Results and Discussion

CHAPTER 4:

Results and Discussion:

4.1 Introduction
The focus of this chapter is statistical analysis and presentation of data on major findings based on the questions related to research and also discussions related to findings. Precisely, the study sought to establish whether there existed any relationship between motivational beliefs (self-efficacy, intrinsic value, and test anxiety) and self-regulated learning strategies (cognitive strategy use and self-regulation) and academic achievement of school students. The data was collected as per the methodology explained in the previous chapter. The obtained data was sorted out and entered in order to create a computer spreadsheet for analysis of the entire data. Later, the scoring was done and consequently, the data was analyzed using various relevant statistical tools. By use of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), different statistical measures were computed. The results obtained by tests are the main focus of presentation in this chapter. 4.2 Research question 1: Is there a relationship between motivational beliefs components and self-regulated learning components? To answer the first question of this study, between each component of motivational beliefs; _ self-efficacy, intrinsic value, test anxiety with two components of self-regulated learning strategy; _ cognitive strategy used and self-regulation variables. relationships were established. Pearson correlation was conducted to find out whether significant relationships existed between the stated

100

Results and Discussion In the following table (4.1) the descriptive statistics for all variables is given. The descriptive statistics include the Mean, SD, and Number of students in each variable.
Table 4.1: Means and standard deviations (Std. D) of motivation and self-regulated learning components

Variable
Motivation components Self-efficacy Intrinsic value Test anxiety Self-regulated learning components Cognitive strategy
Self-regulation

Mean
5.1950 5.7529 3.6110 5.2958
5.033

Std. D
0.87080 0.77182 1.51022 0.78636
0.93657

N
1020 1020 1020 1020
1020

Table 4.2 presents the relationship between motivational beliefs and selfregulated learning components, which are as shown:
Table 4. 2: Statistical Correlations of Motivational and Self-Regulated Learning components

Variable 1. Self-efficacy 2. Intrinsic value 3. Test anxiety 4. Cognitive strategy 5. Self-regulation

Note: N=1020.
**

Selfefficacy __ 0.417** -0 .276** 0.489** 0. 468**

Intrinsic value __ -0.143** 0.533** 0.463**

test anxiety -0.176**

_

cognitive selfstrategy regulation 0.604**

0.323**

P <0.01.

101

Results and Discussion 4.2.1 The first sub-question of the study aimed at finding out whether regulated learning components. From the table above, self-efficacy had significant correlation with cognitive strategy (r=0. 489, p<0.01), and self-regulation (r=0. 468, p<0. 01) and these correlations were positive. As present in this table self-efficacy had a significant correlation with other components of motivational beliefs. Pearson correlation between self-efficacy and intrinsic value (r=0.417, p<0.01) was positively significant and with Test anxiety (r=-0.276, p<0.01) was negatively significant. As this table showed that self-efficacy had a higher correlation with self-regulated learning components than other components of motivational beliefs. Discussion: In the present discussion correlation between motivational beliefs components and self-regulated learning components will be discussed and the size of the correlation will be described as low correlation (0.10 0.29), moderate (0.30 - 0.49), high (0.50 - 0.60) and very high (0.70 significantly across relationship. The results provide an empirical base and elaboration of the theoretical linkage between individual differences in students motivational orientation and their cognition engagement and self-regulation in classroom settings. As table 4.2 showed, the motivational components (self-efficacy, intrinsic value, and test anxiety) were significantly related to self-regulated learning components (cognitive strategy use and self-regulation). Relationship between self-efficacy and cognitive strategy and self-regulation was positive and moderately significant, and these relationships were independent of intrinsic value and test anxiety. Our findings suggest that self-efficacy plays a facilitating role in relation
__

any

correlation existed between self-efficacy as a motivational component and self-

0.99) (Ciarrochi,

et al., 2001). Factors of motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning differ

102

Results and Discussion to cognitive engagement. Improving self-efficacy leads to increased use of cognitive strategies and thereby higher performance, and those students need to have both the 'will' and the 'skill' to be successful in classrooms. Self-efficacy had significant and moderate correlation with intrinsic value as another components of motivational beliefs (r=0.417, p<0.01), and also had significant but low and negative correlation with test anxiety (r=-0.276, P<0.01). As the result showed, self-efficacy as a motivational beliefs component had a higher correlation with self-regulated learning components than other components of motivational beliefs. This finding supported relationship between motivation and cognition. These results revealed that students who believed they were capable (high self-efficacy) used more cognitive strategy, were more self- regulated and persisted more at difficult task, also they were more motivated to learn, and their anxiety was low. It is important to help students develop a positive self-image of their academic capabilities by assigning appropriate task where they can experience success and so experience less anxiety. This could be achieved by encouraging the students at every step of the way by helping them view themselves as successful individuals. The finding of this study was supported by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1990) that they investigated the relation between gifted students use of various regulatory strategies and grade level, and level of self-efficacy for mathematical and verbal task. 4.2.2 The second sub-question of the study sought to find out whether any correlation components. Intrinsic-value as other component of motivational beliefs had high significant correlation with cognitive strategy (r= 0.533, p<0.01) and selfregulation (r=0.463, p<0.01). Intrinsic value also had a negatively significant correlation with test anxiety (r= -0.143, p<0.01). The findings of correlation between intrinsic value indicated, whenever students had higher interest in the existed between intrinsic value and self-regulated leaning

103

Results and Discussion task and they felt it was meaningful and important for them they used more cognitive strategies and persistence in difficult tasks and their test anxiety was less. Discussion: As shown in table 4.2, intrinsic value as other components of motivational beliefs also was very strongly related to use of cognitive strategy (r= 0.533, p<0.01) and self-regulation (r=0.463, p<0.01), independent of self-efficacy and test anxiety. Students who were motivated to learn (not just to get good grades) and believed that their school work was interesting and important had more cognitive engagement. Moreover, they made efforts to learn and comprehend the material. In addition, these students were more likely to be self-regulating and to report that they persisted on their academic work. Our findings indicated that the students who chose to become cognitively engaged and self-regulating were those who were interested in the work and valued the tasks they worked in their classroom. Accordingly, students intrinsic value and motivation to learn were important components to be considered in our model of how students came to use different cognitive strategies and became self-regulating learners. For instance, Eccles and Wigfield (1992) have found that students who consider skill in mathematics to be valuable reported that they would take additional maths courses in the future when compared to students who did not value the material in maths. With respect to students effort or level of cognitive engagement, Wolter and Pintrich (1998) found that middle school students who expressed greater valuing of the material in a subject area reported using more cognitive and self-regulatory strategies to that subject area. The current study agrees with Wolter and Pintrich research.

104

Results and Discussion 4.2.3 The third sub-question sought to find out whether there was any correlation between test anxiety and self-regulated strategy components. As presented in Table 4.1, there was negative significant correlation between test anxiety and other components. Therefore this variable had an inverse relationship with other variables. As noted, correlation between test anxiety with cognitive strategies (r=-0.176, p<0.01), and self-regulation (r=-0.323, p<0.01) was negative. It was concluded that when the students had a fear of failure or had test anxiety, they used less cognitive strategy and self-regulatory strategies. Also, correlation between cognitive strategies and self-regulation was high and positively significant (r=0.604, p<0.01). It means, students who used cognitive strategy to learn, used comprehension, monitoring and effort management and were persistent at a task. Discussions: This study concluded that test anxiety is a negative component and whenever students had test anxiety, they were ineffective and inefficient learners and often did not use appropriate cognitive strategies for achievement. This finding is in agreement with Sarasons (1980) finding where experience of anxiety has been shown to impede cognition . One of the reasons for test anxiety in students may be related to low or lack of confidence in them. The lack of confidence is probably the math-anxious learners greatest obstacle. It can be created when teachers place too much emphasis on memorizing formulas and applying rules. It can result when teachers fail to realize the critical connection between students academic performance and their feelings about themselves and the subject being studied.

105

Results and Discussion Our findings also showed that both components (cognitive strategy and self-regulation) were highly correlated (r=0.604) at 0.01 percent level of significance. This suggests that students must be able to understand not only the what of cognitive strategies, but also how and when to use strategies appropriately. The teachers have an important role in coaching the selfregulatory learning of their students. Findings from this study support the work of investigators who reported significant relations between self-efficacy, other motivational constructs and cognitive engagement such as Pintrich and De Groot (1990).

4.3 Research question 2: Do motivational belief components (self-efficacy, intrinsic values, and test anxiety) influence academic achievement? To find out whether motivational beliefs components had any effect on academic achievement, One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used. Firstly for each component, students were divided into three categories such as: low, medium and high. Any mean score higher than 5.51 was considered high in each variable and a mean between 4.6 to 5.5 was considered medium and a mean score lower than 4.5 was considered low for students in each variable.
4.3: Critical Value of the F Distribution

df 2, 1017

0.05 level 3.00

0.01 level 4.61

4.3.1 The first sub-question of the second question sought to find out whether self-efficacy achievement. as a motivational beliefs component influenced academic

106

Results and Discussion There were significant differences between three levels of self-efficacy and their academic achievement (see table 4.5). Table 4.4 reflected descriptive statistics of three levels of self-efficacy of students and their academic achievement:

Table 4. 4: Means, Standard Deviations and Number of three level of self-efficacy of students and their academic achievement
N Low medium high Total 210 406 404 1020 Mean 54.7653 61.0781 70.0215 63.3207 Std. Deviation 18.91389 18.41314 18.12379 19.31116 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 52.1923 59.2816 68.2489 62.1342 Upper Bound 57.3383 62.8745 71.7941 64.5072

Table 4.5: Analysis of Variance in self-efficacy levels of students and their academic achievement
Sum of Squares 35552.842 344453.47 8 380006.32 1 df 2 1017 1019 Mean Square 17776.421 338.696 F 52.485 Sig. .000

Between Groups Within Groups Total

From the table 4.5 related to self-efficacy, the F value (52.485) is greater than the degrees of freedom at 0.01 percent level of significance since the critical point is 4.61. As such, it is held there is a significant difference between three levels of self-efficacy in their academic achievement. As table 4.4 showed whenever students had higher self-efficacy, their academic achievement increased (see figure 4.1). The results from Post Hoc Test also showed that there were significant differences between three levels of self-efficacy of students and their academic achievement. This study showed that self-efficacy as a motivational belief component influenced academic achievement of the students.

107

Results and Discussion

Figure 4.1: Mean of academic achievement of three levels of self-efficacy of students

Mean of academic achievement

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 low medium Leve ls of self-efficacy high

Discussion: The findings from this study strengthen Banduras (1986) contention that self-efficacy beliefs play an influential role in human factors. Our findings also support the work of prior investigators who reported a significant connection between self-efficacy beliefs and related academic outcomes. Hence, selfefficacy as motivational belief influenced academic achievement of the students. Comparison of performance of high, medium and low levels of selfefficacy (see table 4.4) showed that according to increased self-efficacy in school students, their academic achievement increased. The present study agrees with Collins (1982) that reported that ability was related to performance but, regardless of ability level, children with high self-efficacy completed more problems correctly and reworked more of the ones they missed. The obtained F value was highly significant, and also there was no overlapping between lower bound and upper bound of three levels of selfefficacy. Result of this study paralleled with most of the researches on selfefficacy that showed this variable was in fact, more predictive of academic 108

Results and Discussion performance of the students as shown by Pintrich and De Groot (1990);

Pajares and Graham (1999); Bandura (1997); Stajkovic and Luthans (1998). However, these researchers used path analysis to show this relation. According Bandura (1986:25) among other personal factors, individuals possess self-beliefs that enable people to exercise a measure of control over their thought, feelings and actions that what people think believe and feel affects how they behave. Of all self-beliefs, self-efficacy beliefs strongly influence the choice people make, the effort they expend and how long they apprehend to the task at hand. So the beliefs that people hold about their abilities powerfully influence the way in which they will behave. In school, for example, the beliefs that students develop about their academic capabilities help determine what they do with the knowledge and skills they possess. Moreover, self-efficacy beliefs are critical determinants of how well knowledge and skills are acquired in the first place. The findings of this study perfectly showed this view. These findings suggest that teachers have a high responsibility to foster positive but accurate self-efficacy in their students. Self-efficacy is not fostered by providing inaccurate or effusive praise to students in the absence of specific task accomplishments. This type of praise is meaningless and invalid and may foster inaccurate beliefs in students who think they are capable of some task, such as reading, when in fact they are not very good readers (Pintrich & Schunk,2002). As noticed in table 4.4 students in this study estimate accurately their ability in maths class, because their academic achievement confirmed these beliefs. Although Bandura (1986) argued that some overestimate of capability is useful because it increases effort and persistence. Our findings also suggest the importance of maintaining self-efficacy level over time. As discussed earlier, specific self-efficacy is a state, not trait. In other words, self-efficacy can definitely be enhanced through training. In fact, developing self-efficacy in trainees may be a solution to the long-standing problem of transferring training to the job.

109

Results and Discussion 4.3.2 The second sub-question sought to find out whether intrinsic value of students influences their academic achievement? Table 4.6 presents the means, standard deviations and numbers of three levels of intrinsic value of students and their academic achievements, which are as shown below:
Table 4.6: Mean, Standard Deviations and Number of three level of intrinsic value of students and their academic achievement
N low medium high Total 61 252 707 1020 Mean 59.9105 59.3681 65.0238 63.3207 Std. Deviation 21.14992 19.59007 18.82315 19.31116 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 54.4937 56.9377 63.6339 62.1342 Upper Bound 65.3272 61.7985 66.4137 64.5072

Table 4.7 presents the significant differences between three levels of intrinsic value of students and their academic achievement. The findings are shown in table below:
Table 4.7: Analysis of Variance in intrinsic value levels of students and their academic achievement
Sum of Squares 6697.050 373309.27 1 380006.32 1 df 2 1017 1019 Mean Square 3348.525 367.069 F 9.122 Sig. .000

Between Groups Within Groups Total

The test of differences between group means in intrinsic value levels of students as another component of motivational beliefs has showed significant differences. The F value (9.122) was greater than the critical value 4.61 with 2 and 1017 degrees of freedom at 0.01 levels of significance. Hence, there was significant difference between three levels of intrinsic value and students academic achievement. The results showed that students with higher interest in

110

Results and Discussion the task showed better academic achievement (see figure 4.2). Multiple comparisons (Post Hoc Test) showed that there was significant difference between students with medium level of intrinsic value and students with high level of intrinsic value. Significant differences did not exist between low and medium level of intrinsic value.
Figure4.2: Mean of academic achievement of three levels of intrinsic value of students

70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 low medium levels of intrinsic value high

Discussion: This finding indicated that students with high level of intrinsic value influence their academic achievement, but in low and moderate level this component was ineffective because there was overlap between mean of academic achievement of students with low level and medium level of intrinsic value. On the other words, students who had high interest in the task and believed task was important for them had high academic achievement. The results of this study indicated that the students would be interested in the special task, but for real engagement of them and getting value goals in the tasks, it is important that students should have high interest in the task and they 111

Mean of academic achievement

Results and Discussion should think that the tasks were very useful and important for them. Ordinary interest and goals do not lead to good performance. It is clear that maths subject is difficult for most of the students in high school, but if students have utility value, it can lead to better engagement of them. According to Wigfield (1994), utility value means how the task relates to future goals. While students may not enjoy an activity, they may value a later reward or outcome it produces. The activity must be integral to their vision of their future. Because goals can play a key role in attaining later outcomes, Educators and parents should help students see beyond the immediate activity to the long-term benefits it procures. Teachers need to be able to answer the common query, Why do we have to study this subject? This finding agrees with the work of Tuckman and Abry (1998) and disagrees with Eccles (1983), Wolter and Pintrich (1998) who found that value components, did not have an influence on student achievement in maths, but were closely tied to students choice of future maths course. This studys finding suggests that intrinsic value is an important component of students involvement about becoming cognitively engaged in their classroom academic work. That is not especially surprising when an individual is intrinsically motivated, they want to improve their skills for their own sake, and then they are better engaged in their tasks. Intrinsic value results from the enjoyment, an activity produces for the participants (Wigfield, 1994). When students enjoy scholastic tasks, they are intrinsically motivated to do well. Both interest and personal relevance produce high intrinsic value for a student. In addition, the results imply that it is important for teachers to socialize students intrinsic value for schoolwork, not only because it will necessarily lead to higher grades or scores on academic assignments or standardized achievement tests directly, but also because it may lead to more cognitive engagement in the day-to-day work of the classroom.

112

Results and Discussion 4.3.3 The third sub-question sought to find out whether test anxiety influenced academic achievement? Table 4.8 showed descriptive statistics of three levels of test anxiety and their academic achievement, which are as shown:
Table 4.8: Mean, Standard Deviations and Number of three level of test anxiety of students and their academic achievement
N Low Medium high Total 742 175 103 1020 Mean 66.3892 57.3819 51.3057 63.3207 Std. Deviation 18.62990 18.03284 19.35616 19.31116 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 65.0465 54.6914 47.5228 62.1342 Upper Bound 67.7319 60.0723 55.0887 64.5072

Table 4.9 presents the significant differences between three levels of test anxiety of students and their academic achievement, the findings are as shown in the table below:
Table 4.9: Analysis of Variance in test anxiety levels of students and their academic achievement
Sum of Squares 28027.664 351978.65 6 380006.32 1 df 2 1017 1019 Mean Square 14013.832 346.095 F 40.491 Sig. .000

Between Groups Within Groups Total

Test anxiety of the students as affect component of motivational beliefs was found to be negatively related to students performance. The obtained F value (40.491) was greater than the critical value 4.61 at 0.01 level of significance. The findings from descriptive result showed that, increased test anxiety of the students, decreased their academic achievement (see figure 4.3). Multiple comparisons of the three levels of test anxiety of students and their academic achievement showed that there were significant differences between 113

Results and Discussion academic achievement of students in all groups of test anxiety. However, results of these three components showed, adaptive motivational beliefs such as self-efficacy and intrinsic value were positively related to academic performance, while maladaptive motivational beliefs such as anxiety were negatively related with marks of the students.
Figure4.3: Mean of academic achievement of three levels of test anxiety of students

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 low medium levels of Test anxiety high

Discussion: The finding of this study implies that there was negative relationship between test anxiety and academic achievement. The findings indicated that low test anxiety students had significantly better academic achievement than medium and high levels of students with test anxiety. The present finding resembled with those reported by McDonald and Angus (2001) that a degree of arousal or anxiety would be seen as beneficial for performance. Without any fear of failure or encouragement to perform well on the test, a child is unlikely to put adequate effort into preparation or is not sufficiently motivated when

Mean of academic achhievement

114

Results and Discussion actually taking the test, and so will not perform to their fullest potential. The finding of this study agrees with most of the studies in this field such as: Ramachandran, 1990; Prins et al., 1994; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Turner et al., 1993; Sarason, 1963. Bandura (1997) in his theory mentioned that a stressful situation often elicits emotional arousal and this arousal can serve to trigger off a perception of low efficacy. For example, a student with test anxiety may experience his increasing heart rate when an exam script is placed in front of him. He is confronting a situation in which he will not be successful. In this study, High anxious students performed poorly in mathematic subject. Our findings agree with Benjamin et al. (1981), he reported, that high anxious students were very ineffective and inefficient learners. Some of the exam anxiety maybe related to preparedness of the students taking the exam. Specially, poor preparation would seem to lead to higher anxiety since a greater chance of a poor performance is likely to exist. Similarly, individuals prone to high levels of test anxiety will at times be expected to erect barrier to a good performance, such as studying less, etc (Baumeister & Scher,1988, quoted by Chinta, 2005). Even though such self-handicapping activities may see contradictory, they can minimize the negativity associated with a poor exam performance since the student would be able to appeal to these self-erected handicaps as reasons for the poor performances to shift attention away from many ego-centric factors such as competence. Furthermore, highly exam anxious individuals more readily generalize from a single exam failure. Namely, exam failure is equated with personal failure. Such individuals can be expected to have difficulty recuperating from an initial failure to meet personal or social expectations. Instead of focusing on succeeding on subsequent exam, they often posses more negatively exam related thoughts regarding their previous failure. Thoughts which will impair their performances on subsequent exams. Lower grades on mid term exam, therefore, appear to be likely to increase test anxiety about the final.

115

Results and Discussion 4.4 Research question 3: Do self-regulated learning components (cognitive strategy use, self-regulation) influence academic achievement? To answer this question also Analysis of variance was used. 4.4.1 The first sub-question sought to find out whether cognitive strategy influenced academic achievement? Table 4.10 showed the means, standard deviations and number of students of three levels of cognitive strategy and their academic achievement. The findings are summarized as shown:
Table 4.10: Mean, Standard Deviations and Number of three level of cognitive strategy of students and their academic achievement
Cognitive strategy Low medium high Total N Mean Std. Deviation 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound 55.4679 61.4141 63.3660 62.1342 61.5827 65.0408 66.9889 64.5072

161 422 437 1020

58.5253 63.2274 65.1775 63.3207

19.64372 18.95138 19.26692 19.31116

To establish whether cognitive strategy influenced students academic achievement computations were made and the findings are reflected in table below:
Table 4.11: Analysis of Variance in cognitive strategy levels of students and their academic achievement
Sum of Squares 5212.655 374793.66 5 380006.32 1 df 2 1017 1019 Mean Square 2606.328 368.529 F 7.072 Sig. .001

Between Groups Within Groups Total

Cognitive strategy as a component of self-regulated learning strategy was found to be significantly influential in students academic achievement. By use of one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), a comparison was made between

116

Results and Discussion three levels of cognitive strategy as related to students academic achievement. The findings indicated that the obtained F Value (7.072) was greater than the degrees of freedom (df) at 0.01level of significance since the critical point was 4.61. This meant that significant differences existed between three levels of students in cognitive strategy use. Comparisons of these three groups showed that there were significant differences between students with low level of cognitive strategy as compared to students with medium and high levels, but there was no significant difference between academic achievement of students with medium and high level of cognitive strategy use (see figure 4.4). The results showed that students who used more cognitive strategies in maths class (high level and medium level), were better in their performance than other counterparts (low level of them).
Figure4.4: Mean of academic achievement of three levels of cognitive strategy of students

Mean of academic achievement

66 64 62 60 58 56 54 low medium high levels of cognitive strategy

Discussion: 117

Results and Discussion

Findings related to cognitive strategy showed that students who used cognitive strategy moderately had academic achievement similar to students with high level of cognitive strategy use. It revealed that cognitive strategy was not strong variable to influence academic achievement as compared to selfefficacy and test anxiety. This also suggests that students need to know some strategies to challenge the task and even knowledge about these strategies in a usual manner is sufficient for high academic achievement in maths class. It is not surprising because this study was related to maths subject and in mathematics. Students did not use strategies such as rehearsal strategy. As mentioned this strategy involves reciting and it is best used for simple tasks. As Pintrich and Schunk (1996) mentioned rehearsal has been identified as a surface processing strategy because it is associated with short-term retention. So, students in maths subject needed to use deep processing strategies and rehearsal strategies were not very useful in maths class. Although other strategies like elaboration and organization have been characterized as deep processing strategies. But in this study, cognitive strategies included these three strategies and the significant findings between academic achievement of low level and high level of students in cognitive strategy might be related to use of deep strategies by them. The findings of this study suggest that to maximise learning in maths class, the instruction needs to focus learner attention on critical features of information; provide supports for using storage strategies such as analogies, example clear identifications, and well-organized presentations; and incorporate opportunities for learner to respond, on the basis of their understanding of material in order to determine if it had been correctly stored. One can see that under this system, the learners preexisting storage system (prior knowledge) would have a storage impact on how new information would be stored. So, maths teachers needs to sequence learning properly so that new subject matter is related to one previously presented. Maths teacher have to use some strategies that they relate to deeper understanding, such as

118

Results and Discussion strategies for making information more meaningful for the learner, strategies for emphasizing how material is organized strategies for directing student attention to key point and etc. 4.4.2 The second sub-question was related to the influence of selfregulation on students academic achievement. Table 4.12 showed descriptive statistics of three levels of self-regulation of students and their academic achievement:
Table 4.12: Mean, Standard Deviations and Number of three level of selfregulation of students and their academic achievement
N Mean Std. Deviation 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound 54.1390 59.9980 68.9616 62.1342 58.8504 63.7167 72.4881 64.5072

Low medium high Total

269 420 331 1020

56.4947 61.8574 70.7249 63.3207

19.62397 19.38565 16.30753 19.31116

Table 4.13 presents the influence of self-regulation of students on their academic achievement, which are as shown below:
Table 4.13: Analysis of Variance in self-regulation levels of students and their academic achievement
Sum of Squares 31579.094 348427.22 6 380006.32 1 df 2 1017 1019 Mean Square 15789.547 342.603 F 46.087 Sig. .000

Between Groups Within Groups Total

The obtained F value (46.087) was greater than critical value 4.61 at 0.01 level of significance. As such the study held that significant differences existed in three levels of self-regulation and their academic achievement. The results 119

Results and Discussion showed that whenever students used more self-regulated strategies they showed better academic achievement (see figure 4.5). Multiple comparisons of these three levels of self-regulation showed that there were significant differences between academic achievement of three groups of students in use of regulatory strategies
Figure4.5: Mean of academic achievement of three levels of self-regulation of students

self-

80 Mean of academic achievement 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 low medium levels of self-regulation high

Discussion: As shown in table 4.13, there was significant difference between academic achievement of students with three levels of self-regulation (F= 46.087, p<0.01). As noticed this difference was very high. In other words, level of selfregulation of the students influences their academic achievement. Therefore it was held that students who used self-regulated strategies and effort management, had significantly better performance on mathematics than

120

Results and Discussion students who used moderate and low level of these strategies. This result suggests that this component is a very important one to improve students performance. It revealed that students have to know about how and when to use these strategies and they have to know how to create and structure favorable learning environment. This result also revealed that students must be able to manage and regulate their time and their study environments, monitor their effort, learn from peers, seek help and support from peers and instructors to have better performance and this point is very important in maths class. These resource management strategies enable students to manage their environment and the available resources. The findings for the cognitive variables provide valid data on academic performance in actual classroom tasks of a general model of self-regulated learning. This study therefore concluded that students who were more cognitively engaged in trying to learn by memorizing, organizing, and transforming classroom material through the use of rehearsal, elaboration, and organizational cognitive strategies performed better than students who did not use these strategies. These findings agree with most of the studies about cognitive strategy and self-regulation such as Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990; Tuckman, 1993. Further research needs to be done about variables which can predict students performance. Students need to learn these strategies for better performance. In particular, it has highlighted that, besides advocating direct strategies for enhancing academic performance, teacher structuring of related motivational processes in the school and classroom could further support such outcomes.

4.5 Research question 4: Do motivational beliefs components differ in boys and girls students?

121

Results and Discussion To establish precisely through statistical analysis whether a difference based on gender existed, a difference between means of variables in motivational beliefs components of boys and girls was calculated through the studentst-test.
4.14: t- Critical Values

Two tailed test

0.05 level 1.96

0.01 level 2.58

4.5.1 The first sub-research question of the first question test was to find out whether significant differences existed between boys and girls in self-efficacy. The findings were as reflected below:
Table 4.15: Gender difference in self-efficacy Variable Self- efficacy Equal Variances assumed Gender Boys Girls N 518 502 Mean 5.18 5.21 df 1018 t -0.807 sig 0.420

The findings from table 4.15 indicated that the calculated t (0.807) was less than the tabulated t (1.96) hence there was no significant difference between boys and girls in self-efficacy (P>0.05). It means that girl students and boy students had same self-confidence in maths subject. Although the findings showed that there were no significant differences between boys and girls in this variable, the results indicated that female students had greater self-efficacy than males.

Discussion: The data indicated that although there were no significant differences between boys and girls in self-efficacy variable, the comparison between mean

122

Results and Discussion score of boys (M=5.18) and girls (M=5.21), showed that girls were a little more self-efficacious than boys. According to Wigfield and Eccles (2002), gender differences in achievement have diminished during the last few decades. This has also been confirmed by the findings of this study. However, some of the gender differences that exist still stem from socio-cultural status. As noticed, this study was done on English medium schools, and in these schools, there are facilities and opportunities for both boys and girls students and also the families have almost better socio-economic status than families in other regional schools. So in these schools gender difference gradually disappear. One of the other interpretations of this result may be related to feedback to the girls. According to Schunk and Lilly (1984) the motivation of students enhances when feedback is given to students. The evidence of motivation was derived from clear performance based on feedback. It turned out that girls are sensitive than boys and they express more feelings related to learning. A possibility exists that after obtaining feedback from their teacher, girls reacted better than boys and checked their answers as well as did more practice on their tasks. In the whole, it seems that India is one of the largest democratic countries in the world which provides equal opportunities for girls and boys. This research finding is in agreement with Pajares and Graham (1999); Middleton and Midgley (1996); Fouad and Smith (1996); Lopez and Lent (1992); Busch (1995), but disagrees with some of the research findings about gender differences in self-efficacy such as (Miller et al, 1996; Pajares, 1996; Wigfield and Eccles, 1992; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990) which demonstrated that boys reported higher mathematics self-efficacy than did girls. Of course some of these researches were done on different subjects and different classes. For example the findings of Pintrich and De Groot was about English class and Science and also this study was done in western countries,

123

Results and Discussion so these different variables can interfere in the results such as culture and parents supporting. The findings of the present study were different from Wigfield et al. (1991) that they showed, middle school years have been identified as the time during which the gap between girls and boys self-perception of ability emerged, and during these years boys are more self-confident than girls in studies. However, the aforementioned findings are not supported by the present study. These different results may be attributed to different cultures in the two studies. In India, families support their children in education even up to adulthood and hence the students experience fewer problems at puberty due to the stated support. In western countries, during puberty, parents can not control their children and the gap between boys and girls in these countries is high. 4.5.2 The second sub-question was related to gender difference in intrinsic value of the students. The findings from table 4.16 indicated that the calculated t (0.654) was less than the tabulated t (1.96) hence there was no significant difference between boys and girls in intrinsic value (p>0.05). This results have shown that both girl and boy students had same interest and common goals in the maths class. The findings were as reflected below:
Table 4.16: Gender difference in intrinsic value Variable Intrinsic value Equal Variances assumed Gender Boys Girls N 518 502 Mean 5.74 5.78 df 1018 t -0.654 sig 0.513

Discussion: In spite of no difference between boys and girls in this variable, Mean score of girls (5.78) was higher than boys (5.74). The result showed that girls students were more interested the task than other counterparts. The findings

124

Results and Discussion paralleled those of Green et al, (1999), Pajares and Miller (1994), Russilo and Arias (2004) and differ from the findings of Fenema and Sherman,1977,1978; Eccles et al.(1983), that showed boys reported higher perceived value of maths. One of the different findings between the present study and other research findings such as Fennema and Sherman (1977) might be related to different samples. The samples of studies in these researchers were students in tenth and eleventh graders. Boy students during these grade show growing logical thinking and they can design the plan for their future. But in the current study, the samples were selected from eighth grade. In these ages, girl students enter puberty sooner than boys and their thinking is grown up than boys. So it is not surprising for Fennema and Shermans study that boy students had higher perceived value of maths. Most of the research findings from western countries are obviously different from the ones from the East. Children in western countries have unfavorable early exposure to unacceptable social practices compared to their counterparts in the Eastern countries. The early exposure affects their level of maturity as well their studies. In western countries, adolescence stage is shorter and during this period students join societal roles early than it is in eastern societies. Children in eastern countries have a longer period during their adolescence and at this time they tend to take responsibility seriously as they become innovative in resolving of social problems. This is particularly observed in the girl students who perceive the usefulness of maths for better future and career prospects. Parents in Eastern countries support their children to do well and accept responsibility for their tasks; which is contrary to the western countries in that most of the children are free from warm parental support. In India, parents support their children be it boys or girls and this has enabled many women to become proficient in many activities as well as in joining professions that were previously considered mens domain.

125

Results and Discussion Parents of English Medium school usually belonging to higher income group, who maintain democratic values in their family life. According to Multon et al. (1991), perception of self-efficacy and task value often are correlated positively, also according to social cognitive theory, the perceived importance of a task is the result of the outcome expectation an individual has for a particular task and is related to self-efficacy judgments in much the same way as outcome expectations. Bandura (1986) argued that because beliefs in part determine, people generally value those tasks they feel capable of accomplishing and do not place as much value on those for which they have little confidence to perform. It is not unusual, then, that expectations and perceived importance should be related, though the relationship is often complex. Present study, found no gender differences in self-efficacy beliefs and so, the students did not differ in intrinsic value. 4.5.3 The third sub-question of the study was related to gender difference in test anxiety of the students. The findings from gender difference on test anxiety as other motivational belief component showed that there was no significant difference in test anxiety across gender. Table 4.17 presents this results, which are as shown below:
Table 4.17: Gender difference in test anxiety Variable Test anxiety Equal Variances assumed Gender Boys Girls N 518 502 Mean 3.54 3.68 df 1018 t -1.526 sig 0.127

The findings from table 4.17 indicated that the calculated t (1.526) was less than the tabulated t (1.96) hence there was no significant difference between boys and girls in test anxiety (P>0.05). Specifically, results indicated that female students showed test anxiety to a greater extent than boys and they were more anxious than males as shown in Table 4.17.

126

Results and Discussion Discussion: Fear of failure is found to be a major characteristic of test anxiety of students (Zeidner, 1998). Females are found more stressed, as they perceive failure in examinations similar to physical danger, pain and taunts from others. The perceived pressure for achievement, and the related probability of failure induce in them test anxiety. Parents, teachers and peers tend to evoke expectations of academic demands and put pressure directly and indirectly as well. Another interpretation of this result may be related to biological aspect of girls during this age. With the onset of puberty there is a sudden disruption in the life of an adolescent. Psychoanalysts believe that the threatening influence, of the powerful drive of sex makes erratic adolescent behavior and fills his/her mind with anxiety as to what he should do about it. Girls enter this stage two or three years earlier than boys (Sharma & Sharma, 2002 quoted by khosravi, 2005). By eighth standard, most of the boys student had not entered puberty stage, while girls had. One of the reasons that girls were higher on anxiety than boys, could be menstrual cycle, its attendant fear and shame as well as other changes in the girls psychological body thereby enhancing anxiety in girls. This finding is consistent with that of Pajares and Graham (1999), nonetheless, it differs from the findings of Pajares and Miller (1994), Pajares and Kranzler (1995), reported a higher maths test anxiety for boys. As Pomerantz et al. (2002) indicated that girls are more vulnerable than boys to internal distress. They are also more concerned about their perceptions of their competence in school and worry over performance in school. Also girls are prone to internal distress and they are more concerned with failure. Some gender differences such as gender disparities that are visible are caused by cultural expectations and norms. But fortunately this is changing in urban Indian societies, although it is exists in many develop countries. In our findings, boys and girls had similar motivational beliefs, these important similarities in boys and girls may also be caused by numerous aspects of

127

Results and Discussion formal schooling that are generally common across Indian societies and appear to exclude overt gender typing. For example, boys and girls appear to receive similar messages about what it takes to do well at school and these communicated contingencies are similar across the contexts under study. Moreover, many aspects of individualized school-related experiences of children (e.g., feed back regarding effort and luck) are also similar and not pervaded by gender stereotyping. On the whole the introductory review of earlier research and this study suggests that gender differences in motivation are not stable. This ought not to be considered remarkable. Gender (as compared to sex) is a social artifact and is therefore likely to change in terms of its implications over time and place. It is also clear from a wide range of motivational research that motivational levels and styles are dependent on time and place. The presence or absence of gender differences in motivation, and the direction of any such differences, are likely to be dependent on myriad of local and broad cultural circumstances. Rather than looking to determine in a definitive manner the nature of motivational difference as a function of gender, the role of research ought to be the mapping of variation between gender groups. Attempts should be made to mark out the parameters of contexts, which produce particular patterns of difference. 4.6 Research question 5: Do self-regulated learning components differ in boys and girls students? By use of t-test, a comparison was made between means of boys and girls in each component. 4.6.1 The first sub-question of this study sought to find out whether significant difference existed between girls and boys students in cognitive strategy.

128

Results and Discussion The use of cognitive strategy showed differences in boys and girls. As shown below:
Table 4.18: Gender differences in cognitive strategy Variable Cognitive strategy Equal Variances assumed Gender Boys Girls N 518 502 Mean 5.21 5.38 df 1018 t -3.40 sig 0.001

The findings from table 4.18 indicated that the calculated t (3.40) was greater than the tabulated t (2.58) at 0.01 percent level of significance, hence there was a significant difference between boys and girls in cognitive strategy use ( p<0.01). The findings showed that girl students were significantly better in cognitive strategy use and made greater use of rehearsal, elaboration and organizational strategies in their maths class. Discussion: To answer the question related to gender difference in cognitive strategy indicated that girl students clearly used more cognitive strategy in the mathematics classroom than boys. According to Jain and Arora (1995), performance of girls increased with higher percentage of female teacher in schools. It was also noticed that out of the 33 teachers in this study, only two teachers were male and the remaining were females. It is probable that the effect of the teachers sex on the pupil led to these results. It is possible that when girls are taught by female teachers especially in maths, they are likely to do better owing to cordial relationship and a possibility of perceiving such teachers as their role models. This may further create interest and make them more engaged. Our findings paralleled the findings of (Peklaj & Pecjak, 2002; Pokey and Blumenfeld, 1990; Wolter & Pintrich, 1998; Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1990); Ablard and Lipschultz, 1998; Russillo and Arias, 2000). According to Russilo and Arias (2000), girls showed greater responsibility for their academic failure, together with greater use of significant strategies.

129

Results and Discussion This fact is associated with the girls, because they use more of cognitive strategies and self-regulation. Although some research mentioned explanation for gender differences favoring girls in use of cognitive strategy in maths class is that, a mathematics class is typically thought of as being an empirical, problem solving, and analytical school subject. At its best, maths is just that. However, maths classes at middle school level have been traditionally taught with methods characteristic of the language arts, methods that transform maths into little more than a reading class. Too often, the bulk of instruction is delivered through a lecture format, with student assignment consisting of reading, memorizing vocabulary, and answering comprehension questions (National Research Council, quoted by Pajares, 1996). This type of instruction, with dependence on using only textbook and just writing numbers on blackboard without any explaining writting, remove the conceptual linkage with mathematics instruction. But the finding of this study does not agree to this point. Because if language art is a domain in which girls excel, and middle school maths is taught primarily with methods more characteristic of language arts than maths, then it would have been observed in the most of the researches. Most of the researcher such as mentioned above believed that girl students used more cognitive strategy than boys. Another possible explanation might be related to this point that cognitive strategy and self-regulation were closely related to each other (see table 4.2). When girl students used cognitive strategies to learn, they can regulate their behavior and also can effort management. There is reciprocal relationship between these two variables. So, self-regulation also influenced cognitive strategy used. The findings revealed that girl students and self-regulated strategies. used more cognitive

4.6.2 The second sub-question in the fifth criterion sought to find out whether self-regulation differs in boys and girls students?

130

7 6.5 6 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

lu e eg y ca cy va ie ty st ra t f fi nx la

Results and Discussion

Mean

male female

lf e

ns

te s

se

in t ri

iti v

co

gn

Sex

The findings were as shown below:

Table 4.19 : Gender difference in self-regulation Variable Self-regulation Equal Variances assumed Gender Boys Girls N 518 502 Mean 4.92 5.14 df 1018 t -3.90 sig 0.000

The findings of the table above indicated that the calculated t (3.90) was greater than the tabulated t (2.58) at 0.01 percent level of significance hence there was significant difference in self-regulation based on gender. The findings showed that girl students were significantly better in self-regulation and meta-cognitive strategy use (p<0.01). The conclusion drawn was that girls used more selfregulated strategy and persisted more at difficult or uninteresting academic tasks. The above findings are also supported by the figure below :
Figure 4.6: Gender difference in motivational and self-regulated learning components

Discussion:

131

se

lfr

eg u

ic

ta

tio n

Results and Discussion The findings related to self-regulation showed that there was significant difference between boys and girls in self-regulation at 0.01 percent level of significance. This study concludes that girl students used more self-regulated strategies and they were more persistent on their difficult task, and also were better in effort management. In other words, girl students were more selfregulated, and used more of meta-cognitive strategies, because they were focused on planning, monitoring, and controlling their cognition. Our results showed that girl students knew better their difficulties in mathematical subject. Girls also had stronger self-efficacy for self-regulation. Students judgments of their capability to use various self-regulated learning strategies have been found to predict achievement in mathematics (Pajares, 1996; Pajares et al., 1999). Students confidence in their self-regulatory strategy have also been linked to greater strategy use, higher intrinsic motivation, more adaptive attribution, and academic achievement (Pintrich &DeGroot,1990). It is thus not surprising that the greater maths self-efficacy of the girls in this present sample were accompanied by higher self-efficacy for self-regulation. One of the other interpretations is related to the position that the girls have in most of the developing countries such as India. After the advent of industrial revolution and the consequent technological changes and development, education and socio-economic necessities led to the change in the attitude of women, socio-economic status and her role in the society. But still there are differences. Most of the opportunities favor men more than women. Girl students in a middle school have to perceive these discrepancies and work hard at overcoming them. This has been evident where girls have excelled in their education, demonstrated high use of their skills, abilities and leadership qualities. As noted by Slavin (2006) there are no significant differences in intellectual ability between girls and boys. That is true. But in adolescence, girls enter puberty sooner than boys, which leads to some differences between the genders within their puberty years. Girls thoughts change and they get mentally mature earlier than boys and are psychologically better able to deal

132

Results and Discussion with their problems. Therefore, girls understand their future better and they try harder than boys. 4.7 Research question 6: Is their an influence of parents education on their childrens motivational beliefs components? By use of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), a comparison was made between each variable: self-efficacy, intrinsic value and test anxiety. The researcher classified education of mothers and fathers into six categories. As shown in table 4.20:

Table 4.20: Education of Parents as categorized Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 Education of Parents School certificate, SSC Junior college passed 10 + 2 General degree: Arts, Commerce Professional degree: B. Ed., Eng. Post graduate Not given

Code number six was assigned for students who didnt know their parents education and didnt answer the item (see Table 4.20 above). Table 4.21 and 4.22 presents the means, standard deviations and number of students in each categorize:
4.21: Mean, Std. D and N of students of each category of motivational components based on fathers education
Groups 1.00 Descriptive data Mean N Std. Deviation SE.S 4.8401 82 .92058 IN.V.S 5.6653 82 .63613 TE.AN.S 4.1555 82 1.43407

133

Results and Discussion

2.00 Mean N Std. Deviation 3.00 Mean N Std. Deviation 4.00 Mean N Std. Deviation 5.00 Mean N Std. Deviation 6.00 Mean N Std. Deviation Total Mean N Std. Deviation 5.0881 111 .84302 5.1448 333 .93266 5.4078 255 .81680 5.2853 118 .80576 5.1350 121 .74317 5.1950 1020 .87080 5.6947 111 .73374 5.7127 333 .86211 5.9011 255 .89006 5.7731 118 .83646 5.7098 121 .70527 5.7607 1020 .82221 3.9212 111 1.42222 3.7770 333 1.46110 3.1882 255 1.46510 3.4449 118 1.54046 3.5537 121 1.60734 3.6110 1020 1.51022

Table 4.22: Mean, Std.D and N of students of each category of motivational components based on mothers education
Groups 1.00 Descriptive data Mean N Std. Deviation 2.00 Mean N Std. Deviation 3.00 Mean N Std. Deviation 4.00 Mean N Std. Deviation 5.00 Mean N Std. Deviation 6.00 Mean N Std. Deviation Total Mean N Std. Deviation SE.S 5.0507 114 .80384 5.1491 114 .94325 5.1857 365 .90609 5.3771 127 .84818 5.3160 96 .85206 5.1476 204 .80627 5.1950 1020 .87080 IN.V.S 5.7173 114 .64419 5.7271 114 .90559 5.7367 365 .84297 5.9580 127 1.04014 5.8044 96 .78844 5.7032 204 .66186 5.7607 1020 .82221 TE.AN.S 4.0000 114 1.46115 3.9759 114 1.52558 3.6068 365 1.50852 3.1949 127 1.46484 3.3073 96 1.38197 3.5993 204 1.53197 3.6110 1020 1.51022

134

Results and Discussion Table 4.23 and 4.24 show significant differences existed in variables (except intrinsic value) based on fathers and mothers education.
Table 4.23: Analysis of variance of motivational components based on fathers education

SS
Self-efficacy Between Group Within Group Total Intrinsic value Between Group Within Group Total Test anxiety Between Group Within Group Total 25.38 747.31 772.7 7.354 681.52 688.87 93.39 2230.7 2324.1

df
5 1014 1019 5 1014 1019 5 1014 1019

MS
5.077 0.737 1.471 0.672 18.679 2.200

Sig

6.88** .000 2.18 .053

8.49** .000

*p<0.05
education Self-efficacy

**p<0.01

Table 4.24: Analysis of variance of motivational components based on mothers SS 8.71 763.98 772.7 6.35 682.51 688.87 63.3 2260.8 2324.11 df 5 1014 1019 5 1014 1019 5 1014 1019 MS 1.74 0.753 1.27 0.632 12.66 2.23 F 2.31* 1.88 Sig .042 .094

Between Group Within Group Total Intrinsic value Between Group Within Group Total Test anxiety Between Group Within Group Total

5.67** .000

*p<0.05

**p<0.01

4.25: Critical Value of the F Distribution df 0.05 level 0.01 level 5, 1014 2.21 3.02

4.7.1 The first sub-question of this study sought to find out whether parents education influences self-efficacy of students. 135

Results and Discussion

Findings from table 4.23 indicated that the obtained F value for selfefficacy (6.88) was greater than the degree of freedom (df) at 0.01 percent level of significance since the critical point was 3.02. Hence, there was significant difference between students related to fathers education in self-efficacy. Based on mothers education, the obtained F value for self-efficacy (2.31) was greater than the critical value 2.21 with 5 and 1014 degrees of freedom at 0.05 percent level of significance. This study therefore concluded that there was significant difference between self-efficacy of students based on their parents education.

Discussion: The finding revealed that the influence of fathers education (F= 6.88, p<0.01) on students self-efficacy was higher than mothers education (F= 2.31, p<0.05). The finding of the present study is consistent with Hortacsu (1995) who mentioned that level of fathers education was related to child perceptions of efficacy. Obviously, development of perceived efficacy starts during early childhood and initial efficacy experiences are centered in the family. As mentioned by Bandura (1997), Parents and other caregivers provide experiences that differentially influence self-efficacy. Home variables that help children interact effectively with the environment, influence cognitive development and selfefficacy. Schunk and Pajares (2002) believed that Initial self-efficacy sources were centered in the family, but the influence was bi-directional. Parents who provided an environment that stimulated curiosity and allowed for mastery experiences helped build children's self-beliefs. In turn, children who displayed more curiosity and exploratory activities promoted parental responsiveness. When environments are rich in interesting activities that arouse children's curiosity and offer moderate challenges, children are motivated to work on the

136

Results and Discussion activities and learn new information and skills. Home environments vary greatly. Some contain many resources that stimulate children's thinking; parents may heavily invest in their children's cognitive development and spend time with them on learning. Other homes do not have these resources and adults may devote little time to children's education. Parents, who provide a warm, responsive and supportive home environment, encourage exploration, stimulate curiosity, and provide play and learning materials, accelerate their children's intellectual development (Meece, 1997). Parents also are key providers of self-efficacy information. Parents who arrange for varied mastery experiences develop more self-efficacious youngsters than do parents who arrange fewer opportunities (Bandura, 1997). Such experiences occur in homes enriched with activities and in which children have freedom to explore. With respect to vicarious sources, parents who teach children ways to cope with difficulties and model persistence, their efforts strengthen children's efficacy. With development, the role of peers becomes increasingly important. Parents who steer their children toward efficacious peers provide vicarious boosts in self-efficacy. Homes also are prime sources of persuasive information. Parents who encourage their youngsters to try different activities and support their efforts, help to develop children who feel more capable of meeting challenges (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy suffers in homes where new activities are not encouraged. So, parents who had a higher level of education, provide children with challenging tasks and meaningful activities that can be mastered, and help ensure the development of a robust sense of self-worth and self-confidence. 4.7.2 Second sub-question was related to the influence of parents education on intrinsic value of students. As table 4.23 has shown, the F value for intrinsic value was (2.18), that is less than the degrees of freedom (df) at 5 percent level, hence it is not

137

Results and Discussion significant at 0.05 level based on fathers education. Analysis of variance based on mothers education showed that the obtained F value for intrinsic value (1.88) was less than the degrees of freedom (df) at 5 percent level of significance since the critical value was 2.21. As such, the study held that there was no significant difference on intrinsic value of the students based on mothers education. Naturally the conclusion was that the parents education did not influence students interest in the task. Discussion: Although, this motivational component (intrinsic value) is very important to students reasons for doing a task, it is a possibility that the parents expectations led to extrinsic value in their children. Some parents encourage their childrens to get good marks and sometimes they promise them to buy this or that if they try to be the best than others in the class. These parents unconsciously foster extrinsic value for their children. Furthermore, many typical classroom contexts, especially at the secondary and college levels, tend to emphasize extrinsic value or performance goals. According to Ryan and Deci (2000b) extrinsic motivation are powerful forces in childrens life and often can be used effectively to engage children in different learning activities. There is concern that an over reliance on them can interfere with childrens intrinsic motivation under certain conditions. So findings of this study showed that parents education could not influence students interest in the task. Home environment has impact on childrens interest and their attraction for learning but the result of this study did not show this importance. Children may be more strongly motivated in one particular area such as mathematics than they are in another area like reading. There are likely to be individual differences in such patterns, but regarding interest, elementary and middle school age children say that they are most interested in social and sports activities, and less so in mathematics and reading (Wigfield own interest and parents less influenced on them. et al., 1997). So it may be possible that during middle school age, students attract to

138

Results and Discussion Available evidence has shown that value of the task for learners does not depend only on home factors, but it is influenced by many other factors such as school factors and teachers characteristics. 4.7.3 The third sub-question was related to influence of parents education on students test anxiety. The obtained F value (8.49) was greater than the critical value 3.02 at 0.01 percent level of significance. Hence, there was significant difference in test anxiety of students based on fathers education. This study therefore concluded that fathers education influenced test anxiety of the students. The findings related to mothers education indicated that the obtained F value (5.67) was greater than the degrees of freedom (df) at 0.01 percent level of significance since the critical value was 3.02. As such, the study held that there was significant difference on test anxiety of the students based on mothers education. It means, mothers education influenced test anxiety of the students. This study therefore concluded that there were negatively relation between test anxiety of the students and their parents level of education. As parents education increased, test anxiety of their children decreased. Comparison of Mean scores of students based on fathers education (see table 4.21) and mothers education (see table 4.22) indicated that students who belonged to parents with higher levels of education, had higher self-efficacy, and intrinsic value and they had lower test anxiety. To determine which groups had differences that were close to each other or varied very much, Post Hoc Tests were computed. The findings showed that in Self-efficacy variable, based on fathers education, number categories had significant differences. The differences related to categories are explained below: Self-efficacy: The findings indicated that there were significant differences in students with their fathers education as School certificate [SSC] when compared with all students whose fathers education was General degree,

139

Results and Discussion Professional degree and Post graduation. Students whoes fathers education was Junior college or 10 + 2, had significant differences with students with their fathers education as Professional degree: B. Ed., Eng, etc. Students with their fathers education as graduation had significant difference with students whose fathers education was School certificate and Professional degree. Students with their fathers education as Professional degree had significant difference with students whose fathers education was School certificate, Junior college and General degree. The final significant difference was found between students whose fathers education was Post graduation and students with parents education up to School certificate. provided in appendix B, owing to their details. Discussion: Comparison of mean scores of students related to test anxiety with different levels of parents education showed that parents with high level of education had children with lower anxiety. Obviously, parents with high level of education can better understand and know feelings of their children, so they can guide them perfectly and support them to face challenge at the time of anxieties. Also, childs anxieties, interest and feeling of confidence are inversely related to unfair system maintenance, meaning that when rules and boundaries are clear, stable and predictable, levels of anxiety are lower, while highly inconsistent parental behavior may increase anxiety. Children who perceive the rules in their family as ambivalent may feel uneasy and see their parents as supporting or protecting them less. Parents who are aware of the importance of education or they have high level of education, have clear rules to cultivate them in their children. As children enter into adolescence, their family relationships and particularly the interactions with parents undergo significant changes. Most adolescents report difficulty in communicating with parents. Conflicts with family members operates as one of the powerful stressors on adolescents as they are inclined to interact with parents now much less than earlier, and disclose less The other aspects regarding education of parents and the three components of motivational beliefs are

140

Results and Discussion information to them. The perceived parental control in Indian adolescence has found to very with age, the religious group, parents professions, etc. Girls reported more areas of co-operation than conflicts with parents (Ojha, 1988, quoted Khosravi, 2005). Conflicts between parents and adolescents are stressful and have a negative bearing on adolescent functioning. Parents who know and perceive the growing stage of the children can provide a calm environment for them.

4.8 Research question 7: Is their an influence of parents education on their childrens self-regulated learning components? To answer this question also, One-way Analysis of Variance was used. The researcher classified education of mothers and fathers into six categories as mentioned for previous question. According to these components, the influence of parents education on academic achievement was also evaluated. Table 4.26 and 4.27 presents the means, standard deviations and number of students in each categorize:
4.26: Mean, Std. D and N of students of each category of self-regulated components and academic achievement based on fathers education
Groups 1.00 Descriptive data Mean N Std. Deviation 2.00 Mean N Std. Deviation 3.00 Mean N Std. Deviation 4.00 Mean N COG. St 5.1116 82 .89610 5.1712 111 .81181 5.2439 333 .77142 5.4404 255 S. Reg 4.6599 82 .82971 4.7267 111 .95285 5.0087 333 .91385 5.3059 255 ACAD.ACH 51.8067 82 17.30607 58.8186 111 18.10102 62.1315 333 19.72124 70.9633 255

141

Results and Discussion

Std. Deviation 5.00 Mean N Std. Deviation 6.00 Mean N Std. Deviation Total Mean N Std. Deviation .73976 5.3924 118 .75425 5.2784 121 .80398 5.2958 1020 .78636 .87526 5.0395 118 1.01654 5.0560 121 .93262 5.0334 1020 .93657 17.30689 61.4542 118 19.48734 64.3288 121 18.47397 63.3312 1020 19.30872

4.27: Mean, Std. D and N of students of each category of self-regulated components and academic achievement based on mothers education
Groups 1.00 Descriptive data Mean N Std. Deviation 2.00 Mean N Std. Deviation 3.00 Mean N Std. Deviation 4.00 Mean N Std. Deviation 5.00 Mean N Std. Deviation 6.00 Mean N Std. Deviation Total Mean N Std. Deviation COG. St 5.1673 114 .80367 5.2389 114 .77785 5.3313 365 .77899 5.4930 127 .75961 5.3373 96 .74474 5.1934 204 .80795 5.2958 1020 .78636 S. Reg 4.8090 114 .81093 4.9396 114 .94259 5.0636 365 .92379 5.2388 127 .99932 5.1667 96 1.01336 4.9668 204 .91527 5.0334 1020 .93657 ACAD.ACH 55.8882 114 20.08709 58.6193 114 19.97052 65.2427 365 18.75443 67.3383 127 18.91594 65.3980 96 20.04793 63.2363 204 17.93833 63.3312 1020 19.30872

Table 4.28 and 4.29 show significant differences existed in variables (cognitive strategy, self-regulation and also academic achievement) based on fathers and mothers education.

142

Results and Discussion

Table 4. 28: Analysis of variance of self-regulated components and academic achievement based on fathers education

SS
Cognitive S Between Group Within Group Total Self-regulation Between Group Within Group Total Academic Between Group achievement Within Group Total 11.87 618.23 630.1 41.08 852.75 893.83 29019.8 350890.7 379910.5

df
5 1014 1019 5 1014 1019 5 1014 1019

MS
2.375 0.610 8.216 0.841 5803.96 346.04

F
3.89** 9.77**

Sig
.002 .000

16.77** .000

*p<0.05

**p<0.01

Table 4.29: Analysis of variance of self-regulated components and academic achievement based on mothers education Cognitive S Between Group Within Group Total

Self-regulation Between Group Within Group Total Academic achievement Between Group Within Group Total

SS 9.95 620.14 630.1 15.05 878.78 893.83 12631.13 367279.42 379910.55

df
5 1014 1019 5 1014 1019 5 1014 1019

MS 1.99 0.61 3.01 0.86 2526.22 362.2

F Sig 3.25** .006 3.47** .004 6.97** .000

*p<0.05

**p<0.01

4.8.1 The first sub-question of seventh question sought to find out whether there was an influence of parents education on their childrens cognitive strategy use? The findings based on fathers education indicated that the obtained F value (3.89) was greater than the degrees of freedom (df) at 0.01 percent level of significance since the critical value was 3.02. As such, the study held that there was significant difference in cognitive strategy use of the students as related to their fathers education. As such, this study concluded that fathers education influenced childrens cognitive strategy use. 143

Results and Discussion The findings from mothers education showed that the obtained F value (3.25) in cognitive strategy was evidently greater than the critical value 3.02 at 0.01 percent level of significance. Hence there was significant difference in cognitive strategy use of students related to their mothers education. This study concluded that parents education influenced cognitive strategy of their children.

4.8.2 The second sub-question was sought to find out whether there was an influence of parents education on their childrens self-regulation. The findings from the analysis of the variance based on fathers education showed that the obtained F value (9.77) was greater than the degrees of freedom (df) at 0.01 percent level of significance since the critical value was 3.02. Hence there was significant difference in self-regulation of the students related to their fathers education. The obtained F value (3.47) from the mothers education was greater than the critical point 3.02 at 0.01 percent level of significance. This study concluded that parents education was a determining factor in the use of self-regulation strategy of their children. The findings related to academic achievement of the students, also showed that the obtained F value in fathers education was (16.77) and F value for mothers education was (6.97), so, F value for this variable were greater than the degree of freedom (df) at 0.01 percent level of significant since the critical value is 3.02. Hence there was significant difference between the students in their academic achievement based on parents education. Mean scores of students for cognitive strategies and self-regulation and academic achievement in different levels of their parents education showed that students who had parents with higher levels of education, used more cognitive strategy and self-regulatory strategies and had better academic

144

Results and Discussion achievement than other students (see table 4.26 and 4.27).The difference between groups of students with different levels of parents education was found to be significant as calculated by Post Hoc Test ( see appendix B, owing to their details). Discussion: The findings related to cognitive strategies and self-regulation indicated that parents education highly influenced on cognitive strategy use and selfregulation to their children. As expected parents who had high education, were aware of the importance of education and provided facilities for learning of their children. These parents managed time and place for their childrens study and encouraged their children for better learning. These findings have accorded with the findings of Ganzach (2000); Stich & McDonald (1990) which showed mothers education influenced their childrens cognitive skills and success in schools. This study also showed that both fathers and mothers education had important roles in cognitive and meta-cognitive strategy use by their children. When students grow up in the educated families they can learn some skills and have motivation to learn, they will have better performance in their subject matters. The present finding indicated that parents education was highly related to academic performance of their children. This result is similar to those reported by Govinda and Varghese (1993); Sexena et al., (1996); World Bank (1997); Varghese (1995); Schukala et al. (1994). Furthermore, the finding is in contrast to the finding of some researchers who believed home factors were not important in students achievement in India such as Heyman and Loxley (1982). The finding of Heyneman and Loxleys (1982) dramatic conclusion was that in India school factors have by far the most predominant influence on students achievement and that home factors count for little. This study favored the conclusion that home background such as parents education is an important influence on childrens performance and cognitive processes.

145

Results and Discussion Although this study did not search the influence of teachers on students motivation and cognition, but on per other researchers obviously school factors such as teachers behavior is a very important factor for establishment of motivation and cognitive components. Parents and teachers who provide children with challenging tasks and meaningful activities that can be mastered, and who chaperone these efforts with support and encouragement, help ensure the development of a robust sense of self-worth and of self-confidence. Early mastery experiences are predictive of childrens cognitive development and there is evidence to suggest they work independently of critical variables such as socio economic status. Findings of this study revealed that parents education as a home factor was an important factor in motivation, cognition and academic achievement of the students.

146