PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before due due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE Utmflbtwb 111014 MAW] lD‘H‘LW ' 005’ TFEB $22291 ICC! 2 4 19% ' MSU Is An Afiirmetive AotiortlEquel Opportunity Institution A MODEL RELATING REGULAR EDUCATION, LEARNING DISABLED, AND EMOTIONALLY IMPAIRED CHILDRENS' SELF-PERCEPTIONS OF MOTIVATION COMPETENCE, CONTROL, AND THEIR ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT By Alison Lynn Card A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1 989 $050967 ABSTRACT A MODEL RELATING REGULAR EDUCATION, LEARNING DISABLED, AND EMOTIONALLY IMPAIRED CHILDRENS' SELF-PERCEPTIONS OF MOTIVATION,COMPETENCE, CONTROL, AND THEIR ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT By Alison Lynn Card The present research expanded a model of the correlates of elementary school children's motivational orientation presented by Harter and Connell (1984) including: locus of control, academic achievement, academic competence and affect, with anxiety and depression added in the present study. Because special populations of children (learning disabled and emotionally impaired) have numerous academic, behavioral, and affective difficulties in the school setting, these populations were included, as well. Determining the relationships among these variables is important in designing effective intervention strategies for these children. Subjects included regular education, learning disabled, and emotionally impaired children. The children were diagnosed as learning disabled or emotionally impaired under state educational guidelines. All of the children were tested individually in the school setting. All the children combined as well as each subgrouping were assessed with regard to the fit of the proposed path model. The model was rejected for all children combined and for regular education children. The model provided a fit for the learning disabled and emotionally impaired children. Overall, the data were quite consistent with that of Harter and Connell (1984) substantiating the importance of the unknown locus of control construct with regard to the remaining variables. Children who score highly on this variable are at risk for numerous cognitive, affective and motivational difficulties. A mulitvariate analysis of variance suggested that learning disabled and emotionally impaired children evidenced a pattern of detrimental scores. Strategies for intervention, which focus on alleviating the unknown locus of control are recommended. These strategies encourage a task focus in which children are able to monitor their performance, and link their behavior to outcomes in the environment. Harter, S. 81 Connell, J. P. (1984). A model of the relationship among children's academic achievment and their self-perceptions of competence, control, and motivational orietation. In J. Nicholls (Ed.,) MW WGreenwich, CT: JAl Press. To Andrea, may you find joy in learning. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Special thanks to Gary Stollak and Linda Jackson for sharing your expertise and patience with me over my graduate career. I would also like to thank Wade Horn for his help in starting this project up, and Hiram Fitzgerald and Robert Zucker for seeing me through the end. Thanks as well to my family, new and old, and to my neighbor -- friend and editor -- Pamela Bothwell Stott. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... vi ii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................ ix INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 Overview of Relevant Variables ............................................................ 1 Achievement and Effectance Motivation and " Achievement Related Behavior ..................................................... 2 Self-Concept, Self-Esteem, Competence and Achievement-Related Behavior ................................................... 4 Locus of Control and Achievement-Related Behavior ............ 5 Harter and Connell's Model Development ........................................... 6 Implications of Harter and Connell's Model ............................... 9 Applicability of Harter and Connell's Model ................................. to L0 and El Children ....................................................................... 1 1 Variables in Proposed Model ................................................................. 12 Locus of Control ................................................................................... 12 Affect ........................................................................................................ 14 Self-Concept, Self-Esteem, and Competence .......................... 16 Motivation ............................................................................................... 18 Proposed Model ............................................................................................ 20 Hypotheses .............................................................................................. 24 METHODS ......................................................................................................... 26 Subjects ......................................................................................................... 26 Measures ........................................................................................................ 29 Test Anxiety Scale for Children (TASC) .................................... 29 Children's Depression Inventory (CDI) ........................................ 29 What I Am Like ...................................................................................... 30 In the Classroom ................................................................................. 30 Why Things Happen .............................................................................. 31 Academic Achievement ..................................................................... 32 Procedures .................................................................................................... 32 Data Analysis ............................................................................................... 34 vi RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 3 6 Path Analysis of Proposed Model ........................................................ 3 6 MANOVA By Group ....................................................................................... 4 1 MANOVA By Gender .................................................................................... 41 Correlations of the Variables in the Network .............................. 4 2 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................... 4 6 Possible Revised Model ........................................................................... 48 Intervention Strategies .......................................................................... 51 Limitations of the Present Study ............................................ ‘; .......... 5 5 Summary and Implications ................................................................... 56 FOOThDTES .......................................................................................................... 5 9 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 6 0 APPENDICES Appendix A .................................................................................................... 65 Appendix B ..................................................................................................... 6 7 Appendix C ..................................................................................................... 7 0 Appendix D ..................................................................................................... 7 3 Appendix E ..................................................................................................... 77 Appendix F ..................................................................................................... 80 V11 LIST OF TABLES Table Page Subjects ................................................................................................... 27 2. Means and Standard Deviations for the Three Groups Tested ................................................................................................. 37 3. Correlations for All Children .............................................. i . .......... 38 4. Correlations for Regular Education Children ........................... 38 5. Correlations for Learning Disabled Children ........................... 39 6. Correlations for Emotionally Impaired Children .................. 39 7. Means and Standard Deviations by Gender ................................ 43 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure P393 1. Harter and Connell's four alternative models tested ........... 8 2. The best fitting model for elementary pupils ........................ 10 3. Proposed path model relating children's academic achievement with self-perceptions of competence, control, motivation and affect ............................................... 22 Fit of proposed model by group ...................................................... 4 0 Possible revised path model relating children's academic achievement with self-perceptions of competence, control, motivation and affect ..................... 49 ix INTRODUCTION Behavioral scientists have long been interested in the constructs of self- concept and motivation, and their relationships to school achievement and personal adjustment. The following discussion draws on numerous areas of research, including motivation, competence and self-concept, locus of control, affect, and academic achievement, in an attempt to develop a comprehensive model of the relationship among these variables in learning disabled (LD) and emotionally impaired (El) children. The present research is an expansion of a model of correlates of children's motivational orientation presented by Harter and Connell (1984). These authors presented a model for elementary aged children examining the relationship between childrens‘ self-perceptions of control, motivation, competence and their academic achievement. A brief overview of theory and research examining the relevant variables will be presented prior to a detailed analysis of Harter and Connell's model. :1 . [B l | I! . II There are four areas of research which provide the basis for the present theorizing: academic achievement motivation, effectance motivation, competence or self-esteem/seIf-concept, and locus of control. Investigation has proceeded independently in each of these areas. Collectively they provide the foundation for this study, which proposes a model interrelating these variables. !|' | IEII I III' I' IEI' I-EIIIBI' Research on achievement motivation began in the 1950‘s with the work of McClelland and his collegues. Achievement motivation is aroused when an individual is aware that his or her behavior will be evaluated according to some standards of excellence and will result in a favorable or unfavorable evaluation (Atkinson, 1964). The individual subsequently strives to increase or maintain a level competence. Researchers have generally viewed need for achievement as a stable characteristic and have often divided persons into groups of individuals with high and low need for achievement. However, various factors have been found to influence achievement behavior, including motive, expectancy, incentive, and anxiety. For example, if a person's anxiety level exceeded his or her achievement motivation, tasks of either high or low difficutly were chosen to insure failure or success, respectively (Atkinson, 1964). Success or failure could then be attributed to the task difficulty rather than the person's ability. Related research by Weiner and Covington further indicated that academic behavior and outcome can affect self-concept and such related behaviors as pride, shame, happiness, and unhappiness (e.g.: Brown & Weiner, 1984; Covington, 1983; Covington & Omelich, 1979 & 1984; Weiner & Brown, 1984). A second research area is that of effectance motivation. White (1959) theorized that persons have an intrinsic need to interact with and effect their environment. He states: Effectance motivation must be conceived to involve satisfaction —-a feeling of efficacy - in transactions in which behavior has an exploratory, varying, experimental character and produces changes in the stimulus field. Having this character, the behavior leads the organism to find out how the environment can be changed and what consequences flow from these changes (p. 329). DeCharms (1968) and Harter (1978) also argued that an important component guiding behavior is a desire to interact appropriately or effectively with the environment, which they termed intrinsic motivation. Bandura (1977) similarly stated that expectations of personal mastery affect both the initiation and persistence of coping behavior. However, he did not view efficacy as independent of the environment, or dispositional, as White appeared to. These theories of achievement and effectance motivation emphasis different aspects of motivation: a relative emphasis on the process of the behavior or the intrinsic desire to interact effectively with the environment (9.9. effectance motivation) versus a relative emphasis on the outcome of the behavior as it Is viewed by others in the environment (6.9. traditional achievement motivation theory). Some investigators in the area of achievement motivation have made this distinction between process and outcome a major aspect of their theories. Thus, persons may be ego-oriented, comparing the self with others and concerned with the outcome of the behavior (e.g., appearing smart to others). This is similar to early achievement motivation theories with the emphasis on the evaluation of the behavior. Alternatively, persons may be task-oriented, focusing on the task itself. The learning (process) is the end rather than the outcome or evaluation of the behavior by others (Dweck 8 Bempechat, 1983; Maeher, 1983; Nicholls, 1983). Nicholls argued that a focus on extrinsic reward leads to a focus on ends rather than means. An intrinsic focus, on the other hand, centers on understanding or evaluating one's behavior in relation to the desired endpoint. According to these theorists, this latter emphasis is found to lead to intellectual development. Research on the "overjustification hypothesis” lends support to the importance of an intrinsic motivation orientation in regard to academic behavior. Research in this area has shown that when children are given an extrinsic reward for an activity they already found interesting (intn'nsic motivation), the likelihood of engaging in that behavior in the future decreases (Lepper, Green, 8 Nesbitt, 1973; Weiner 8 Mander, 1978). A decrease in the previously favored activity, however, does not appear when verbal praise is paired with the reinforcement (Swann 8 Pittman, 1977) and may depend on the nature of the dependent variable (e.g. rating scale or behavioral observation; Luyten 8 Lens, 1981). WWW IEI' I-BIIIBI' The third major body of literature important to the discussion concerns self-concept, self-esteem, and competence. Research in the area has found moderate to strong relationships between self-concept and academic achievement (Coopersmith, 1967; Purkey, 1970). More recently, however, it has been theorized that self-esteem is not a unitary concept. Rather, it may be divided into different domains. Overall self-esteem may not be related to academic achievement, although academic self-esteem may be related to academic accomplishment (Bohrnstedt 8 Felson, 1983; Harter, 1982; Winne, Woodland 8 Wong, 1982). Recent research has identified the directionality of this relationship between self-esteem and academic achievement in path analytic studies. Bohmstedt and Felson, and Harter and Connell (1984) have found that academic achievement affects self-esteem. Locus of control is also a construct by which questionnaires often assess a variety of domains. The Crandalls and their associates developed The Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Questionnaire, a scale which only assesses children's view of responsibility for the academic domain (Crandall, Katkovsky, 8 Crandall, 1965; Crandall, Katkovsky, 8 Preston, 1962). This scale assesses internal and external locus of control of academic success. When children have an internal locus of control, they feel responsible for their academic success or failure, while if children have an external locus of control, they feel teachers, parents, or peers, are the ones responsible for the academic success or failure. Crandall et al. (1962) found that an internal locus of control was strongly correlated with boys' achievement scores on math and reading subscores of the California Achievement Test and with IO from the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test. There was no significant relationship between locus of control and girls achievement or intelligence scores. Crandall et al. (1965) found the internal locus of control was positively associated with achievement test scores (California Achievment Test) and with grades, with some gender by internal success and failure differences (e.g. girls' internal success scores had strong positive relationships with achievement test scores at grades 3 and 4, while 5th grade boys' internal failure was strongly correlated with the same measures). WWO! Harter and Connell (1984) developed several models in an attempt to explain the relationships among the preceding variables. Their work was intially based on a operationalization of White's (1959) theory of effectance motivation. Through their efforts questionnaires have been developed which assess the following constructs: (a) (b) (C) (d) (9) competence evaluation, which refers to one's somewhat objective evaluations of one's efforts or performance; competence affect, which reflects how one feels about one's efforts and their outcome; locus of control, which includes three dimensions assessing internal, external and unknown sources of control for failure and success, with the belief that oneself is responsible, others are responsible or one doesn't know who or what is responsible, respectively. motivational orientation, which refers to whether one is intrinsically or extrinsically motivated; and autonomous judgment, which refers to internal vs. external criteria of success and independent judgment vs. reliance on the teacher's judgment. Using these variables and academic achievement (assessed by standardized achievement tests), Harter and Connell (1984) compared four models based on their interpretation of the relevant literature (see Figure 1). In the first model (Intrinsic Mastery Motivation), instrinsic motivation is the primary variable which impacts on the subsequent variables, primarily through academic achievement (Harter, 1978; White, 1959). They argued that an intrinsic motivational orientation gives “the push" to achieve academically. Children's achievement in turn affects children's evaluation of their competence and whether they are in control of their behavior. Finally, if children are intrinsically motivated they are also able to use their own judgment regarding their academic behavior. In the second model (Achievement Behavior) actual achievement behavior impacts on the subsequent variables (eg. Bohmstedt 8 Felson, 1983). Harter and Connell (1984) drew this model from the theory that enhanced skill development (9.9. achievement) will lead to increased self- esteem, motivation and sense of control. The third model (Self-Evaluation and Associated Affect) had competence or self-concept impacting on the remaining variables (e.g. Coopersmith, 1967; Purkey, 1970). This model was drawn from theorizing that increasing a child's self-esteem or competence will lead to changes in behavior such as achievement and internalization of motivation and control. It was the fourth model (Cognitive-Judgmental Processes), however, which was generally consistent with Harter and Connell's (1984) data and a revision of this model is discussed further below. This model proposes that cognitive-judgmental processes are determinants or mediators of behavior: therefore the primary factor in this model is locus of control. doaum>fluoz ucoEmUSH muwpmmz m:oEo:ou:< Amuwzuo X” Hamuwzomru chuoudeI. uoommm cocoquEou + oocwu nEoo W unwEo>owno< mowmwooum HoudoEmuahIw>wuadmoo .qfi kuoz newpm>wuoz ucoEMUSH madame: msoeocous< ‘I Amumpuo If Hamuwzomrv Houudoo deuwudH czodxdp \/ L. +. uoomm< coaumsam>m cocouanopm oodwumdfioo 7 /_ HGOEQ>UwSO< _ ch>mzwm ucoEo>oHno< .mfi Hove: .nHwaHv Haocdco cam Hound: scum woudwunom .Uouwou mHouoE o>wumcuouam Room w.HHocdoo one Hound: d udoemunh :oHum>Huoz humane: maoeo:ou=< \2 Awuocuo Hamuozomrv Houucoo If X JamduoudH 05:5 \\\nw powwm< :o«um:~o>m PWJ wocwuanoom wocwuwneoo L. IHHWunoEw>owco< uowmm< uwuawoomm< cam :oflumSHm>mrmem .m* Houoz .. . .) HamEmush Amuwnwo L. Humumkomrv Houucoo HmdmedH czoqxcb powmm< nowumnam>m L- oosouanoo oodouwdfioo \O fill/UNI], )WV udofio>wfino< dowum>wuoz huouwmz caudauudH .Ht Hove: .H ouswfim Harter and Connell's (1984) data, using elementary school children, was consistent with the following revised model, (see Figure 2): an unknown locus of control was predictive of achievement, with an inverse relationship between these two variables. Achievement was subsequently found to predict competence evaluation which in turn influenced competence affect. The latter two links are positive and are consistent with the literature noted above (Brown 8 Weiner, 1984; Covington, 1983; Covington 8 Omelich, 1979 8 1984; Weiner 8 Brown, 1984). In addition, competence evaluation and competence affect both influence motivational orientation. A link from competence affect to autonomous judgment was also supported. The previous relationships are also positive. Finally unknown locus of control influences relative intemality (internal minus external control), a negative relationship, while relative intemality is positively related to motivational orientation. Motivation was not found to be an initial factor in the chain, but rather was an end-point. The model beginning with mastery motivation was not supported by the data. I I. I. III ||::1:lannall'sMndal According to Harter and Connell's (1984) results, the following process appears to take place: children who do not know who or what controls their academic behavior perform poorly, while children who either feel in control or feel others are in control of their academic performance, perform well. Performance level then determines competence evaluation, with high performance resulting in high evaluation, and low performance in low evaluations. High evaluations in turn produce positive competence affect, with low evaluations producing negative competence affect. Positive Figure 2. The best fitting model for elementary pupils Reprinted from Harter and Connell (1984). Achievement L’ ‘5 Unknown Control Competence Evaluation l Competence ? Affect " x Autonomous *- Judgment + .l lntemal Control (-PowerfulOthers)~------_N- + JV -------_u_u Mastery «9 . . MotIvatIon Key to paths ----> .12 to .19 ' > .20 to .34 10 11 competence evaluation and affect result in intrinsic motivation. If one feels good about one's competence, reliance on one's own judgment is the result. If one feels bad, one relies on the teacher's judgment. Frnally, the level of unknown control is negatively related to relative intemality (internal minus external control), with a higher score on relative intemality resulting in an intrinsic motivational orientation. E I. I'll III I ::|Qunnall'sMndal Ill-WHEEL! The model developed by Harter and Connell (1984) is important in illuminating possible areas of intervention to increase a child's sense of competence and academic success, as well as to develop an intrinsic source of motivation, all of which are important to any child's successful experience at school. However, previous research has focused on normal school children and this model may or may not be applicable to special populations of children, such as those who have been diagnosed as L0 or El. These special populations are often the focus of interventions aimed at promoting a positive self-concept and increasing academic achievement. Determining the adequacy of this model for these children is therefore important in designing effective interventions for them. In general, LD children are identified on the basis of having normal intelligence and below grade level performance in one or more areas of achievement (e.g. reading). How this is determined and how severe a discrepancy must exist often varies across school districts and across research studies. 12 El children are also generally identified as having normal intelligence, but with severe behavioral or emotional difficulties which may be determined by a variety of persons, teachers, researchers, and psychologists. Thus, one problem with the literature regarding these special populations is the heterogenity of the groups due to the differing criteria used to diagnose and/or categorize them. This heterogenity may obscure the results. A more detailed examination of the components of Harter and Connell's (1984) model in relation to LD and El children is now in order to assess the fit of the model to these special populations. The elements to be examined are children's self-perceptions of control, competence, and motivation, and actual academic achievement. Two affective variables, depression and anxiety were added because they have been found to have an impact on children's academic achievement (Bryan, Sonefeld, 8 Grabowski, 1983; Dweck 8 Bempechat, 1983; Phillips, Pitcher, Worsham, 8 Miller, 1980; Tesiny 8 Lefkowitz, 1982) and are possible outcomes of an unknown locus of control (Harter 8 Connell, 1984). 11'” 'E IIIII W Unknown locus of control was found to be the primary factor in determining academic behavior in Harter and Connell's (1984) model. Unfortunately, there is no research which assessed unknown locus of control in L0 and El populations, and little research which examines locus of control (internal and external) in these populations. 13 In a review of the literature, Bryan and Pearl (1979) concluded that L0 children are generally more external in their perception of control than normal children and that overtime, LD children believe in an internal locus of control with regard to failure, but not success experiences. Furthermore, they report that children who are LD appear to have an attitude of learned helplessness. For example, a study by Keogh and Cahill (1971) found that L0 and/or behaviorally disordered boys (ages 9 and 12) tend to blame themselves for failure. Hill and Hill (1982) found that L0 boys (grades 3 - 6) were more externally oriented in their perceptions of locus of control regarding success than were normal school children. However, there were no differences with regard to locus of control regarding failure. They argue that LD children's perceptions of locus of control are very detrimental because there is no internal satisfaction for success -- such success being viewed as controlled extemally -- but there is an lntemal sense of responsiblity for failure. Therefore, there is “little to gain and much to lose from participating in on-task, classroom activities” (p. 982). Using the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale for Children, Bladow (1982) found that there were no significant differences in internal or external locus of control between LD and normal school children (grades 3 - 6). However, she did report that the LD children had a great deal of difficulty understanding the phrasing of the questionnaire. This scale does not separate control for failure from control for success. The results of this research suggest that it may be important to differentiate locus of control for failure experiences from control for success experiences. The use of a scale assessing unknown control is also of particular importance in LB and El populations. Engelberg and Evans (1985) compared fourth through sixth grade LD, normal achieving, and intellectually 14 gifted children and found that L0 children tended to attribute achievement to external or uncontrollable factors, such as ”Luck" and ”Teacher Factors”. LD and El children may feel that they cannot locate the control for their behavior or the outcome of their behavior either internally or from significant others (9.9. parents, teachers). For example, a LD child may try very hard to read, but does not succeed due to the nature of the child's disability, and therefore may feel as if his or her efforts are futile, resulting in the child feeling that she or he has no control. Help from home and the regular education teacher have also not been of assistance in this child's quest to read, again resulting in a felt lack of control. For an El child, a similar process may occur. This child may be extremely depressed, and feels that neither he or she, or anyone else can do anything to lift the depression. Harter and Connell (1984) hypothesized that children who experience non-contingency between their behaviors and their outcomes, as well as children who lack experience or knowledge regarding the cause of an outcome may receive high scores on the unknown locus of control dimension. Unknown control may therefore be particularly high in the LD and El populations who have often experienced non-contingency or who lack information about what is needed to produce a particular outcome. A1199! Affect also comes into play when examining academic performance. While competence related effect appears to be related to competence evaluation (Brown 8 Weiner, 1984; Covington, 1983; Covington 8 Omelich, 1979; Harter 8 Connell, 1984; Weiner 8 Brown, 1984), it has been hypothesized that other affective variables are precursors to academic achievement and competence. 15 Tesiny and Lefkowitz (1982) found that in a normal group of school children (grades 4 - 5), depression in children was related to low popularity, low self- esteem, an external locus of control, and poor school achievement. Anxiety has also been associated with poor school or task performance. Phillips, et al. (1980) argued that high test anxiety is associated with an extrinsic motivational orientation and interference with learning and performance. Children labeled highly anxious tend to be highly self- conscious and aware of autonomic arousal, which interferes with their attendance to task-related stimuli and therefore poor task performance in an evaluative situation. However, those who are low in anxiety may Improve their performance in an evaluation situation. Bryan, et al's. (1983) data (grades 3 - 8) suggest that the constellation of behaviors associated with high test anxiety are also associated with L0 (9.9., conformity, dependence on others evaluations, low self-esteem, and frequent academic failure). Using the Sarason Test Anxiety Scale for Children, they found a negative relationship between test anxiety and academic performance in L0 children. There Is a strong basis for expecting that L0 children are highly anxious and that this anxiety may interfere with their academic performance. Emotionally impaired children are often diagnosed as such on the basis of their affective difficulties. As a result, intense negative affect appears to be another possible variable which negatively Influences academic performance. For example, children who are severely depressed do not read the cues in their environment in an appropriate manner (e.g. Beck, Rush, Shaw, 8 Emery, 1979). These children feel worthless, feel that their environment is making Inordinate demands upon them, and see no hope for the future. When a child in this state approaches an academic task, it is likely 16 that they will approach the task with this sense of hopelessnes which will result in poor academic achievement. W92 The terms 'self-concept', 'self-esteem', and 'competence' are often used interchangeably. However, self-concept refers to broader self- perceptions -- how one views oneself in a variety of ways - while self-esteem or competence refers to how ”good“ one feels about oneself overall. The importance of self-esteem is underscored by Coopersmith (1967) who argued that those who are brought to mental health professionals are those who feel inadequate, unworthy, helpless, and inferior. Children referred for special education services are often viewed as having low self-esteem and a negative self-concept by virtue of their having been both labeled as different than other children in their classes, and in need of assistance due to academic and social difficulties. Research evidence does indeed support the conclusion that L0 children have lower self-esteem and poorer self-concepts than regular education children. Larsen, Parker, and Jorjorian (1973) examined O-sort ratings of real and ideal self using items from the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory and found greater discrepancies between the real and ideal sorts of LD children as compared with normal school children (grades 3-4). Black (1974) found that elementary-level LD children scored lower on the Piers- Harris Self-Concept scales than did control children who were also experiencing school difficulties. Further, LD children's poorer self-concept appeared to increase with age and grade. Abelson and Staley (1982) examining chldren in grades 5 - 8, argued that while poorer self-concepts did 17 not appear to be related to increasing age, it may be that exposure to special education services over several grades and diminishing expectations and values of self by others results in a depressed self-concept. These results suggest that continued placement in special education along with judgments of the child by others, may negatively affect LD children's self-esteem. What remains unclear is whether lower self-esteem is an immediate consequence or correlate of special education, or whether it is a long-range consequence or correlate. Another limitation of previous research is the assumption that general self-esteem is specifically related to school difficulties. A study by Wrnne et al. (1982) attempted to deal with the last assumption by dividing self-concept into several subcategories. Their subjects consisted of normal, gifted and LD children, grades 4 - 7. They examined general self-esteem and specific aspects of self-esteem using the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory and the Sears Self-Concept Scale. They found no difference in general self-esteem among these groups, but did find that L0 children scored significantly lower than normal and gifted children in the area of academic selfiesteem. This study suggests the importance of breaking self-esteem down into areas relevant to the questions asked -- a point made by Harter (1982) in which she discusses a multidimensional model of self-esteem in which judgments of adequacy of behavior in specific domains interact with the importance of these domains to the person to contribute to a global self- esteem or self-worth. A path analytic study by Bohmstedt and Felson (1983) examined normal school children and found that actual academic performance affects one's perception of performance which in turn affects self- esteem. Harter and Connell (1984) also found perceptions of academic competence to be a result of academic achievement. These results support 18 the conclusion that L0 and El children will have low academic self-esteem, as school difficulties are primary aspects of their diagnosis. II I. l' As noted in the discussion, there is a large body of literature examining achievement motivation and intrinsic/extrinsic motivation to achieve or perform certain behaviors. The majority of the research on this topic has been carried out in normal school populations and with adults. Dweck and Bempechat (1983), for example, described two patterns of behavior that characterize children's approach to tasks: those who organized a task around the evaluation of ability, and those who organized a task around the acquistion of ability. The former approach can be likened to extrinsic motivation, a task is done to receive approval, and the latter to intrinsic motivation, the task is done as a result of intrinsic interest (Reeve 8 Loper, 1983). Engelberg and Evans (1985) found that L0 children feel grades are a very important source of feedback and a necessary part of the school experience, while normal-achieving and particularly intellectually-gifted children were less likely to believe the same. Therefore, it appears that L0 children are similar to the children Dweck and Bempechat describe as concerned about the evaluation of others as opposed to self-evaluation. Further, Dweck and Bempechat (1983) stated that children who organize a task around the evaluation of ability can be characterized as reacting to obstacles as if they were insurmountable, are debilitated even with prior success experiences, view themselves as having insufficient ability, and predict future failure for themselves. Obstacles also lead to increased 19 negative affect and decreased problem-solving efforts. When asked to recall the number of successes made on a task, these children have a tendency to underreport. They misinterpret their actual behavior. Children who organize their efforts around the acquisition of ability increase their efforts with increased difficulty or obstacles, verbalize self- instructions, engage in self-monitoring, and deal with overcoming the difficulty, rather than making attributions of failure. They maintain positive affect and a favorable prognosis of task outcome. Dweck and Bempechat (1983) also argue that children hold one of two views of intelligence. One view is that intelligence is a stable global trait. The other view referred to as the instmmentaI-incremental theory, maintains that intelligence can be increased with knowledge and instrumental behavior. The former view is relevant to an extrinsic, evaluative orientation in that the primary focus is on the outcome and how this is judged. The latter view is relevant to an intrinsic, task-oriented evaluation in which the process is the focus. They found that by manipulating the salience of the performance (i.e. judged outcome) or learning (i.e. process) aspects of a task, the constellation of behaviors noted above were present. When the performance aspect was emphasized, children showed the negative affect and decreased problem- solving ability with task difficulty. The emphasis of the learning aspect led to positive affect, increased effort and self-monitoring. Thus, the facilitation of a learning or task-oriented, intrinsic approach appears to lead to increased performance. Maeher (1983) argued similarly, and concluded that while external evaluation does at times increase task performance, this is short-lived and removal of external factors will result in decreased performance. In addition, Nicholls (1983) pointed out that an external reward leads to a focus on ends 20 rather than means. Thus, children are not learning how to learn and it appears that an intrinsic motivation orientation is associated with more adaptive performance, particularly in the face of a difficult task. A study by Reeve and Loper (1983) examined the relationship between motivational orientation (using Harter's scale) and academic performance of LD children. They found that there was not a significant relationship between motivational orientation and achievement. They conclude that academic underachievement of LD children is not mediated by an external motivational orientation. However, an internal motivation was associated with positive teacher ratings of a child's behavior in the classroom. It may be as Harter and Connell (1984) found: Motivation is not a primary factor in predicting achievement. However, an indirect effect of achievement on motivational orientation is possible, as was demonstrated by their model. In addition, intrinsic motivation may be a positive factor in school adaptation as noted by teacher reports and may be important when facing a difficult task situation. WM Previous models and related research are limited by their focus on normal school children and their failure to assess affective variables (e.g. depression and anxiety). Because they examine these variables in isolation, the development of effective intervention strategies may also be hindered, given that characteristics of children and the school setting are multitudinous and complex. The proposed model, while based mainly on that of Harter and Connell (1984), was developed to deal with some of these limitations both by including 21 affective variables and special education, LD and El. children. One model is proposed for all three groups of children: LD, El, and regular education. It is hypothesized that the difference between these populations is not due to a different pattern of relationships among the variables. Rather, the differences are hypothesized to be due to different levels of the variables. However, to assess the possibility that there are differences in the pattern of relationships, each group will also be examined separately. The proposed model (see figure 3) begins with unknown locus of control (Harter 8 Connell, 1984). It is hypothsized that the LD and El children will be higher on this variable than regular education children (Engelberg 8 Evans, 1985). As previously stated, LD and El children may lack information about the particular cause for an outcome and/or have experienced noncontingencies between their academic behavior and its outcome. From unknown control there are four paths. Unknown control is negatively related to academic achievement (Harter 8 Connell, 1984). and positively related to anxiety and depression (Harter 8 Connell, 1984) . Depression is often the result of cognitions of hopelessness, helplessness, and futility that one's efforts will not result in any change in the environment (Beck et al., 1979). These thoughts are similar to those experienced with an unknown locus of control. Harter and Connell stated that anxiety may be the outcome when a child does not have ”sufficient experience to understand the causes of his/her academic success and failures“ (p.241 ). Finally, a negative relationship will also exist from unknown control and relative intemality (Harter 8 Connell, 1984). From relative intemality three paths are hypothesized. An internal locus of control is related to an intrinsic motivational orientation (Dweck 8 Bempechat, 1983; Harter 8 Connell, 1984; Maehr, 1983; and Nicholls, 1983) Figure 3. Proposed path model relating children's academic achievement with self-perceptions of competence, control, motivation and affect. Achievement W (A A * Unknown Control 2 J, Competence x Evaluation ( ’3 Depression <1— Anxiety I j,‘ Competence L . Affect .7” +- K Autonomous I! Judgment \ Internal Control (- Powerful Others) \ Mastery Motivation 22 23 and thus a path exists between these two variables. A negative relationship is expected between relative intemality and depression because external locus of control is associated with depression (Beck et al., 1979; Tesiny 8 Lefkowitz, 1982). Similarly, children with an external locus of control will become anxious when faced with school tasks (Bryan et al., 1983; Dweck 8 Bempechat, 1983), as this suggests organizing a task around evaluation, which often results in anxiety and/or depression. From the affective variables of depression and anxiety, two paths are hypothesized, one to achievement and one to competence evaluation. The relationships between the two affective variables and achievement will be negative. Children who feel anxious and/or depressed will do poorly when approaching an academic task (Bryan et al., 1983; Dweck 8 Bempechat, 1983; Phillips et al., 1980; and Tesiny 8 Lefkowitz, 1982). These affective states will also be negatively related to competence evaluation as they color one's perceptions of reality. Children who are depressed or anxious may not even interpret successful achievement behavior as successful (Beck et al., 1979; Dweck 8 Bempechat, 1983). It may be that perceptions of ability rather than ability per se affect competence evaluation (Bandura, 1977). It has also been found that achievement does affect competence evaluation (Bohrnstedt 8 Felson, 1983; Brown 8 Weiner, 1984; Covington, 1983; Covington 8 Omelich, 1979; Harter 8 Connell, 1984; Weiner 8 Brown, 1984; and Winne et al., 1982). Thus, a positve relationship is proposed from achievement to competence evaluation. Competence evaluation in turn influences two variables -- competence affect and motivation -- with positive relationships between the variables (Harter 8 Connell, 1984). Frnally, competence affect is positively related to 24 both motivational orientation and autonomous judgment (Harter 8 Connell, 1984). The model may be illustrated with reference to an hypothetical LD child in order to illuminate the process more fully. This child has a high score on unknown locus of control and if an attribution of control is made it is external. This high unknown locus of control also leads to poor school performance because the child does not understand the contingencies between academic behavior and outcome. This high degree of unknown control results in high anxiety and/or depression which in turn further defiates the child's academic performance. In addition, the relative externalityfintemallty leads to an extrinsic motivational orientation as the child feels unable to interact effectively with the environment. The relatively depressed performance level and high degree of anxiety and/or depression in turn create a negative evaluation of academic competence which then creates negative competence affect for this child. This negative competence evaluation and affect lead to an extrinsic source of motivation and the reliance on others for judgments regarding this child's work (Harter 8 Connell, 1984). Hypotheses The following pattern of relationships is predicted (see Figure 3): Unknown locus of control will be positively related to depression and anxiety. Unknown locus of control will be negatively related to academic achievement and relative intemality (lntemal - external locus of control). Relative intemality is positively related to motivational orientation and negatively related to depression and anxiety. Anxiety and depression are negatively related to academic achievement and to competence evaluation. Achievement is METHODS Subjects Subjects consisted of three groups of children, ranging from first through fifth grade: regular education children, children who have been diagnosed as learning disabled (LD), and children who have been diagnosed as emotionally impaired (El) or seriously emotionally disturbed (SED). All of the children were recruited from public school systems in the East Lansing, Michigan area and in Portland, Oregon. Children brought home a letter from school describing the study, accompanied by an informed consent form for their parents to sign (see Appendix A). The total number of subjects tested was 88: 38 regular education children, 28 L0 children, and 22 El/SED children (see Table 1). Due to a lack of availability of standardized achievement test data for all the children, the total subject pool considered in the data analyses were: 32 regular education, 21 L0, and 20 El children. This also resulted in a fairly even split between male and female LD children, which is not representative of usual male/female LD ratio. Males are usually identified as LD at a higher rate than females. Learning disabled children consisted of children diagnosed as LD under the guidelines of the Michigan State Board of Education (1982) and the Oregon Department of Education (1986) which identify a severe discrepancy between ability and achievement in one or more of the following areas: (a) oral expression, (b) listening comprehension, (c) written expression, (d) basic reading skills, (e) reading comprehension, (f) mathematics calculation, (9) mathematics reasoning. This discrepancy cannot be due to any of the following: (a) visual, hearing or motor handicap; 26 25 relationships among the variables. To assess whether the mean scores do indeed differ, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) will be performed. Each group of children will also be examined separately (regular education, LD, and El) with regard to fit of the model to assess the possibility that the relationships among the variables do differ in these different populations. TABLE 1 Subjects Regular Learning Emotionally EdmfipL Disabled lmna]m.d__. M E M F M F Grade 1 3(2) 2(1) 4(2) 1 1 0 garage 2 3(0) 2 3(0) 2 2(0) 1 Gradefi 3(2) 4 3(2) 4 1 0 Grade L 7 3 4(3) 2 7 0 Grade 5 9 2 3 2 9 1 Iotals 25(20) 13(12) 17(10) 11 20(13) 2 W 38(32) 28(2)) 22(20) Iotal 33(73) Note. The numbers in the parentheses are subjects used in the analyses. 27 28 (b) mental retardation; (c) emotional disturbance; or (d) environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. The determination of L0 is made by a teacher and a qualified diagnostician (e.g. school psychologist, speech and language teacher, teacher consultant). In Michigan, an El child must meet the following guidelines: (a) inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships within the school environment, (b) inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances, (c) general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression, (d) tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems. In addition, schizophrenic, austistic, and other similarly developmentally disordered children are considered El. The diagnosis of El does not include children whose behaviors are primarily the result of intellectual, sensory, or health factors. The determination of El must be made by both a psychologist or psychiatrist and a school social worker. The Oregon children are diagnosed as SED if they meet similar criteria: (a) an inability to learn at a rate commensurate with the student's intellectual, sensory-motor, and physical development; (b) an inability to establish or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers, parents, or teachers; (c) a variety of excessive behavior ranging from hyperactive, impulsive responses to depression and withdrawal; (d) inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances; or (e) a tendency to develop physical symptoms, pains, or fears associated with personal, social or school problems. Again these must not be due to physical factors and is determined by a multidisciplinary team. The regular education children used for the analysis were the same gender and grade as the special education students. Those regular education students who returned the letters were tested, resulting in a few 29 more regular education students than necessary to serve as a matched group (by grade and gender) to the LD and El children being tested. Measures W This scale (see Appendix B) was developed to assess children's school-related anxiety (Sarason, Davidson, Lighthall, Waite, 8 Ruebush, 1960). Thse authors do not report any reliability data. Wrth regard to concurrent validity, they report that it is significantly correlated with teacher rating's of children's anxiety, with the correlations ranging from r -= .09 to r - .34 in various samples of teachers and classrooms. In addition, scores on the TASC are negatively related to IO and achievement, with generally significant correlations ranging from r .. -.002 to r a -.294 (Sarason et al., 1960). CHI 'D . I I {EDI} This inventory (see Appendix C) was designed to assess children‘s depressive symptomatology (Kovacs, 1983). This author presents reliability data for internal consistency from three studies with coefficient alpha ranging from .71 in a pediatric medical group to .86 in a psychiatric referral group. to .87 in a large group of public school children, suggesting good lntemal reliability with the possible exception of the pediatric medical group. Test- retest reliability estimates range from r = .43 to r = .84. The author cites studies assessing concurrent validity with instruments assessing anxiety and 30 self-esteem which found significant correlations of r = .65 for anxiety and a range from I: a -.59 to z = -.72 for self-esteem indices. W This scale (see Appendix D) was developed by Harter to assess children's perceptions of their competence both globally and In three domains, cognitive/academic competence, social/peer competence, and physical/athletic competence. A more recent revision has included two additional domains, physical appearance and behavior/conduct (Harter, 1983). The revised scale was used in the present study. Only the academic items will be used in the analyses. For the five specific domains a factor analysis was conducted in which a five-factor solution was present with factor loadings ranging from .41 to .78, with no systematic cross loadings. The internal consistancy of the scholastic competence subscale is .80 in a sample of sixth and seventh grade children (Harter, 1983). anQlassmm This scale (see Appendix E) was developed by I-larter (1980) to assess children's motivational orientation. This scale assesses whether a child is primarily intrinsically or extrinsically motivated on five dimensions, respectively, (a) preference for challenge vs. preference for easy assigned work, (b) curiosityflnterest vs. pleasing the teacher/getting good grades, (c) independent mastery vs. dependence on the teacher, (d) independent judgment vs. reliance on teacher's judgment and (9) internal criteria vs. external criteria. The first three dimensions form a variable assessing 31 motivational orientation; what a child wants, likes and prefers. The latter two form a variable assessing autonomous judgment; what does a child know and how does the child make these judgments. This scale was subjected to factor analysis, and a five-factor solution was evident (the subscales described above), with average factor loading of .46 to .53, with no systematic cross-loadings of items on factors. Reliability data indicating internal consistency vary from a reliability coefficient of .68 to .84 for all scales. In terms of validity, a sample of children with intrinsic motivation (private, ”open“ school, reinforcement for intrinsic interest etc.) was compared with a sample of children with more extrinsic motivation (public school, lower SES). Results indicated that the five scales significantly differed in these populations in the expected direction, with the open school children scoring as more intrinsically motivated and able to make autonomous judgments. Harter (1980) also reports that the Preference for Challenge scale is related to choosing more difficult anagram tasks to solve. indicating predictive validity. W This scale (see Appendix F) was developed by Connell (1980) to assess children's locus of control. It contains items assessing both a global perception of control, in addition to three domains, (a) cognitive, (b) social, and (c) physical. It also assesses control in terms of internal (self- controlled), external (other controlled), and unknown (don't understand or know who or what controls) and assesses control in terms of failures and successes. Reliability data indicating internal consistency vary from a 32 coefficient alpha of .43 to .70 for the various scales. Test-retest data indicated low-to-moderate significant correlatins over a 9 month period, mean_[ = .32, n < .0001; range, .25 to .50. In terms of validity, the correlations of the three types of control for the cognitive domain with academic achievement indicated ten of fifteen possible relationships to be significant for boys and only four of fifteen for girls. Correlations with teacher ratings indicated poor teacher ratings are associated with high unknown scores. Also, teacher ratings are positively related to girls' lntemal perception of control. Only items from the cognitive domain will be used in the analyses. EI'EI' I A variety of standardized achievement tests provided the achievement test scores for the analyses due to the variety of school districts in which children were tested. For the Michigan children the scores were from the Stanford and California Achievement Tests, and for a few of the LD and El children, the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT). In Portland the scores were from the Portland Achievement Levels Test. Reading scores were used as the achievement measure. EMILE After obtaining permission from public schools surrounding the East Lansing, Michigan area and the Portland Public Schools in Oregon a letter and informed consent form describing the study (see Appendix A) was sent home with regular, LD and El/SED school children. After the signed 33 informed consent forms were returned to the school, children were tested by a trained tester in individual testing sessions of approximately one-half hour duration. The testing for the younger children took a longer period of time, 45 minutes to one hour as they had more difficulty understanding some of the test Items. The testers were trained undergraduate and/or graduate students, including the author. The testers were at times aware of the child's group status by virtue of which classroom the child was removed from for the testing. All measures, with the exception of the achievement measures were verbally administered to the children in a one-to-one situation in the school. The tester attempted to put the child at ease and began by telling the child: I would like to ask you some questions today about your feelings about school and some other things. No one at your school or at home will see any of your answers. Is that OK. with you? OK. then let's get started. The child's age, birthdate and name were obtained and the questionnaires were administered in the following order (a) TASC, (b) What I Am Like, (c) In the Classroom, (d) Why Things Happen, and (e) CDI. The examiner first read the instructions of the anxiety scale to the children. Following the administration of the TASC, the examiner read the following instructions to the child before administering ”What I Am Like” and "in the Classroom": Now I am going to ask you some more questions and remember there are no right or wrong answers, just tell me how you feel. I am going to read two sentences to you and you pick the one which is what you are like. Then I want you to decide if that is only sort of true for you or really true for you. Before administering ”Why Things Happen” the children were told: 34 For the next group of questions I would like you to tell me if each sentence is ”very true for you”, "sort of true for you", ”not very two for you”, or ”not at all true for you”. You can tell me your answer or point to it on the piece of paper I just gave you. Subjects were given a piece of paper with the alternatives printed on it to help them remember the various alternatives. For the CDI the children were also given a copy so that they could keep all the alternative responses in mind. For children who could not yet read the alternatives were repeated as often as necessary for the child to understand and answer the item. The children were thanked for their assistance upon completion of the testing. To insure confidentiality of subjects, children's names were used only initially to match achievement information with the other test results, after which subjects were assigned a number. Children's permission to participate was obtained prior to the test administration. W Path analysis was used to analyze the proposed model. The model tested is a recursive, or unidirectional model. There are no recipricol relationships identified in the model. There is one exogenous variable in the model, unknown locus of control, which is not explained by any of the other variables. The remainder of the variables in the model are endogenous or explained by other variables in the model. The path coefficient for a variable directly dependent on only one variable is equal to the correlation between these two variables. When a variable is dependent on more than one variable, the path coefficient is a 35 beta weight determined by regressing the dependent variable on the determining variables. The model was tested as to goodness-of-fit in two ways. The overall test of goodness-of-fit is provided by chi square, with a large chi square indicating poor fit. In addition, discrepancies between the original correlation matrix of the variables and the reproduced or predicted correlation matrix resulting from the path analysis can be examined to determine goodness-of-fit. Discrepancies which fall outside of sampling error indicate a poor fit. All the children together, as well as each group, were examined separately with regard to the fit of the model. In addition, it was hypothesized that the groups of children may cfiffer in the level of the variables (the mean scores) as opposed to the pattern of relationships among the variables and so a MANOVA was also performed. RESULTS The proposed model was tested to determine its fit to the present data set. Goodness of fit was determined both by chi-square (with a larger chi- square indicating poor fit) and by differences between the initial and reproduced correlation matrices which fall outside sampling error. The model was tested against both the total sample and each subsample (regular education, LD, El). However, with the small sample sizes for the individual groups a model may not be rejected even though it does not fit. Small chi-squares are often obtained in small sample sizes regardless of the appropriateness of the fit of the model. Table 2 contains the means and standard deviations for all the variables. Tables 3 - 6 contain the correlation matrices. The program used for the path analysis was developed by Hunter and Hamilton (1986). W The proposed model (see figure 4) is rejected for all children combined based on both the chi-square statistic, 12(20, n = 73) = 31.41 p, < .05 and the number of discrepancies, three, between the initial and reproduced correlation matrices which fall outside of sampling error. This model is also rejected for regular education children (1 discrepancy too large) although the chi-square is not significant, 12(20, n = 32) = 19.38. For LD and El children there were neither nonsignificant chi-squares, x2(20, n = 36 TABLE 2 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE THREE GROUPS TESTED Regular Learning Emotionally Education Disabled Impaired n - 32 n - 21 n = 20 Unknown Locu M 2.156 2.620 2.563 OfContol 32 .808 .793 .798 External Locusl M 1.859 2.190 2.038 Of Control 512] .775 .745 .766 lntemal Locus M 3.508 2.976 3.413 Of Control 32 .494 .802 .598 M 2.454 1.978 2.307 Judgment 32 .588 .532 .655 M 2.983 2.589 2.711 Motivation S) .477 .358 .600 Competence M 2.900 2.476 2.899 Evaluation 32 .840 .827 .779 Competence M 3.072 2.445 2.683 Affect $2 .644 .833 .908 Depression M 5.531 9.333 10.400 82 3.612 6.019 5.777 Anxiety M 11.938 12.476 11.450 SD 6.164 7.454 7.294 Achievement M 64.875 24.238 40.250 .82 28.140 26.851 35.910 37 TABLE 3 CORRELATIONS FOR ALL CHILDREN __E¥ar Aff Mot—NM In Ex In-Ex cor Ach Tm Eval 1.00 Aff .55, 1.00 Mot ,33 A1 1.00 Judo .32 .25 401.00 Unk -.02 -.09 -.14 -43 1.00 In -.01 .14 .10 .13 -.06 1.00 Ex .07 -.01 -.04 -.15 .15 ;,_2_a 1.00 In-Ex-.05 .09 .09 .18 -_,_3_4, .16 -,_a_a 1.00 our :33 :45 ;,_a_3 -.17 .16 -.17 .21 -_,2_4 1.00 Ach .17 .30, ,22_ .31 ._,_3_a .18 -.08 .16 -.17 1.00 Tasc -.19 -_,_4_0 ;_,_2_1_ -.08 .23 -.06 -.09 .02 .25 -.19 1.00 Note. [1 - 73. Underlined correlations significant p, < .05. TABLE 4 CORRELATIONS FOR REGULAR EDUCATION CHILDREN WWW Eval 1.00 Aff .43, 1.00 M01 .30 .49 1.00 Judg .18 .06 .16 1.00 Unk -.08 .10 ;_.A_2 -_,_5_6 1.00 In -.02 .03 -.04 .13 .01 1.00 Ex .11 .07 -.18 -.19 .28 -.17 1.00 In-Ex-.10 -.04 .12 .22 -.22 .63 -_,_8_Z 1.00 CDI .55 :_,_5_5 ;_._3_& -.09 -.01 .09 .28 -.17 1.00 Ach -.11 .26 .19 .29 ;_,_4_6_ .16 -.01 .09 -.28 1.00 Tasc -.29 -.25 ;_A_8_-.24 ‘35 .16 -.11 .17 An :55 1.00 Note. n_- 32. Underlined correlations significantp< .05. 38 TABLE 5 CORRELATIONS FOR LEARNING DISABLED CHILDREN _Eval Aff Mot JM In Ex In-Ex CDL Ach Jag; Eval 1.00 Aff ,_4_4, 1.00 Met .21 43 1.00 Judg .35 .21 .07 1.00 Unk -.15 -.11 -.00 .17 1.00 In -.32 .02 -.07 -.32 .16 1.00 Ex .02 -.05 .22 .30 .15 -.23 1.00 In-Ex-.22 .05 -.18 .39 -.18 .80 -_,1_Z]_,_Q_Q cor .24 -.27 -_,_51 .24 .19 -.20 .05-.16 1.00 Ach .28 .06 -.03 .40 -.18 -.15 -.01-.10 .25 1.00 Taco-.01 :41 -.12 -.10 .36 ._,_3_a .19-.37 .15 .01 1.00 Note. n = 21. Underlined correlations significant p < .05. TABLE 6 CORRELATIONS FOR EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED CHILDREN __E¥al Aft Mm_Judo_UnIs_ln__Ex_Ln;Ex_QQ|_Ach__Im Eval 1.00 Aff 12 1.00 Met .56 .22 1.00 Judg .37 .27 .45 1.00 Unk .38 - .03 .39 -.34 1.00 In .10 .06 .10 .26 -.14 1.00 Ex .20 .13 .18 -.29 .65 -.37 1.00 ln-Ex-.09 -.06 -.07 .34 -_.5_1 18 ;_,_81 1.00 CDI -.37 -_,_3_9 .01 -.36 .03 -.14 .20 -.21 1.00 Ach -.11 .16 -.03 .13 -.24 .07 .07 -.01 .00 1.00 Tasc -.20 :54 -.02 .16 -.06 .20 -.36 .35 .07 -.14 1.00 Note. n_= 20. Underlined correlations significant p_< .05. 39 :0‘0.>¢UOI u:OIMv:n No.1 contacOudc on I .ecetuo .:¢Letot I. «~. —o 0:00 .eeceaCu v uuewet euceueolou 80. « ICC «A cane-esuen c0.ud:.d>u .I . on euceuenlo mar No I nocucou execxc: \MN\ .I acele>eu£ut case—«:0 tendon!" hauecouuolm coaue>.uot uteimvsn ac. IJOIOcOuod nn. .esezuo —5+L010L I. oo. uncucou .ecseucu uuecw< eucevenioo hue¢xct nc. NN.I ¢0aneesnea couue5~e>m . n.I c~.r 3? no . euceueoio I\\I nosacou exocxc: \fi.‘ 8 .. 1.. u¢e§O>e¢sut coco—.50 couueuseu Legumec 60¢d6>auct ucOIOQSn a. noelocOu:( on. .ecegao .sweetoa I. aw. _ Laeou ~ecueoCu uUlowC euceueuloU cc. acacia—d>mr . euceaenlo on. antacou exocxca [cl don- acel0>e¢:UC cent—«:0 ve—Deeun chcceeJ coaue>au0t acetmvan no. e3010c0034 QN. .esezuo _:+Lexoa Is on. nesucou «ecseucu v cues; \ A euceuenloU 300.1:( cm co.eee..eea an. on? 6030336 J/ eueeueeto .0:. .ocacou execxcn 0“). u ‘0‘ COLV—«tu -¢ .963 an EcoE 882a Co E. .v 959“. 40 41 21) = 1.22 and 12(20, 3 = 20) = 1.26, respectively, nor overlarge discrepancies. The proposed model fit the data for the LD and El children. MW To determine if the mean scores differed across groups, a MANOVA was performed. The MANOVA results indicated that the groups did differ overall, 12(20, n - 73) =- 46.116, p < .0008. Univariates indicated that the groups differed significantly on internal locus of control, depression, autonomous judgment, achievement, competence affect, and motivation (p < .02; see Table 2). However, the assumption of homogenity of covariance was violated (Box's M a 174.39, Approximate E(110, 10015.9) 1: 1.236, p_< .05. While MANOVA is robust (given violation of this assumption sample sizes being equal), because there is some inequality in sample sizes the results of the MANOVA are in question. Examination of the means is consistent with the hypothesis that the LD and El children are higher on unknown control than regular education children (M' s 2.56, 2.66, and 2.16 respectively, p < .07) and differ in the expected unfavorable direction on the remaining variables as well. With the exception of unknown control which is slightly higher for El children, the LD children evidence the most negative or detrimental scores. MANQMAMQDQM A MANOVA performed by gender did not find an overall difference for gender x20 0, n = 73) = 9.046, p = .5277 and did not violate the assumption of homogeneity of covariance Box's M = 74.895, Approximate E(55, 8040.6) 2 42 1.122, p < .25. The only difference noted by gender was a higher internal locus of control score for males versus females (see Table 7). C II. [IIII'II'IIIIII The present correlation matrices provide support for the robustness of several important relationships reported by Harter and Connell (1984). Although the present sample is much smaller, relationships appear to be quite similar to those observed by Harter and Connell. These authors (p. 234) reported that the highest correlation in their sample was between competence evaluation and competence affect (L= .52) In the present sample this was the only significant relationship for all four groups (all, regular education, LD and El, see Tables 3 - 6). The next highest correlations reported by Harter and Connell were between the two competence constructs (evaluation and affect) and mastery motivation (I = .58 and .47 respectively). In the present study this was true for the four groups, with two exceptions: nonsignificant correlations between evaluation and motivation for LD children and between affect and motivation for El children. They reported their next highest correlations were between unknown control and achievement (I = -.41) and unknown control and relative intemality (r = -.38). In the present sample unknown control and achievement were significantly correlated for all children combined and regular education children. Unknown control and relative intemality were also significantly correlated for two groups, all children and El children. With the exception of . regular education children, significant correlations were present between unknown and external locus of control. They found relative intemality to have TABLE 7 MEANS AND STANDARD DEV IATIONS BY GENDER Boys Girls [1 - 48 n - 25 Unknown Locus M 2.385 2.430 OfContol 32 .779 .909 External Locus M 1.927 2.150 Of Control SD) .801 .688 lntemal Locus M 3.443 3.110 Of Control S) .556 .781 M 2.306 2.222 Judgment $2 .616 .628 M 2.820 2.747 Motivation $2 .525 .484 Cornpetenoe M 2.722 2.880 Evaluation S) .81 7 .865 Competence M 2.819 2.720 Affect $2 .840 .774 Depression M 7.896 8.080 32 5.843 5.766 Anxiety M 11.563 12.720 312 6.371 7.586 Achievement M 45.250 48.720 82 34.470 35.013 43 44 low and/or nonsignificant relationships with the other variables assessed which is also consistent with the present data. Harter and Connell (1984) also reported that the correlation between comptence affect and judgment was significant (1 a: .30: this was a path in their model). In the present study the only significant correlation between competence affect and judgment was when all children were considered. A point of departure from Harter and Connell's (1984) findings and the present study involves the relationship between achievement and the other variables. While they found achievement to be significantly related to all of the variables In their study, although the relationships were often of moderate strength, this was not the case in the present study. For all children combined, achievement was significantly correlated with competence affect, motivation, judgment, and unknown control, several of the variables. However, for regular education children the only significant correlations for achievement were with unknown control and anxiety. For LD children there was only one significant relationship, achievement and judgment. There were no significant relationships between achievement and the other variables for El children. There was no significant relationships between competence evaluation and achievement for any of the groups. The additional variables included in this study, depression and anxiety were highly correlated with the variables included previously by Harter and Connell (1984). For all children depression was significantly related to competence evaluation and affect, motivation, external locus of control and anxiety. In the same grouping anxiety was also significantly related to competence affect, motivation, and unknown locus of control. Similarly, for regular education children depression was correlated with competence evaluation and affect, motivation, and anxiety. Additional 45 significant relationships existed between anxiety and motivation, unknown locus of control and achievement. Fewer significant relationships exist between depression and anxiety in the special educuation children. For LD children depression is significantly related to motivation and anxiety, with anxiety also negatively correlated with competence affect and lntemal locus of control. Finally, for El children significant relationships exist between depression and competence affect. and between the latter and anxiety. Overall the correlations among these variables, which represent the paths in the model are quite consistent with those of Harter and Connell (1984). While some of the correlations were not significant in the LD and El populations, the relationships were in the expected direction and were upheld by the fit of the model. The importance of unknown locus of control was replicated and the subsequent relationships between unknown locus of control and relative intemality and between unknown locus of control and achievement were generally replicated. In addition, the relationships between competence evaluation and affect and between these variables and motivation were generally substantiated, along with the relationship between competence affect and autonomous judgment. However, the relationships between achievement and competence evaluation and between relative intemality and motivation, were poorly replicated. DISCUSSION The present research expanded a model of the correlates of elementary school children's motivational orientation presented by Harter and Connell (1984). The expansions included assessing special populations of children (LD and El), and adding the affect variables of depression and anxiety. The proposed model was supported by the path analysis for the LD and El children, but not for the regular education children or for all the children combined. Because of the small sample size for the subgroups of LD and El, this model must still be viewed as tentative and requires further replication. However, the similarity of this data with that of Harter and Connell (1984) does provide a base of consistent relationships among some of the variables in the model, as well as implications for intervention. The present data are quite consistent with those of Harter and Connell . (1984) and substantiated several of the important relationships of their model as indicated by the correlation matrices. The findings that were replicated in the present study include the relationship between competence evaluation and affect for all children and the subsequent relationship from the competence variables to motivation with the exceptions of evaluation and motivation for LD children and affect and motivation for El children. Other generally replicated relationships included unknown locus of control both with achievement (all children and regular education children) and relative intemality (all children and El children), although this appears to be due to 46 47 the relationship between unknown and external locus of control (all children, LD, and El children) and subsequently external with internal locus of control. One of the clear findings in the present study, as with Harter and Connell (1984), is the importance of the construct of unknown control. This constnrct begins the whole process, with either a direct or mediated effect on all the subsequent variables. Thus, when a child is unable to understand the contingencies and/or feels his or her outcomes are not contingent on his or her behavior, the child is clearly at risk with regard to the development of numerous affective, behavioral, and motivational difficulties. These relationships appear to hold true for all the children as well as the subgroupings (regular education, LD, and El). While a high unknown locus of control score puts any child at risk, El and particularly LD children exhibited a very detrimental pattern of scores across the board. While all of the groups were similar with regard to anxiety, the LD and El children were quite depressed as compared to regular education children. LD and El children also have a very negative affective view of their competence and are extrinsically motivated. Competence affect may be influenced by the high level of depression. Children who are depressed are unable to read the cues in their environment appropriately and often feel helpless, hopeless, and worthless (Beck et al., 1979). This could contribute to a negative competence affect. LD children and to a lesser extent El children also tend to be less internally motivated and unable to judge their achievement behavior on their own. These scores, along with the general pattern of relationships present in the correlation matrices, offer some support for the the hypothesis that the groups tend to differ in regard to mean scores, rather than the pattern of relationships, although this cannot be said conclusively, based on the present sample. 48 E 'I! BV' !II II Examination of these matrices along with the previous literature reviewed, as well as the failings of the proposed model, suggest some revisions which may provide a better fit to the data For the most part these suggested changes appear to be consistent across the groups in terms of accounting for important relationships neglected by the proposed model. This revised model is offered as a possibility which would require testing on additional samples in order to assess its viability (see Figure 5). Separation of external and internal locus of control appears warranted. The most consistent relationships appear to be between unknown locus of control and external locus of control and between the latter and lntemal locus of control. Thus, the chain of influence would be from unknown to external to lntemal locus of control. The path from relative intemality to motivation present in Harter and Connell (1984) was not supported in the present study. Because this relationship was also low in Harter and Connell's study, inclusion of this path does not appear to be necessary. Depression and anxiety do not appear to be correctly placed as indicated by the generally low path coefficients from these variables to achievement and competence evaluation. It would appear that depression and anxiety directly impact competence affect as opposed to evaluation. Previous research supports the path from depression and anxiety to a negative view of competence, which is best represented here by a path from negative affect to negative competence affect (Bryan et al., 1983; Tesiny 8 Figure 5. Possible revised path model relating children's academic achievement with self-perceptions of competence, control, motivation and affect. Autonomous -I- Achievement Jud ment --"""‘"7 K LA J Unknown Competence Control I _ Evaluation X \L Depression / 1+ 1' Anxiety fl \Competence L X L AfleCt External J” x Control I + .I \§ ’ ’1‘ Motivation Internal Control 49 50 Lefkowitz, 1982). A path from depression and anxiety to motivation is also supported by the data and by earlier research in which depressed children lose interest in activities they previously favored (Beck et al. 1979) and in which anxiety is associated with an extrinsic motivational orientation (Phillips et al. 1980). The proposed relationship between high anxiety and extrinsic motivation - and the reverse -- is also consistent with the findings between high anxiety and an ego/other focus, as opposed to a task focus (Dweck 8 Bempechat, 1983; Maehr, 1983; Nicholls, 1983). Extrinsic motivation is indicative of an ego/other focus, while intrinsic motivation represents a task focus in the preceding relationship. Another problem with the proposed model appears to be in regard to the placement of judgment, which was originally placed as resulting from competence affect alone. Judgment is highly correlated with several variables including competence evaluation and affect, unknown locus of control, motivation, and achievement for all children, with one or more of these variables also significantly correlated with judgment in the other groups of children. A possible placement for judgment would be between unknown locus of control and achievement, with a path from judgment to motivation as well. The paths connecting unknown control and judgment and judgment with motivation are consistent with Harter and Connell's (1984) best fitting model for junior high school students. The path from judgment to achievement is suggested by the importance of self-monitoring in achieving (Dweck and Bempechat, 1983). Self-monitoring involves being able to evaluate achievement behavior, which is represented in the present study, with the construct of autonomous judgment (e.g. item 5: ”Some kids know when they've made mistakes without checking with the teacher"; Harter, 1980), 51 Children who don't know what controls their academic success or failure (i.e. high unknown locus of control) may be unable to engage in the task involved, self-monitoring, verbal self-instruction mode 0.6. low autonomous judgment). This mode has been found to be a component of effective academic performance (Dweck 8 Bempechat, 1983; Maehr, 1983; and Nicholls, 1983). Maehr (1983) reported that achievement involves "...judgments about one's role in initiating and controlling (the) performance“ and "...perceived ways in which these (achievement) goals can and should be reached” (p.190). These preceding aspects are demonstrated by the unknown locus of control and autonomous judgment constructs respectively. A relationship which was expected and which was not substantiated in the present study was from anxiety and depression to achievement, with one exception (regular education children had significant correlation between anxiety and achievement). The hypothesis that anxiety and depression tend to interfere with academic achievement was not generally supported and these paths are not recommended for inclusion in the proposed model. II I'SII' While the results of the study must be viewed as tentative, taken in conjunction with Harter and Connell's (1984) findings, some important treatment intervention strategies are suggested. These strategies would appear useful for all subgroupings, as the primary focus is on unknown locus of control and the relationships between unknown locus of control and the subsequent variables were fairly consistent throughout the subgroupings. 52 Clearly, a failure to understand contingencies in one's academic environment is quite detrimental and promotes perceived incompetence (Deci 8 Ryan, 1985). Therefore, the first order of business is to assist children in developing an internal sense of control, to connect their behavior to outcomes in their environment, and essentially, to "learn how to learn" (Como 8 Mandinach; 1983, Nicholls, 1983). An approach in which there are small, clearly achieveable steps or a clearly delineated process in which the child can relate their behavior to the outcome would be important. Teaching children how to learn or how to approach a task would also be extremely beneficial so they begin to develop a sense of ability to impact their environment. Come and Mandinach (1983) state that the instnrctional technique of participant modeling can achieve this purpose. Thus, modeling how to approach a task, what to attend to, how to determine relevant vs. irrelevant stimuli, how to organize the stimuli and monitor the outcome would be beneficial. The children would then develop lntemal attributions of control and would learn how to approach other tasks with this same type of strategy. This process would need to include self-statements, both directly in regard to the process (e.g. ”The color of the book doesn't help me understand what its about") and more affective statements (e.g. "Its exciting to figure out this problem by myself", or 'I'm feeling frustrated, maybe I need to slow down so I can think more clearly”). Self statements which focus on the task and process versus the outcome or the self are important to model. The latter types of statements are often associated with poor performance, particularly in the face of obstacles and anxiety (Deci 8 Ryan, 1985; Dweck 8 Bempechat, 1983, Dweck 8 Elliott, 1983; Dweck 8 Wortman, 1982, Wine, 1982) 53 Modeling problem solving strategies when confronted with obstacles and failure should be included. From this focus on process, children can see that even partial attainment of goals is beneficial and not an indication of failure, as a focus on outcome might lead them to conclude (Dweck 8 Elliott, 1983). Deci and Ryan (1985) state that informational feedback enhances children's lntemal sense of causality, their competence and intrinsic motivation. Feedback from a teacher which focuses on the task or inherant in the task itself would be important (Harackiewicz, Abrahams, 8 Wageman, 1987) finally, the use of personal versus normative standards is desirable. Use of normative standards may result in lowered perceived competence and intrinsic motivation, suggesting a focus on the and rather than the means, and may increase anxiety (Boggiano et al., 1988; Deci 8 Ryan, 1985; Dweck 8 Elliott, 1983; Harackiewicz et al., 1987). Covington and Omelich (1979) found that high effort with continued failure has a very negative impact on self-esteem. Having a child compare his or her learning to another child with much greater ability could be detrimental to the child's self esteem. For example, if one child made three errors (which was a great improvement and reflected a great deal of effort), but another child answered everything correctly and received a better grade publicly, the first child may experience a sense of failure and negative self-esteem. Using the child's own learning history or gauging the difficulty of the task according to the individual would provide possible positive evaluations and subsequent motivation in both children. This type of learning approach would also affect subsequent levels of anxiety and depression, both directly and by the increase in lntemal locus of control. Children who are highly anxious, tend to focus on themselves rather 54 than the task. They think about the consequences of failure, doubt their ability, etc. (Dweck 8 Wortman, 1982; WIne, 1982; Houston, 1982). Thus, intervention with these children requires the components stated above, which Include, task versus self or evaluation focus, coping strategies, and problem- solving skills. Depression would work in similar manner with the task focused, coping stategy, problem solving approach, alleviating the sense of hopelessness and inability to cope. While this process appears complicated, it will be more likely to result in a successful learning experience, than some other methods traditionally used to improve performance and assist children in understanding contingencies in their environment. For example, the use of material reinforcers, which might help children connect their behavior to an outcome, has other less desirable effects (Lepper et al., 1973, Maeher, 1983). Material reinforcers tend to undermine children's sense of autonomy or self- determination, competence and intrinsic motivation. Informational verbal feedback would better promote these desired qualities, as well as feedback inherent in the task itself, as opposed to material reinforcers or controlling or evaluative feedback (Boggiano, Main, 8 Katz, 1988; Deci 8 Ryan, 1985). Deci and Ryan (1985) state "To be truly intrinsically motivated a person must also feel free from pressures such as rewards or contingencies (p. 28). Giving a child a ”success” experience, such as assuring that he or she receive an "A" on a paper, could also be less than beneficial. It is not so much academic success or failure per so that impacts subsequent perceived competence and intrinsic motivation. Rather, it is how this success or failure experience is translated by the child, in conjuction with the other preceding variables (e.g. affect and locus of control; Bandura, 1977; Beck et.al, 1979, Dweck 8 Bempechat, 1983). Just giving a child a ”success” experience 55 would not necessarily improve his or her self-esteem and intrinsic motivation. Children who feel helpless and are not in control do not see success as indicative of competence or future success. Rather, children tend to process information so that it fits their self-denigrating cognitions (Dweck 8 Wortman, 1982). If attempts were made to alter competence and intrinsic motivation by just intervening at the point of academic achievement, the intervention would not be successful. The additional precursors and predictors would not be attended to. The earlier intervention strategy proposed would again be the strategy to improve self-esteem or competence and intrinsic motivation. Overall, these intervention strategies would lead to a task as opposed to an ego focus. This task focus would result in increased positive performance, competence and motivation (Dweck 8 Bempechat, 1983; Maehr, 1983; Nicholls, 1983). These intervention strategies while they may initially appear cumbersome, will be less time consuming in the long-run. The children will have acquired strategies to use in a variety of academic/learning situations which require more internal input as opposed to external, teacher input. I. "I III E ISII One major limitation of the present study is the small sample size. The small number of subjects tested result in low power. Greater error of measurement and sample representation are problems with small sample sizes. The MANOVA results replicated previous research with regard to the group scores on the variables of interest, despite the unequal sample size. A replication of the present study with larger or additional samples would be beneficial in determining the representativeness of the present study. 56 Another important limitation with regard to achievement test scores is that the type of achievement test used varied according to school and, at times, according to group. This may further obscure the relationships between achievement and the remaining variables. Frnally, because children's behaviors, cognitions and affect are influenced by others perceptions as well as their own and because these other's perceptions may differ from the child's, obtaining other's perceptions of the child on the variables of interest would be important. This will increase the validity of the study, as well as provide further explication of the present process model. Sm “II The proposed model was supported by the path analysis for the LD and El children, but not for all the children combined or the regular education children. The hypothesis that the groups differ in terms of mean scores rather than in the pattern of relationships among the variables was well supported. Both of the special education populations, particularly the LD children, evidenced a negative pattern of scores. The addition of the variables of depression and anxiety appears to be worthwhile when examining the correlation matrices, although their placement in the proposed model was not accurate. Overall the data was consistent with that of Harter and Connell (1984). Unknown locus of control is the primary variable and children with high scores on this variable, regardless of group, are at risk for further affective and academic difficulties. 57 A revised model was presented, based on the previous theory and research and the present data. The revised model presents a more appropriate fit for the affective variables of depression and anxiety. It also departs from Harter and Connell's (1984) model with regard to the placement of judgment. The model appears to be generally consistent with the separate group data, with some exceptions. This revised model requires application to larger populations of children to determine its accuracy. Intervention strategies were also suggested. These strategies were aimed at decreasing unknown locus of control and fostering a task-oriented academic focus. These ideas for intervention would benefit from not only a replication of the present study, but also longitudinal research as well. With longitudinal research or research with pre - and post - testing, the impact of intervention can be addressed directly. The development of a new measure assessing what variables children use to base their view of their achievment on is recommended. In addition, the inclusion of the measure assessing causality orientations developed by Deci 8 Ryan (1985) would be useful, as these may also be precursors to many of the variables assessed in the present study. Deci 8 Ryan argue that it is self-determination which leads to intrinsic motivation and eventual internalization of more extrinsic factors. The further testing of this model, and the intervention strategies suggested, will improve our understanding of children's academic-related behaviors, cognitions and affect. A greater understanding of how these variables interrelate, and how the negative scores evidenced by LD and El children may be addressed, will improve a very important component of these children's lives - the school setting. It is in this setting that children are significantly impacted regarding present and future views of themselves and their capabilities. Indeed children with a poor history of school performance 58 are overrepresented in the juvenile delinqueny and maladjusted adult populations (Loeber 8 Dishion, 1983). FCXJTADTES While earlier research indicates that there are some differences regarding the relationships between the success and failure components of control, to include these subscores would increase the already large number of variables assessed and so only the summary scores will be used. The author was not aware of this questionnaire assessing causality orientation when the study was begun. 59 REFERENCES Abelson, A. G. 8 Staley, C. (1982). A measure of self-concept for a small group of learning disabled children. WM 734. Atkinson, J. W. (1964). WWW, Princeton, NJ: J. P. Van Nostrand Co., Inc. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change W 191-215 Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., 8 Emery, G. (1979). Qegniflyejherapxgj depressien. New York: The Guilford Press. Black, F. W. (1974). Self-concept as related to achievement and age in Ieaming disabled children. W, 1137-1140. Bladow, L (1982). Locus of control of learning disabled and nondisabled children._EsILcnolooimLBemrts._50. 1310. Boggiano, A. K., Main, D. S., 8Katz, P. A. (1988). ChIldrens preference for challenge: The role of perceived competence and control. Jeumejm W. 134- 141 Bohmstedt, G. W. 8 Felson, R. B. (1983). Explarnrng the relations among children' 5 actual and perceived performance and self-esteem: A comparison of several causal models. W W. 43-56 Brown, J. 8 Weiner, B. (1984). Affective consequences of ability vs. effort ascriptions: Controversies, resolutions, and quandries. JoumeLQI W146-158 Bryan, T. 8 Pearl, R. (1979). Self-concepts and locus of control of learning disabled children MW 223-226 Bryan, J. H., Sonnefeld, L. J. 8Grabowski, B. (1983). The relationship between fear of failure and learning disabilities. Leamjngfleebjjjty 9113090105121. 217-222 60 61 Come" J P (1980) WWW WM. Unpublished master'sthesis. University of Denver, Denver, CO. Coopersmith, S. (1967). W. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co. Como, L 8 Mandinach, E. B. (1983). The role of cognrtrve engagement in classroom Ieaming and motivation. WM 88-108. Covington, M. V. (1983). Motivated cognitions. lnS. G. Paris, G. Mollson, 8H. W Stevenson (Eden) WWHillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations, Pub. Covington, M. V. 80melich, C. L (1979). Are causal attributions causal? A path analysis of the cognitive model of achievement motivation. Jeumajgj WWW 1487-1504 Covington, M. V. 80melich, C. L (1984). Controversies or consrstencles'? A reply to Brown & Weiner JoumalmEducationaLEsvcnolooLle. 159-168 Crandall, V. C., Katkovsky, W., 8Crandall, V. J. (1965). Chrldrens belIefs In their own control over reinforcements in intellectual academic situations. Wm 91 109. Crandall, V. J., Katkovsky, W., 8 Preston, A. (1962). Motivation and ability determinants of young children' s intellectual achievement behaviors. W. 643-661 DeCharms, R. (1968). W. New York: Academic Press. 0601.5. L81 Ryan. F1. M- (1985). Intrinsicmotivationaniselfzdetetminafionin W. New York: PlenumPress. Dweck, C. S. 8 Bempechat, J. (1983). Children'stheories of intelligence: Consequences for learning. In S. G. Paris, G. Mollson, 8 H. W. Stevenson (Ede) WW Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations, Pub. Dweck. C. S. 8 Elliott, E. S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In E. M. Heetheringten (Ed) WM New York: WIley. Dweck, C. S. 8 Wortman, C. B. (1982). Learned helplessness, anxiety, and achievement motivation: Neglected parallells in cognitive, affective and coping responses. In H. W. Krohne 8 L Laux (Eds.),Aehjexe_mem,_§1Le_s§, anxiety. Washington: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. 62 Engelberg. R A &Evans E D (1985) WW ,1... 0.00.01: “on. : :91. ..:M..-J Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association Seattle, Washington. Harackiewicz, J. M., Abrahams, S. 8Wagemen, R. (1987) Performance evaluation and intrinsic motivation: The effects of evaluative focus, rewards, and achievement orientation. JemnaLeLEersenajimendfimial W 1015-1023 Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered. 11W 21, 34-64. Haner S (1980) W W. Unpublished manuscript. Univeristy of Denver, Denver, CO. Hatter, S. (1982). Competence as a dimension of self-evaluation: Toward a comprehensive model of self-worth. In R. Leahy (Ed.), Ibedexejepmemm mesejj. New York: Acadmic Press. Harter, s. (1983) WWW Unpublished manuscript. Univeristy of Denver, Denver, CO. Hatter, S. 8 Connell, J. P. (1984). A model of the relationship among children's academic achievment and their self-perceptions of competence. control, and motivational orietation. In J. Nicholls (Ed) Ihedexelepmem WW Greenwich. CT: JAI Press. Hill, C. L 8 Hill, K. A. (1982). Achievementattributions of Ieaming disabled boys Mme-982 Houston, 8. K. (1982). Trait anxiety and cognitive coping behavior. In H. W. Krohne & L Luax (Ede) W Washington: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. Hunter, J. E. 8 Hamilton, M. A. (1986). W W. Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, Michigan. Keogh B K &Cahi|| C W (1971) WW3 MW Technical Report UCLA Kovacs, M. (1983). ' ' .Unpublished manuscript. University of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA. 63 Larsen, 8. 0., Parker, R. 8Jorjorian, S. (1973). Differences in self-concept of normal and Ieaming disabled children. mm 510. Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., 8Nesbitt, R. E. (1973). Undermining children's intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the 0"verjustication” hypothesis MW 129- 137 Loeber, R. 8 Dishion, T. (1983). Early predictors of male delinquency: A review WM 68-99 Luyten, H. 8 Lens, W. (1981). The effect of earlier experience and reward contingencies on intrinsic motivation. W 25-36. Maehr, M. L (1983). On doing well In science: Why Johnny no longer excels; why Sarah never did. In S. G. Paris, G. Mollson, 8 H. W. Stevenson (Ede).Leamino_and_m01ixation_iane_classmm Hillsdale. NJ. Lawrence Eribaum Associations, Pub. Michigan State Board of Education (1982). ' BuleehLansing, MI: Michigan State Board of Education. Nicholls, J. G. (1983). Conceptions of ability and achievement motivation. A theory and its ImplIcatIons for education. In S. G. Paris, G. Mollson, 8H. W. Stevenson (Ede) Wm Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations, Pub. Oregon Department of Education (1986). WWW, Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Education. Phillips, 8. N., Pitcher, G. D. Worsham, M. E. 8Miller, S. C. (1980). Test anxiety and the school environment. lnl. G. Sarason, (Ed.), IesLanxiety; .Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations, Pub. Purkev W. W- (1970). Want Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Reeve, P. T. 8 Loper, A. B. (1983). Intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation in learning disabled children EemeotuaLaniMotoLSIsillsJZ. 59- 63 Sarason, S. B. Davidson, K. S., Lighthall, F. F., Waite, R. R., 8Ruebush, B. K. (1960) W New York: John Wiley& Sons, Inc. Swann, W. B., Jr. 8 Pittman, T. S. (1977). Initiating play activity of children: The moderating influence of verbal cues on intrinsic motivation. Child W 1128-1132. 64 Tesiny, E. P. 8 Lefkowitz, M. M. (1982). Childhood depression: A6-month follow-UP study WW 778- 780. Weiner, B. 8 Brown, J. (1984). All's well that ends. JeumeLeLEdueaflenaj W 169-171- Weiner, M. J. 8 Mander, A. M. (1978). The effects of reward and perception of competency upon intrinsic motivation. Menyatrenjngjmmm 67-73. White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Belcholmlcaljexiemjfi. 297-332. Wrne, J. D. (1982). Evaluation anxiety: A cognitive- attentional construct. In H W Krohne a L Laux (Ede) W Washington: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. Winne, P. H., Woodland, M. J, 8Wong, B. Y. L. (1982). Comparability of self- concept among learning disabled, normal and gifted students. JeumaLQt WW 470-475 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Letter and Informed Consent Form MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ° «IN-Ht? PSYCI‘IOLOGY RESEARCH IUIlDlNG dear Pareut(s): We are faculty and graduate students in the Psychology Department at Hichigan State University. Presently we are interested in research efforts examining childrens' academic behavior and their feelings of competence. This research is an important part of understanding what makes children feel competent and motivated and how we may help them adapt to the school setting. Specifically, our present research efforts are aimed at understanding how childrens' sense of competence, their sense of control over their behavior, their motivation to learn, their emotions, and their academic achievement are related. In order to do this research we need your child's assistance. Participation in our research efforts would involve: 1) An assessment session involving your child and a trained examiner of approximately one-half hour duration, which would take place in the school. This session would involve administering verbally, several short questionnaires to your child assessing the areas stated above (e.g. sense of competency, sense of control, etc.). 2) Parental permission for the school to release achievement information to determine the child's current achievment behavior. This achievement information would be standardized achievement test results and/or the results of psychological evaluations. The child's name would only be used to match the achievement information with the other test scores administered in the individual assessment session. All research material will remain confidential. Results of the study will be reported numerically_and children will not be identifiable. In order to allow your child to participate in this study we need to have the attached consent form signed by you. Your child's consent to participate will also be sought at the time of the assessment, prior to the testing. You and/or your child are free to withdraw your consent at any time. We will be glad to share information regarding our results with you. The information would consist of the final results of the study and would be available in the fall of 1986. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Alison Card at the number listed below. We would like to thank you for reading this note and considering our request. In addition, we would like to thank the personnel of Alaiedon School for their help in distributing this letter and supporting our research efforts. Sincerely, \. LL“ #- (0; l '( / Alison Card, Li A. ”leleph ne Number: 355-9564 (Za/duate;tud/en: fl wade F. Horn, Ph.D. Cary Stella , Ph. D. Assistant Professor of Psychology professor of Psychology \Ml . n J‘I Allis-waiter A. loan Tye-all (Wool-«Ion Intlolulmg 65 66 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OP PSYCHOLOGY EAST MNSING ' MICHIGAN - «Imam PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH BUILDING Informed Consent I. the parent (or legal guardian) of agree to have him/her participate in the study examining the reIationship~ between childrens' sense of competence their sense of control of their behavior, their motivation to learn; their emotions, and their academic achievement. I understand that questionnaires concerning my child's sense of competence, control, motivation, and emotions will be given to my child in the school. Further, I consent to the release of achievement information relating to my child in the form of standardized achievement tests and/or psychological evaluations, as are available, to the researchers in this study. Ialso understand that this information will be confidential. I understand that participation in this study is completely voluntary. My child's consent to participate will also be sought at the time of the assessment. If at any time I or my child wish to withdraw from the study, we are free to do so. Neither my child or I have been promised any reward, inducement, or payment to participate. I have been told that the results of the study, consisting of the final group results will be available to me in the fall of 1986 I have read this consent from and all my questions have been answered by either the information in the letter accompanying this form or by a phone call to Alison Card, H.A. Ta fl ‘7 ‘r Vfi Signature Date Signaihre ' ' ‘ Date I“! 'u an Affirmativu- .‘Io'flcm ”*7un! ()ppnrluuitv hurrah-III APPENDIX B The Test Anxiety Scale for Children 67 THE TEST ANXIETY SCALE FOR CHILDREN Name Date Examiner, before reading the questions,4please read the following instrgctions to the child: I am going to ask you some questions. They are about school. but no one at school, not your teacher or your principal or your parents will see your answers to these questions. You are to listen to each question and then answer “yes" or "no". These questions are about how you think and feel and, so they have no right or wrong answers. People think and feel differently. for example if i asked the question: "do you like to play ball?" some children would answer "yes" and some children would answer "no". Your answer depends on how you think and feel. These questions are about how you think and feel about school, and about a lot of other things. Remember, listen carefully to each question and answer it "yes" or "no" by deciding how you think and feel. If you don't understand a question, ask me about it. Now lets begin. l. Do you worry when the teacher says that s/he is going to ask you questions to find out how much you know? Yes No 2. Do you worry about being promoted. that is. passing from the to the grade at the end of the year? Yes No 3. when the teacher asks you to get up in front of the class and read aloud. are you afraid that you are going to make some bad mistakes? Yes No A. When the teacher says that s/he is going to call upon some boys and girls in the class to do arithmetic problems. do you hope that s/he will call upon someone else and not on you? Yes No 5. Do you sometimes dream at night that you are in school and cannot answer the teacher's questions? Yes No 6. When the teacher says that s/he is going to find out how much you have learned, does your heart begin to beat faster? Yes No 7. When the teacher is teaching you about arithmetic. do you feel that other children in the class understand him or her better than you? Yes No 8. When you are in bed at night. do you scmetimes worry about how you are going to do in class the next day? Yes No 9. Hhen the teacher asks you to write on the blackboard in front of the class, does the hand you write with sometimes shake a little? Yes No l0. When the teacher is teaching you about reading. do you feel that other children in the class understand him or her better than you? Yes No ll. Do you think you worry more about school than other children? Yes No 68 l2. When you are at home and you are thinking about your arithmetic lesson for the next day. do you become afraid that you will get the answers wrong when the teacher calls on you? Yes No l3. If you are sick and miss school, do you worry that you will do more poorly in your schoolwork than other children when you return to school? Yes No lh. Do you sometimes dream at night that other boys and girls in your class can do things you cannot do? Yes No l5. When you are at home and you are thinking about your reading lesson for the next day, do you worry that you will do poorly on the lesson? Yes No l6. When the teacher says that s/he is going to find out how much you have learned, do you get a funny feeling in your stomach? Yes No l7. if you did very poorly when the teacher called on you. would you probably feel like crying even though you would try not to cry? Yes ‘ No 18. Do you sometimes dream at night that the teacher is angry because you do not know your lessons? Yes No Examiner: Please read the followigg statement aloud to the child before continuing with the questions: In the following questions the word "test" is used. What I mean by “test" is any time the teacher asks you to do something to find out how much you know or how much you have learned. It could be by your writing on paper, or by your speaking aloud, or by your writing on the blackboard. Do you understand what I mean by "test"--it is any time the teacher asks you to do something to find out how much your know. 19. Are you afraid of school tests? Yes No 20. Do you worry a lot before you take a test? Yes No 21. Do you worry a Iot while you are taking a test? Yes No 22. After you have taken a test do you worry about how well you did on the test? Yes No 23. Do you sometimes dream at night that you did poorly on a test you.had in school that day? Yes No 2&. When you are taking a test. does the hand you write with shake a little? Yes No - 25. When the tacher says that s/he is going to give the class a test. do you become afraid that you will do poorly? Yes No 26. When you are taking a hard test. do you forget some things you knew very well before you started taking the test? Yes No 69 27. Do you wish a lot of times that you didn't worry so much about tests? Yes No 28. When the teacher says that s/he is going to give the class a test. do you get a nervous or funny feeling? Yes No 29. While you are taking a test do you usually think you are doing poorly? Yes No 30. While you are on your way to school. do you sometimes worry that the teacher may give the class a test? Yes No - APPENDIX C Children's Depression Inventory 70 CD INVENTORY NAHE: DATE: Kids sometimes have different feelings and ideas. I am going to ask you some questions about your feelings and ideas. For each question pick one sentence that describes you best for the past two weeks. Here is an example of how this works. Tell me which sentence desribes you best. EXAHPLE: I read books all the time I read books once in a while I never read books Which sentence describes you best? Now I am going to read you some more questions that describe your feelings and ideas in the past two weeks. remember to pick the sentence that describes you the best. I. I am sad once in a while I am sad many times I am sad all the time Nothing will ever work out for me I am not sure if things will work out for me Things will work out for me O.K. I do most things D.K. I do many things wrong I do everthing wrong I have fun in many things I have fun in some things Nothing is fun at all I am bad all the time. I am bad many times I am bad once in a while I think about bad things happening to me once in a while I worry that bad things will happen to me I am sure that terrible things will happen to me I hate myself I do not like myself I like myself All bad things are my fault Hany bad things are my fault Dad things are not usually my fault IO. ll. l2. 13. lb. l5. l6. l7. l8. IS. 20. 2]. 22. 23. 71 I do not think about killing myself I think about killing myself but I would not do it I want to kill myself I feel like crying everyday I feel like crying many days I feel like crying once in a while Things bother me all the time Things bother me many times Things bother me once in a while I like being with people I do not like being with people many times I do not want to be with people at all I cannot make up my mind about things 'It is hard to make up my mind about things I make up my mind about things easily I look 0.x. There are some good things about my looks I look ugly I have to push myself all the time to do my schoolwork I have to push myself many times to do my schoolwork Doing schoolwork is not a big problem I have trouble sleeping every night I have trouble sleeping many nights I sleep pretty well I am tired once in a while I am tired many days I am tired all the time Host days I do not feel like eating hany days I do not feel like eating I eat pretty well I do not worry about aches and pains I worry about aches and pains many times I worry about aches and pains all the time I do not feel alone I feel alone many times I feel alone all the time I never have fun at school I have fun at school once in a while I have fun at schoolvmany times have plenty of friends have some friends but I wish I had more I do not have any friends '“ fly school work is alright hy schoolwork is not as good as before I do very badly in subiects I used to be good in 2h. 25. 26. 27. III III III III 72 can never be as good as other kids can be as good as other kids if I want to am just as good as other kids Nobody really loves me am not sure if anybody love me am sure that somebody loves me usually do what I am told do not do what I am told most times never do what I am told get along with people get into fights many times get into fights all the time APPENDIX D What I Am Like What I Am Like Name Age Boy or Oirl(clrcle which) SAHPLE Really Sort of Birthday 73 SENTENCE Group _ Sort of Really True True True True for me for me for me for me (a) Some kids would rather Other kids would rather play outdoors in their BUT watch T.V. spare time I. Some kids feel that Other kids worry about they are very good at BUT whether they can do the at their school work school work assigned to them. 2. Some kids find it for other kids it‘s pretty hard to make friends BUT easy. 3. Some kids do very well Others don't feel that at all kinds of sports BUT they are very good when it comes to sports. A. Some kids are happy Other kids are not happy with the way they look BUT with the way they look. 5. Some kids often do not Other kids usually like like the way they BUT the way they behave. behave """' """’ 6. Some kids often get Other kids are pretty mad at themselves BUT pleased with themselves. 7. Some kids feel like Other kids aren't so sure they are just as smart BUT and wonder If they are as other kids their age ' as smart. 8. Some kids have alot of. friends BUT Other kids don't have very many friends. IO. "0 l2. l3. lk. I5. l6. ‘7. l8. IS. 20. Really Sort of True - True for me for me Some kids wish they could be alot better at sports Some kids are happy with their height and weight Some kids usually do the right thing Some kids don't like the way they are leading their life Some kids are pretty slow in finishing their school work Some kids are kind of hard to like Some kids think they could do well at just about any new outdoor activity they haven't tried before Some kids wish their body was different Some kids usually act the way they know they are supposed to Some kids are happy with themselves most of the time. Some kids often forget what they learn Some kids are always doing things with alot of kids BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT OUT 74 Sort of Really True True for me for me Other kids feel they are good enough at sports. Other kids wish their height or weight were different. Other kids often don't do the right thing. Other kids do like the way they are leading their life. Other kids can do their school work quickly. Other kids are really easy to like. Other kids are afraid they might not do well at outdoor things they haven't ever tried. Other kids like their body the way it is. Other kids often don't act the way they are supposed to. Other kids are often not happy with themselves. Other kids can remember things easily. Other kids usually do things by themselves. 2i. 22. 23. 2k. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 3|. Really Sort of True True for me for-me Some kids feel that they are better than others their age at sports Some kids wish their physical appearance was different Some kids usually get in trouble because of things they do Some kids like the kind of person they are Some kids do very well at their classwork Some kids wish that more kids liked them In games and sports some kids usually watch instead of play Some kids wish something about their face or hair looked different Some kids do things they know they shouldn't do Some kids are very happy being the way they are Some kids have trouble figuring out the answers in school 75 BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT Sort of Really True True for me for me Other kids don‘t feel they can play as well. Other kids like their physical appearance the way it is. ‘ Other kids usually don't do things that get them in trouble. Other kids often wish they were someone else. Other kids don't do very well at their classwork. Others feel that most kids do like them. Other kids usually play rather than Just watch. Other kids like their face and hair the way they are. Other kids hardly ever do things they know they shouldn't do. Other kids wish they were different. Other kids almost always can figure out the answers. 32a 33- 3k. 35- 36. Really Sort of True True for me for me Some kids are popular with others their age Some kids don't do well at new outdoor games Some kids think that they are attractive or good looking Some kids are usually very kind to others Some kids aren't very happy with the way they do alot of things 76 BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT Sort of Really True True for me for me Other kids are not very popular. Other kids are good at new games right away. Other kids think that they are not very attractive or good looking. Other kids wish they would be kinder to others. Other kids think the way they do things is fine. APPENDIX E In the Classroom 77 In the Classroom :ggil's Form Name Age Birthday (llonthi (Day)— Orade Teacher Boy or Girl (circle which) Sample Questions Really Sort of Sort of Really True True True True for lie for lie for lie for me (a) Some kids would rather Other kids would rather play outdoors in their BUT watch T V spare time (6) Some kids like hamburgers Other kids like hot dogs better than hot dogs BUT better than hamburgers. I. Some kids like hard work Other kids prefer easy because its a challenge BUT work that they are sure they can do 2. When some kids don't Other kids would rather understand something BUT try and figure it out by right away they want the themselves teacher to tell them the answer 3. Some kids work on Other kids work on problems to learn BUT problems because you're how to solve them supposed to A. Some kids almost always Other kids sometimes think that what the BUT think their own ideas are teacher says is 0.x. better 5. Some kids know’when Other kids need to check they‘ve made mistakes BUT with the teacher to know without checkinglwlth the if they've made a mistake teacher 6. Some kids like difficult Other kids don't like to problems because they BUT figure out difficult enjoy trying to figure problems than out . ' 7. Some kids do their school- Other kids do their school- work because the teacher tells them to BUT work to find out about alot of things they've been wanting to know Really Sort of True True for he for He IO. ll. l2. I3. lk. l5. l6. l7. lB. l9. 78' When some kids make a mistake they would rather BUT figure out the right answer by themselves Some kids know'whether or not they're doing BUT well in school without grades Some kids agree with the teacher because they BUT think the teacher is right about most things Some kids would rather just learn what they BUT have to in school - Some kids like to learn things on their own that BUT interest them Some kids read things be- cause they are interested BUT in the subject Some kids need to get their report cards to tell how they are doing in school BUT If some kids get stuck on a problem they ask the teacher for help BUT Some kids like to go on to new work that's at a more difficult level BUT Some kids think that what the teacher thinks of their work Is the most Important thing BUT Some kids ask questions In class because they BUT went to learn new things Some kids aren't really sure if they've done well BUI’ on a test until they get their papers back with a mark on it Sort of Really True True for he for He Other kids would rather ask the teacher how to get the right answer Other kids need to have grades to know how'well they are doing in school Other kids don't agree with the teacher some- times and stick to their own opinion Other kids would rather. learn about as much as they can - Other kids think its better to do things that the teacher thinks they should be learning Other kids read things be- cause the teacher wants them to Other kids know for them- selves how they are doing even before they get their report card Other kids keep trying to figure out the problem on their own Other kids would rather stick to the assignments which are pretty easy to do for other kids what they think of their work is the most Important thing Other kids ask questions because they want the teacher to notice them Other klds pretty much know how well they did even before they get their paper back 20. 2|. 22. 2}. 2h. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Really Sort of True for He True for He Some kids like the teacher to help them plan what to db next Some kids think they should have a say in what work they do in school Some kids like school subjects where its pretty easy to just learn the answers Some kids aren't sure if their work Is really good or not until the teacher tells them Some kids like to try to figure out how to do school assignments on their own Some kids do extra projects so they can get better grades Some kids think its best if they decide when to work on each school subject Some kids know they didn't do their best on an assignment when they turn It In Some kids don't like difficult schoolwork because they have to work too hard Some kids like to do their schoolwork without help Some kids work really hard to get good grades 79 BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BIT BUT BUT BUT Sort of True for he Other kids like to make their own plans for what to do next Really True for he Other kids think that the teacher should decide what work they should do Other kids like those school subjects that make them think pretty hard and figure things out Other kids know if Its good or not before the teacher tells them Other kids would rather ask the teacher how it should be done Other kids do extra projects because they learn about things that interest them Other kids think that the teacher is the best one to decide when to work on things Other kids have to wait till the teacher grades it to know that they didn’t do as well as they could have Other kids like difficult schoolwork because they find it more interesting Other kids like to have the teacher help them do their schoolwork Other kids work hard because they really like to learn things APPENDIX F Why Things Happen 80 Wh Thi s We n Name Age Birthday (Honth) (an)______ Grade_______ Teacher School Boy or Girl (Circle one) Sample Questions (a) I like chocolate ice cream better than vanilla ice cream very true sort of true not very true not at all true (b) I really like spinach very true sort of true not very true not at all true I. When I win at a sport, a lot of times I can't figure out why I won. very true sort of true not very true not at all true 2. When I an unsuccessful. it is usually my own fault. very true sort of true not very true not at all true 3. The best way for me to get good grades is to get the teacher to like me. very true sort of true not very true not at all true A. If somebody doesn't like me. I usually can't figure out why very true sort of true not very true not at all true 5. I can be good at any sport If I try hard enough. very true sort of true not very true not at all true 6. If an adult doesn't want me to do something’l went to do. i probably won't.be able to do It. very true sort of true not very true not at all true IO. ll. '2. I3. IE. l5. I6. 81 When I do well in school, I usually can't figure out why. very true sort of true not very true not at all true If somebody doesn't like me. it's usually because of something I did. very true sort of true not very true not at all true When I win at a sport. it's usually because the person I was playing against played badly. very true sort of true not very true not at all true When something goes wrong for me. I usually can't figure out why it happened. very true sort of true- not very true not at all true If I want to do wellin school, it's up to me to do it. very true sort of true not very true not at all true If my teacher doesn't like me. I probably won't be very popular with my classmates. very true sort of true not very true not at all true hany times I can't figure out why good things happen to me. very true sort of true not very true not at all true If I don't do well in school. It's my own fault. very true sort of true - not very true not at all true If I want to be an important member of my class. I have to get the popular kids to to like me.“ very true sort of true not very true not at all true host of the time when I lose a game In athletics. I can't figure out why I lost. very true sort of true not very true not at all true I]. 19. 20. 2l. 22. 23. 2k. 25. 82 I can pretty much control what will happen in my life. If very true sort of true not very true not at all true I have a bad teacher. I won't do well in school. very true sort of true not very true ' not at all true A lot of times I don't know why people like me. If If to If When I lose in an outdoor game. it is usually because the kid I played against was very true sort of true not very true not at “all true I try to catch a ball. and I don't. It Is usually because I didn't try hard enough. very true sort of true not very true not at all true there is something that I want to get. I usually have to please the people in charge get it. very true sort of true not very true not at all true I get a bad grade in school. I usually don't understand why I got it. very true sort of true not very true not at all true somebody likes me. It is usually because of the way that I treat them. very true sort of true not very true not at all true was much better at that game to begin with. very true sort of true not very true not at all true When I win at an outdoor game. a lot of times I don't know why I won. very true ' sort of true not very true not at all true 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 3i. 32o 33. 31.. 35. 83 When I don't do well at something. It is usually my own fault. very true sort of true not very true not at all true When I do well In school. It's because the teacher likes me. very true sort of true not very true not at all true When another kid doesn't like me. I usually don't know why. very true sort of true not very true not at all true I can be good at any sport If I work on It hard enough. very true sort of true not very true not at all true I don't have much of a chance of doing what I want if adults don't want me to do it. very true sort of true not very true not at all true When I get a good grade in school. I usually don't understand wny I did so well. very true sort of true not very true not at all true If someone is mean to me. it Is usually because of something I did. very true sort of true not very true not at all true When I play an outdoor game against another kid. and I win, it's probably because tne other kid didn't play well. very true sort of true not very true not at all true A lot of times. I don't know why something goes wrong for me. very true sort of true not very true not at all true If I want to get good grades in school. it's up to me to do It. very true sort of true not very true not at all true 36. 37- 38. 39- 1:0. lol. '42. 103. Mo. 55. 84 If the teacher doesn't like me. I probably won't have many friends in that class. very true sort of true not very true not at all true When good things happen to me. many times there doesn't seem to be any reason wny. very true sort of true not very true not at all true If I get bad grades. it's my own fault. very true sort of true not very true not at all true If I want my classmates to think that I an an important person. I have to be friends with really popular kids. very true sort of true not very true not at all true When I don't win at sn outdoor gatne. most of the time I can't figure out wny. very true sort of true not very true not at all true I can pretty much decide what will happen in my life very true sort of true not very true not at all true If I don't have a good teacher. I won't do well in school. very true sort of true not very true not at all true A lot of times. there doesn't seem to be any reason why somebody likes me. very true sort of true not very true not at all true If I try to catch a ball and I miss It. it's usually because I didn't try hard enough. very true sort of true not very true not at all true To get what I want. I have to please the people in charge. very true sort of true not very true not at all true 85 £5. When I don't do well in school I usually can't figure out why. very true sort of true not very true not at all true L]. If somebody is ny friend. it is usually because of the way that I treat them. very true sort of true not very true not at all true ‘8. When I don't win at an outdoor game. the person I was playing against was probably a lot better than I was. very true sort of true not very true not at ail true MICHIGAN sme UNIV. LIBRARIES (IHIWINHIW“WIWIIIIIWINHIIIIHHIWIIHHI 31293006092831