Routledge International Handbook of Social Psychology of the Classroom

Christine M. Rubie-Davies, Jason M. Stephens, Penelope Watson, Christine M. Rubie-Davies, Jason M. Stephens, Penelope Watson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317508441
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

The Routledge International Handbook of Social Psychology of the Classroom presents the first comprehensive and integrated compilation of theory and research on topics related to the social cohesion of the classroom. Many of these topics have been studied independently; for example, motivation, self-concept, class management, class climate, and teacher expectations are generally studied separately by different groups of researchers. This handbook brings the evidence from different fields in social psychological classroom research together in one place for the first time to explore how these topics relate and how each factor influences students and their learning.

With chapters by established international leaders in their fields, as well as emerging new talent, this handbook offers cutting edge research and surveys the state of the art in the social psychology of the classroom.

Major areas covered include:

• Motivation
• Belief, self-concept, and personality
• Emotional engagement
• Teacher–student relationships
• Teacher expectation
• Classroom management
• Culture and identity

The Routledge International Handbook of Social Psychology of the Classroom provides a review of current theories related to the social psychology of the classroom, including how these theories apply to classrooms and learners. Current evidence clearly shows that areas explored by social psychology – and brought together for the first time in this volume – can have a very significant impact on classroom learning and student achievement (J. Hattie, Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement, Routledge 2009). This handbook is a must for all academics whose research relates to the social psychology of the classroom. It is also an invaluable resource for teachers and teacher education students who want to understand why they are effective instructors and yet still encounter students in their classes who are not responding as expected.

Part I
Student motivation

1
Children’S Achievement Motivation in School

Allan Wigfield, Katherine Muenks, and Emily Q. Rosenzweig

Motivation theorists are interested in the ‘whys’ of human behavior: what moves people to act (Wigfield et al. in press). Achievement motivation refers to motivation to accomplish activities that have standards of performance. Researchers studying school achievement motivation look at how students’ motivation influences their engagement in academic activities, the choices students make about which academic activities to do, their persistence at continuing the activities, and their degree of effort. Motivation researchers taking a social cognitive perspective focus on students’ self-beliefs, values and goals as important determinants (Eccles and Wigfield 2002; Maehr and Zusho 2009; Schunk and Pajares 2009; Wigfield et al. 2009). Many motivation researchers also are interested in how educational contexts influence these constructs (e.g. Nolen and Ward 2008).

In this chapter we discuss children’s achievement motivation in school, focusing on constructs from three major social cognitive theories of motivation: expectancy-value theory, self-efficacy theory, and achievement goal theory.¹ To connect this work to social psychological research on motivation, we also introduce the construct of regulatory focus and consider its connections to students’ motivation. We then briefly discuss the development of each construct, and describe some educational interventions that have focused on achievement motivation.

Theoretical background to the field

In this section we provide overviews of several major current theories of motivation: expectancy-value theory, self-efficacy theory, and achievement goal orientation theory, and also regulatory focus theory, which focuses on differences in the ways in which individuals strategically focus their goal-directed behavior.

Expectancy-value theory

Expectancy-value theorists focus on how students’ beliefs and values influence their performance and choice in school. Eccles and her colleagues (Eccles-Parsons et al. 1983; Wigfield and Eccles 2000) defined expectancies for success as children’s beliefs about how well they will do on an upcoming task in the near or longer term future. Ability beliefs are children’s evaluations of their current competence or ability, both in terms of their assessments of their own ability and also how they think they compare to other students.

Numerous studies have shown that students’ ability beliefs and expectancies for success predict their school performance and activity choice (Wigfield et al. 2009). For instance, researchers have found that self-concept of ability measured in elementary school predicts how many mathematics courses students elect to take in high school (Simpkins et al. 2006). Additionally, students’ self-concept of their ability in mathematics measured in high school predicts their plans to pursue a mathematics-related career or course of study in college (Nagy et al. 2008; Watt 2006).

Eccles and her colleagues defined different values for achievement tasks: attainment value, intrinsic value, utility value, and cost (Eccles-Parsons et al. 1983; Eccles 2005; Wigfield et al. 2009). Attainment value is the importance of the task to the individual, intrinsic value the enjoyment one gets from the task, and utility value how much a task relates to current and future goals, such as career goals. Cost refers to what the individual has to give up to do the task.

Eccles and her colleagues have found that students’ task values predict their course-taking plans and enrollment decisions in different subjects, even after controlling for prior performance levels (Eccles et al. 2004; Eccles-Parsons et al. 1983). For instance, Eccles et al. (2004) found that early adolescents’ college plans, task values, and ability beliefs related to whether or not they enrolled in college. Durik et al. (2006) found that students’ self-concept of ability, interest, and perceived importance of literacy measured in fourth grade related positively to these variables measured in tenth grade. These variables predicted students’ increased likelihood of desiring a career where reading skills are critical, such as becoming a lawyer. Additionally, Musu-Gillette et al. (2014) found that change in students’ mathematics values and ability beliefs related to choice of a mathematics major in college: Students maintaining positive values and ability beliefs were more likely to choose mathematics-related majors.

Self-efficacy theory

Self-efficacy is defined as an individual’s ‘perceived capabilities to learn or perform behaviors at designated levels’ (Schunk and Pajares 2005: 85) and was originally introduced as part of Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory. Much research has shown that students’ self-efficacy beliefs about particular school-related tasks predict important academic outcomes, such as motivation, achievement, and self-regulation in school (Bandura 1997).

The term ‘self-efficacy’ can be distinguished from other constructs pertaining to competence beliefs, such as ability beliefs and expectancies for success (Wigfield and Eccles 2000). As just discussed, ability beliefs refer to an individual’s evaluation of his or her current competence, whereas self-efficacy beliefs are related to future performance on a task. Expectancies for success are conceptually similar to self-efficacy beliefs, as they refer to an individual’s expectation that he or she will perform well in the future. However, within expectancy-value theory, both ability beliefs and expectancies for success are generally measured at a domain-specific level (e.g. pertaining to mathematics in general), whereas self-efficacy is often measured at a task-specific level (e.g. pertaining to a specific mathematics problem; Wigfield and Eccles 2000).

Bandura (1997) posits that self-efficacy beliefs are constructed from four sources of information: mastery experience, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological states. Mastery experiences are instances when the individual has succeeded on the task in the past. This source of efficacy information is especially powerful. Vicarious experiences also contribute to a sense of personal self-efficacy: If an individual sees other people successfully performing an activity, he or she may have a stronger belief in his or her own capabilities. Verbal persuasion occurs when individuals are told that they are capable of performing an action. Finally, physiological and affective states generate emotional arousal, which can influence individuals’ sense of self-efficacy.

Research has shown that self-efficacy beliefs predict various school-related outcomes, including task performance, interest, persistence, and self-regulatory processes (Schunk and Pajares 2009). Collins (1982) selected children who judged themselves to be of high or low efficacy for three levels of mathematical ability (i.e. low, medium, and high) and found that, within each level of ability, children with high mathematical efficacy solved difficult problems more accurately and used more strategies than children with low mathematical efficacy. Collins (1982) also found that efficacy beliefs rather than actual ability predicted interest in mathematics and positive attitudes towards mathematics. Pintrich and De Groot (1990) found that seventh-grade students’ self-efficacy predicted their self-reported use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies, controlling for prior achievement. The relation between self-efficacy and achievement was fully mediated by the use of these cognitive strategies. Additional studies suggest that learners who are more efficacious also choose to engage in more challenging tasks, set higher goals, monitor their time, engage in self-evaluation, and persist longer on difficult tasks than learners who are less efficacious (Schunk and Pajares 2009).

Achievement goal orientation theory

Goal orientations are students’ broad approaches to school activities. Researchers have focused primarily on two broad goal orientations towards learning: mastery and performance (see Maehr and Zusho 2009; Elliot 2005). A mastery orientation means that the child focuses on improving their skills, mastering material, and learning new things. A performance orientation means that the child focuses on maximizing favorable and minimizing negative evaluations of their competence.

In the 1990s, researchers differentiated approach and avoidance components of performance and mastery goal orientations. Elliot and Harackiewicz (1996) and Skaalvik (1997) defined performance-approach goals as students’ desires to demonstrate competence, and performance-avoidance goals as students’ desires to avoid looking incompetent. For example, a student who wants to receive an ‘A’ in a course so that parents, teachers, and friends can see how smart she is has a performance-approach goal, while a student who wants to avoid receiving a ‘C’ in a course so that she will not appear incompetent has a performance-avoidance goal. Elliot (1999; Elliot and McGregor 2001) and Pintrich (2000) added to this distinction, proposing that mastery-approach goals meant students wanting to master new material, whereas mastery-avoidance goals meant students not wanting to lose competence. For example, a student who works hard to finish her homework to improve her reading skills has a mastery-approach goal, while a student who avoids skipping her homework in order not to lose the skills she possesses has a mastery-avoidance goal.

Elliot et al. (2011) reconceptualized the extant goal orientation models to distinguish between the standards of information people use to judge their competence under mastery and performance orientations. They distinguished self-standards, or individuals’ sense of how their performance relates to the trajectory of their competence growth; task standards which come from characteristics of the tasks being done; and other standards, or how one’s performance compares to that of others. There are approach and avoidance aspects of each of these information standards. The model is therefore a three (standard of evaluation) by two (approach/avoid) model of goal orientations. Elliot et al. reported empirical support for these new distinctions, and concluded that evaluation standards should be included in models of goal orientations.

Much research has examined the relations of mastery and performance goal orientations to motivation and achievement (see Hulleman and Senko 2010; Maehr and Zusho 2009). Mastery-approach orientations relate positively to students’ self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation to learn, and use of deep cognitive strategies when processing academic information (Hulleman and Senko 2010). It is unclear if mastery-approach goals predict achievement; they do in some studies of 5- to 17-year-olds, but not as much in college students (Keys et al. 2012). Senko and Miles (2008) found that mastery-oriented college students achieved lower grades than other students, in part because they focused on their own interests rather than course requirements.

Performance-avoidance goals have strong negative consequences for student motivation and learning, relating to poorer performance, more willingness to cheat, higher anxiety, and so on (e.g. Anderman and Murdock 2007; Hulleman and Senko 2010). By contrast, performance-approach goals relate positively to academic self-concept, task value, and performance (Senko et al. 2011). Elliot et al. (2011) found that the new goals they identified related differentially to college students’ exam performance, intrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy. For example, approach goals based on judging one’s competence relative to others related positively to exam performance and avoid goals related to this standard did so negatively. Task-approach goals (when competence judgments are based on characteristics of the task) related positively to students’ intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy. Approach and avoid goals based on self-standards generally were not related to these outcomes. These intriguing findings need further exploration.

Debate continues about the relative merits of mastery and performance goal orientations. Researchers agree that mastery goals are beneficial for students, and so should be focused on in school. Researchers also agree that performance-avoidance goals are debilitating. The debate, then, centers on the relative merits of performance-approach goals. Because these goals relate positively to certain important achievement outcomes such as grades, some theorists believe that performance-approach goals are beneficial to students. Other theorists think that mastery goals are more positive because of their influence on intrinsic motivation and striving to improve. Roeser (2004) and Maehr and Zusho (2009) discuss this debate further.

Regulatory focus theory

Beyond the influence that a particular goal or goal orientation may have on an individual’s approach to achievement, the type of motivation used in pursuing that goal may also influence students’ classroom behavior and performance. One such aspect of motivation, studied most frequently in the social psychological literature, is regulatory focus. Regulatory focus theory (Higgins 1997; Molden and Miele 2008) addresses the ways in which individuals strategically regulate their goal-directed behavior. Higgins (1997) argued that all individuals pursue goals in order to fulfill one of two sets of needs: one set driven by a concern for growth and nurturance, and the other by a concern for safety and security. Pursuing one of these sets of needs induces one of two distinct regulatory orientations: promotion or prevention. When individuals are predominantly focused on growth concerns, they hold promotion orientations. During goal pursuit, these individuals represent their goals as ideals they hope to attain and seek opportunities for gain that will move them closer to these ideals. In contrast, when individuals are focused on security concerns, they hold a prevention orientation, representing their goals as responsibilities that they must uphold and protecting against potential losses that threaten these responsibilities.

In any given achievement context, individuals are likely to adopt a promotion versus a prevention orientation based on whether growth versus security concerns are more salient for them. Salience often is driven by envi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• CONTENTS
• List of illustrations
• Notes on contributors
• Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• PART I Student motivation
• PART II Responding to student culture
• PART III Student beliefs and peer relationships
• PART IV Teacher–student relationships
• PART V Classroom climate and classroom management
• PART VI Teacher expectations, judgment, and differentiation
• PART VII Teacher motivation, professionalism, and well-being
• PART VIII The final word
• Index