Analyzing Research 4 of 7

Examine this passage from a qualitative study:Our involvement in this study was serendipitous, for one of us had been employed by the correctional facility and therefore had direct experience with gunmen such as the individual in our case; the other was a University of Iowa graduate and thus familiar with the setting and circumstances surrounding another violent incident there in 1992.” (Asmussen & Creswell, 1995)What one of the following points of view is represented in this passage?An impersonal point of viewA dramatic point of viewA personal point of viewA direct experience point of viewWhat evidence from the passage are you basing your decision on? Be specific.Examine the Self-Brown and Mathews (2003) sample experimental study found at the end of Chapter 10, and answer these questions:In experimental research, groups on some independent variable are compared in terms of outcomes on a dependent variable. Identify the independent variable and the groups in this experimental study.The researchers in this study used a between-group design. Explain why.In this experiment, did the experimental treatment groups (token-economy structure and the contingency-contract structure) outperform the control group in terms of the outcome? Justify your response.How did the researchers assign the classes to the various structures under study?APA Reference for Self-Brown is as follows:Self-Brown, S. &
Matthews, S. (2003). Effects of classroom structure of student achievement goal
orientation. In J. W. Creswell, Educational Research: Planning, conducting, and
evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (5th ed.) (pp. 331-337). Boston,
MA: Pearson. (Reprinted from Journal of Educational Research, 97(2), pp. 106-111)
bls20180411_20501206.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Analyzing Research 4 of 7
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

CHAPTER lO E?er?nental D(??n5
?
??‡?
??
÷
331
?????????????????????????
In the Pearson etext?Click here to see studies that use an experimental design.
????????????????????
Examine the following published jo??mal artide that is an experimental study. Marginal notes indicate
the major characteristics of experimental research highlighted in this chapter. In the Pearson etext,
Click here to answer questions about the study. When yo?I S?1bmit your answers, yO??receive
expert feedback.
Effects of C?ass?oom Structure on Student Achievement Goa?Orientation
???????
Shannon R, Self-Brown
??r??e???
Sam?Iel Mathews, H
??????
??i?e7?i?(f lV?t Horida
A???????§
Abstract
TZ
e CZutho7S ?SSe?e`l bou) Cd?1OOm StruCtu7e Jr?uence?I stu?nt czcbiez?ment goal orientationf)r ma?-
ematics. 7h71ee C,?,Inenta7y SChooI c?z?eS uere ?SS?ned nZndom?, to J cd?1OOm St?Cture COndition.·??en
econo/r?COntir?Cmq, COntmC4 or control. 57z,/C?nis Jn eacb condition z/?71e 7equi7al?sc?t Jndiz/idual
acbieL,ementg?als on a u??bas?. 77
number ??
e aZ?o,S ?SSeSS
ed d??nC`?/n goal orienkztion?co77?ari??e
?arrzi?zrs. pe?)manCe g?als?at s?l?nis set z/)ithin ?nd czcross cd?1OOm St?uCtuI?COndi-
tions· Resz/?/m?ca??bat stuc?nis Jn /he conti7,?en?,-COntmCt CO7?dition set s?nZ?antb) mO?e k,ami??
?
goa?ban did s?u`?n?n otber ckas71OOm S??Ctu7e COnditions. Nb s?n?cant d??ences ue?e.?undjb?
pe?)manCe gOals ac?a?Ckzss71?Om Stn/Ctu re COnditions. TW?n ck?71OOm St?uCtu7e COndition5 S.?`?nts
in tbe contir7genC?-COntmCt g???Set S?n?Can?mo/??zmir?gOals zhan pe?)manCe gOa?zube?s
Stul?n?n Jbe ro?en-eCOnOn?? COndition set s?n?cantb) mO?epe?) manCe gOals?oan?amir?gOals.
Key words: dassroom structure, gOal orientation, mathematics
Over the last 35 years, COnSiderable research and writings have addressed the relationship
(01)
between the dassroom leaming environment and student goal orientation· However, Only a pa?1City
Of research has foc?1Sed on establishing a link between the classroom evaluation struct?Ire, differences
in students
goal orientation, and dassroom strategies for the creation of specific goal orientations
Within the classroom (Ames, 1992c), In this study, We addressed those iss?1eS.
Students
goal orientation has been linked to contrasting pattems that students exhibit when they
(02)
attend to?nterpret, and respond to academic tasks (Dweck & Leggett, 1988)· One leading model of
goal orientation foc?1SeS On tWO gOal orientations-Perfomance goals and leaming goals· According
to the model, St??dents who set performance goals are foc??Sed on demonstrating their abilities to
O?ItSide observers s?ICh as teachers, Whereas students who set leaming goals seek to increase their
COmPetenCe regardless of the presence of o?ItSide obSerVerS (Kaplan & Midgley, 1997). Researchers
have fo?md consistent pattems of behavior that are related ?lirectly to the types of goals that students
establish (Dweck, 1986; NichoIs, 1984; Sch?Ink, 1990).
General]y, reSearC`hers have conc`1?Ided that a neg??tive rellltionship exists between perfe)rmanCe
goals and prod?1Ctive achievement behaviors (Greene & Mi11er, 1996; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons,
1990). Adoption of a performance go??1 orientation means that ability is evidenced when students
Cor)yright ofJo?1mal of Educationul Rescarch is the property of Heldref Puhiic
ations and its content may not be
COPied or em?Iiled to mIltiple sites or r)OSted to l listserv witho?1t the copyright holder
s express written permission.
H()We?Ter, uSerS may Print, download, Or em?l articles for individ?Ial?1Se.
Ad(?tfJ CO’?’??,???,7ZCC, /O Sham70’7 R 5??B’.0?7, 7 714 (fol?c
D?i, ‘q Bat?’l Roz
ge, LA 7O808. (??Zall.· SSe?l@?/.C
d?
Self-I?)Wn, S. R?& Mathews, S. H. (2003)· Effects of d?s5r?Om Str??Ct?Ire On St?Ident achieveme?1t gOal orientations.
?
.??IaI (??Il
Catio’7 R`rsC,a’?b, 97(2), 106-111; rePrinted by permission of the p?1blisher (Taylor & Francis Lt?1, http.//
WWW.tandf ?O?Ik/1O?Im?Il5 )
(03)
332
PART 3
Resea/?b Des?ns
do better than others, SurPaSS nOrmative-based standards, Or aChieve success with little effort (Ames,
?
1984; Covington, 1984)· Conseq??ently, those st?Idents often avoid more difficult tasks and exhibit
little intrinsic interest in academic activities (Ames, 1992c; Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1984). Students
With a performance goal orientation can beCOme V??Inerable to helplessness, eSPeCially when they
Perfom poorly on academic tasks. Th?It reS?11t occ?IrS because fallure implies that students have low
ability and that the amount and q?1ality of effort expended on tasks is irrelevant to the outcome
(Ames, 1992c).
(04)
In contrast, reSearChers have comistently fo?md evidence for a positive relationship between
leaming goals and productive achievement l?ehaviors (Ames & Archer, 1988; Greene & Miller; 1996;
Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988)· St?1dents who are k)CuSed on leaming goals tyr)ically prefer
Challenging activities (Ames & Archer, 1988; E11iot & Dweck, 1988), PerSist at diffic?11t tasks (Elliot &
Dweck; Schunk, 1996), and rer)Ort high levels of interest and task invoIvement (Harackiewicz,
Barron, & Elliot, 1998; Harackicwicz,?rron, Thuer, Carter, & E11iot, 2000). Those students engage in
a mastery-Oriented belief system k)r Which cfft)rt and o?1tCOme COVary (Ames, 1992a)· For st?Idents
who are focused on leaming go?11s, f?Iil?1re does not represent a personal deficiency b?It implies that
greater effl)rt Or neW Strategies
lre req??ed· Such persons will increase their efforts in the face of
di?cult cha11enges and seek opport?mities that promote leaming (Heyman & Dweck, 1992). Over-
all, reSearChers have concl?1ded th?It a leaming-gOal orientation is associated with more adaptive
PattemS O=)ehavior, COgnition?mC?Iffec=han is a performance-gOal orientation (Ames & Archer,
1988; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Nicholls, P?ItaShnick, & Nolen, 1985).
(0?)
In several emplrical st?1dies, reSear?hers have established a relationship between the salience of
Certain goal orientations?and changes in individ?1al behavior (Ames, 1984; Elliot & Dweck, 1988;
Heyman & Dweck, 1992; Sch?mk, 1996). Previous laboratory studies have created leaming and
Performance goal conditiom by manir)?Ilating the instructions provided to children regarding the
tasks at hand (Ames, 1984; E11iot & Dweck, 1988), Res?Ilts from those studies indicate that children
Who participated in performance goal conditions?n which instructions made salien=he extemal
evaluation of skills and/or competitive goals, mOSt Often attributed their performance on tasks to abil-
ity· Those children also exhibited reactions that were characteristic of a helpless orientation, giving
up easily and avoiding challenging tasks. In contrast, Children exposed to leaming-gOal conditions,
for which ins?1Ctions focused on imr)rOVing individual performance and further developing skills,
typically attrib?Ited their performance to effort. Those children demonstrated mastery-Oriented
responses toward tasks by interpreting fuil?IreS aS OPPOrt?mities to acquire information about how
to alter their responses in order to increase their competence.
(06)
Schunk (1996) conducted a st??dy in a dassroom setting to investigate the influence of achieve-
ment goal orientation on the acq?Ii5ition o?actions (Sch?1nk, 1996). Similar to the laboratory st?1dies,
leaming and performance g()?II conditions were cstablished thro?Igh a distinction in teacher in-
structions. Results indicated th?It St?1dents in the learning-gOal condition had higher motivation and
achievement outcomes than did st??dents in the performance-gOal condition. The results of that study
S?IggeSted that varying goal instnlCtion Within the classroom can in?IenCe St??dents, goal perceptions
and achievement-relatcd behavior on llCa{1emic tasks.
(07)
Given that achievement goal ol?ientl?)n is an important predictor of student o?ItCOmeS jJ)
educational settings, reSearCher5 m?5t attend to the dassroom enVironment variables that are
necessary so that children orien=oward n leaming-gOal orientation versus a performance-gOal
orientation (Church, Elliot, & G?Ible, 2001). Rescarchers have s?1ggeSted that such variables as the
instructional and management pr?ICtices tha=eachers use can influence the type of achievement
goals that students?Set (Ames & Ames, 1981; Kaplan & Maehr, 1999; Meece, 1991)· One major
element of instr?1Ctional and management PraCtices within a dassroom is the struct?1re Of class-
room eval??ation that tcachers?1Se in their d?Iily practices. A k)C?1S On the type of evaluation, that is,
Striving for personal improvement or perft)rming to attain a teacher
be related to st?Idents
(08)
s goal for extemal reward may
goal orientation (Ames, 1992c).
Typical evaluation in elementary classrooms compares?Students against a normative standard,
SuCh as that required to pass?a CO??rSe Or tO reCeive a reward within a token economy system
(Brophy, 1983). Tbken economy systems provide students with tangible reinforcers and extemal
incentives for meeting normative stan?lards. Altho?Igh token economy programs have received
empirical s?1PPOrt for improving st?Ident hehavior and academic responding in a variety of schooI
Subjects, this classroom str?1Ct??re Cfm have paradoxical and detrimental effects when applied with
?
CHAPTER lO
?
no regurd for the v?Irying degrees of st??dents
?perimental De?ns
333
capabilities (Lepper & Hodell, 1989). For instance,
a st?1dent who h?? a le?ming disa†)ility in mathematics will not be motivated by the same amount
Of tokens to comr)lete m?1them?ic5??5ignments :lS Other st??dents in the same dassroom who have
a?’er?Ige?)ilitjes in this sl?ec`t. In lddition. the type of eval?Iative structure that stems from a token
economy tends t() incl-e?e the r)erCCived importance of ability??nd p?Iblic performance in the class-
room, W?ch?-1ake5 r)erft)rmanCe-gOl11 orientation salient to students (Ames, 1992c).
T[) PrOmOte fl le?ning-gOul orientltion, Ames (1992c) suggested a type of dassroom struct?1re
(09)
in which st??dent eva??Iation is baSed on personal improvement and progress toward individ?1al
go?. The?1Se Of c()ntingency c()ntr?ICtS IS an eValuative too=ikely would place emphasis on these
Vlrial)les. Contingency contrllCting creates?an agreement for leaming and perfe)ming between a
Student lmd tellCher. fuccess is b?1Sed solely on each st?Ident
s individ?Ial performance, aCCOrding to
the gcul th:?t he or she?tS (Piggott & Heggie, 1986). Contracting allows each student to consider
his ?r her?1nique needs :?nd competencies when setting goals nnd places responsibility for leaming
and performing on the st??dent (K??rVnick, 1993)· The??Se Of contingency contracting has been an
effective intervention for improving students
dCademic behavior in a variety of academic subjects
(M?1rPhy, 1988)· It enco?IrageS St?1dents to become active participants in their leaming with a ft)CuS
On effortf?11 strategies and a pattem of motivational processes that are associated with adaptive and
desirchle achievement bchaviors (Ames, 1992c). One question that remains, however, is whether
?m intervention s??Ch?contingency contracting will lead to an increase in leaming goals relative to
Perfor?mmCe gO?. In this st?Idy, We addressed that q?IeStion·
We mamP??lated dassroom str?1CtureS tO aSSeSS the effects on st??dent goal orientation. Each intact
d??SSrOOm WaS?Signed randomly to either a token-eCOnOmy dassroom structure, COntingency-
C()ntraCt dassroom StruCt?Ire, Or a COntrOI dassroom struct?Ire” Wt assessed student goal orientation
by COmP??ring the m1mber of leaming and performance goals that students set according to the
Classr?Om-Str??Ct?1re C
(10)
??????
?????l??
?(????r?
Ondition. On the basis of previous research, We hypothesized that the type
Of classroom str?ICt??re WO?11d †)e linked directly to the achievement goals that students set. Our
???d?m
Prediction was?follows: (1?) The token-eC`OnOmy dassroom structure would be related positively
?????¶e?
to student performance-gO??1 orientation, (b) the contingency contract classroom structure wo?Ild be
related positively to st?Ident learning-gOZll orientation, and (c) the controI dassroom structure would
?????0??e
be unrd?Ited to st?Ident goal orientation.
?????$u??$
????‡ ‡?V???
Method
??g???
????d???$??
Pa rtic?a n ts
St?Idents from three dassro()mS??a local elementary schooI participated in this study. Partici-
PantS inc`l??ded 2 fifth-grade dasses zmd l fo??rth-grade dass. Each of the three intact dassrooms
WaS r??ndomly assigned to one of the three dassroom eval?1ation structure conditions. Twenty?ve
??
?50??
…??????$
5th-gr??de st?1dents were assigned to the token economy condition, 18 fourth-grade students to the
C()ntingency contract condition, and 28 fifth-grade st?Idents to the controI condition.
Materials
??terillls varied according to the d??SSrOOm eVal?tion str?1Ct?Ire COndition. The conditions are
(12)
described in the following par??grar)hs.
7b??7? (,C??Z?77?, St?Idents in this c`()ndjtion were given a contract that (a) described explicitly how
(13)
tokcns were carned and distrib?1ted and (b) 1isted the baCk-?IP reinforcers for which tokens could
be eXChanged· St?1dents receivec?I COntract folder so that the contract could be kept at their desk
?It aH times. St?Idents also received a goals chart that was divided into two sections: tOken economy
goals lmd indivic?al go?us. The token economy goals section listed the st?Ident behaviors that cou?d
eam tokens?and the lmO??nt Of tokens that cach behavior was worth. The individual goals section
?Illowed st?1dents to list Weekly gollls an?1 1ong-term gOals for mathematics. Other materials used ft)r
this condition ind??ded tokens, Which were in the form of play do11ars, and back-?IP reinforcers s?ICh
as c?Indy, PenS, keych?lin??md comp??ter time cards.
Cl)ntt7ZgC,nay C?7?uct. St?Idents in this condition were given a contingency contract that described
?
thc weekly proc`eSS Of meeting w?h the researcher to set and disc?1SS mathematics goals. St?Idents
receivec?contract foIder so th
lt the contr?ICt CO??Id be kept at their desk at a11 times. P?Irticipants
(14)
334
PART 3
Re5ea?Cb Des?ns
also received a goals chart in which they listed weekly and long-term gOals for mathematics. Gold
?
star stickers on the goals chart signified when a goal was met”
(15)
cont?Ol. St?Idents in this condition received a goals chart identical to the one described in the
contingency contract condition. No other materials were used in this condition”
Des?n
(16) In the analysis in this st?Idy, We eXamined the effect of dassroom evaluation struct?Ire On St?1dents
achievement goals. The independent variable in the analysis was dassroom structure, Which
consisted of three levels: tOken economy, COntingency contract, and control. The dependent variable
WaS gOal type (performance or leaming goals) that st?Idents set for mathematics. We used a two-Way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) to analyze the data·
Procedure
(17)
Each of three intact classrooms was assigned randomly to one of three dassroom evaluation struc-
ture conditions: tOken economy, COntingency contract, Or COntrOl. Wt applied those dassroom
evaluation str?1Ct?1re COnditions to m??thematics. The mathematics instr?ICtion in each dassroom was
On grade level. Throughout the st?1dy, telChers in the participating dassrooms continued to evalu-
ate their st?1dents with a traditional grading system that induded graded evaluation of mathematics
dasswork, homework, and weekly tests.
(18)
Student participants in each c`1assroom structure condition completed a mathematics goal chart
each week during a one-On-One meeting with the first author. The author assessed goals by defin-
ing them as performance goals or leaming goals, aCCOrding to Dweck
s (1986) definitions. F?1rther
PrOCedures were specific to the dassroom str?ICt?1re COndition· The treatments are described in the
following paragraphs.
(19)
7b?en econonay. The first a?Ithor gave a contract to the st?Idents, Which she discussed individ?Ially
with each of them. When the st?Idcnt demonstrated an understanding of the terms of the contract,
the st?1dent and author signed the contract. Reinforcement procedures were written in the contract
and explained verbally by the a?Ithor, aS fo11ows:
For the next six weeks yo??an Cam SChool do11ars for completing yo?1r math assignments?and/or for
making A
s or B
s on m?h?signments. For each assignment yo?I COmPlete, yOu Will earn two school
do=ars. For every A or B yo?I m?Ike on a math assignmcnt, yO?Ir Wi11 carn four school dollars. At thc end
Of the five weeks, if yo??have ;m A or B average in math and/or have t?1med in a11 your math assignments,
yo?I Will cam ten school d?11??r5 These ;lre the only hehaviors for which yo?1 Can e?Im SChool dollars. Your
teacher will pay yo?I the do=al-S yO?I e?1m Or”l daily basis following math class.
(20)
Tbkens were exchanged on a weckly baSis when st?1dents met with the author. The process was
explained to st?Idents as follows?
Once a week you can exchange your school dollars for computer
time, PenS, markers, keychains, nOtePads, Or Candy. Yo?1 m?ISt eam at least ten school dollars in
Order to p?IrChase an item·
(21)
A goals chart also was provided ft)r the st?1dents in the token economy condition. At the top of
the goals chart, target behaviors that co?Ild e?Irn tOkens were identifie?l. Beneath the token economy
goals, a SeCtion was provided in which st??dents co?11d write their own mathematics goals. D?Iring
the weekly meeting time that st?1dents met with the author, they (a) traded tokens ft)r back-?IP
reinforcers, (b) received reminder5 Of the t?Irget behaviors that co?Ild eam tokens, and (c) wrote
individual mathematics goals on thc gol115 Chart.
(22)
Cbntirzgen?’ COntmCt· St?Idents who p?lrticipate?=n this condition received a folder with a
contract provided by the a??thor. The terms of the c`OntraC`t Were r)reSented verba11y hy the a?1thor,
as fbHows:
Each week we will meet so that yo?I Can SCt gOals for math. You will be allowed to set weekly goals and
long-term gOals. When we meet we wil=ook over the goals you set ft)r the previous week· We will identify
the goals you have met and place a goId star beSide them on your goals chart form. We wi= discuss the
goals you did not meet and yo?I Can decide whether to se …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Order a unique copy of this paper
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency

Order your essay today and save 15% with the discount code DISCOUNT15