Interest value can be thought of as similar to the construct of intrinsic motivation and utility value can be linked to the construct of extrinsic motivation (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Research studies have revealed that students’ task value beliefs predicted Motivational Factors 6 their course performance significantly (Yumusak, Sungur, & Cakiroglu; 2007; Zusho, Pintrich, & Coppalo, 2003). Control of learning beliefs is another construct which refers to students’ beliefs that they will get positive outcomes as a result of their own effort (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991). Students attribute academic success or failure to different causes taking into account the environmental and personal factors. In educational settings success and failure are usually attributed to ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck (Weiner, 2000). Students behave differently when they perceive that the cause of any academic outcome is under their control versus under the control of the situation (Weiner, 2000). If the outcome of failure, for example, is perceived to be under the student’s control, then the student feels responsible and believes that s/he can change failure to success by increasing effort. However, if individuals think the outcome is not under their control, such as task difficulty, they do not feel responsible for the outcomes and therefore will not increase effort (Weiner, 2000). In short, attributing failure to lack of effort makes students responsible for the negative outcome and subsequently will increase effort. The last construct studied in this study is test anxiety which is described as the phenomenological, physical, and behavioral responses about possible negative consequences or failure (Zeidner, 1998). Although a large body of research has supported the negative effects of test anxiety on students’ performance (i.e., debilitating anxiety), in some cases it has been claimed to enhance learning; this is known as facilitating anxiety (Zeidner, 1998). Based on Yerkes and Dodson’s work (1908; as cited in Zeidner, 1998) a curvilinear relationship between test anxiety and performance was proposed rather than a negative linear one. There are many moderator variables that influence this relationship in different ways such as task difficulty, item arrangement, and test format. For example, because highly anxious students’ believe that they will fail on the task, their performance (score) on difficult tasks decreases. Motivational Factors 7 On the other hand, low anxious students possess optimal level of motivation in difficult tasks; consequently their performance increases (Zeidner, 1998). Contrary to other motivational constructs, research revealed negative relationship between test anxiety and academic achievement (Chapell