TEACHING APPROACH, MOTIVATIONAL BELIEFS AND

ACHIEVEMENT OF STUDENTS

Ambrose Hans G. Aggabao, Ph. D.

Associate Professor III & Vice President for Planning and Development,
Isabela State University (ISU), Echague, Isabela, Philippines

ABSTRACT

The importance of understanding how motivational beliefs may be influenced by teacher’s

instructional practices is paramount. Motivational beliefs of students define their engagement in
classroom learning activities. This study looked into the influence of varying classroom practices on
students and mathematics motivational beliefs and mathematics achievement. These motivational
beliefs include goal orientation belief, control belief, efficacy belief, and interest and value belief.
Simultaneously, it also looked into the relationship between motivational beliefs and classroom
practices which included two constructivist practices. These classroom practices are the interactive
social group (ISG), the individualized highly independent and accountable group (HIAG), and the
traditional lecture group (TLG). A true experimental design – equivalent groups pre- and post-test
design – was used. Results showed that teaching approach influence student motivational beliefs and
have significant effects on achievement measures. Moreover, among these motivational beliefs,
mathematics efficacy and goal orientation beliefs were found to have significant effects on conceptual
knowledge achievement.

Keywords: motivational beliefs, interactive social group, highly independent and accountable group,
traditional lecture group

INTRODUCTION

The Philippine Commission on Educational Reform (PCER) has recommended

reforms in Science and Mathematics Education (SME) that SME instruction in the
Philippines is very mechanical and more focused on procedural knowledge and
algorithms. They tend to emphasize rote memory and “formulaic” approaches, rather than
on problem solving, critical thinking skills, conceptual understanding, and practical work
such that subject matter content seemed to be inflexibly fitted to the rigid learning
environments such as those found among public schools (PCER, 2000).

In response, educational practice has since been influenced by major movements

in SME around the world. The constructivist movement during the 1980s and the 1990s
has produced significant volume of researches, articles, and recommendations that hoped
to change the teaching practice. This research focuses on two major trends in
constructivist literature: i. e., (1) social and (2) radical constructivism. Teaching approach
and classroom procedures were designed accordingly: a more group-oriented, interactive
classroom that conforms with social constructivists views on the one side and the highly
individualized independent studies that conforms with radical constructivist views on the
other side.

Constructivist learning theory was considered pivotal and one of the most
intriguing reform efforts in science education during the last two decades (Yager, 1996).
It is built on the notion that learners are not passive subjects to whom information may be
transferred, but are actively engaged in knowledge construction. It is a theory of knowing
(Ritchie, Tobin, and Hook, 1997) that emphasizes knowledge as actively constructed by
learners out of their own experiences (Yager, 1996; English and Halford, 1995; and
Steffe and Kieren, 1994). Its philosophical stance argues that truth of knowledge claims
is seen on the viability of constructed knowledge (Jones, 1996). Viability of constructed
knowledge refers to the established state of coherence or consistency between the
learner’s prior and existing experiences and the new constructed knowledge.

In order for constructivism to ably guide instructional practice, the role of affect
must then be taken into consideration. The significance of affective variable is well
supported. Pintrich et al. (1993) and Oyerman and Packer (1997) argued that classrooms
are socially situated in certain context hence, it provides a setting in which learning is
processed. These psychological contextual factors may in fact feed into the students’
motivational beliefs. In fact, constructivism has been criticized for being very cognitive.
Fiske and Goodwin (1996) for instance wrote:

“Rumors of discontent, even confrontation, have challenged social

cognition research from early on. Over the past 15 years, the primary
complaints have been that social cognition research failed to deal
adequately with affect, with motivation, and actual interaction (p. xvii).”

It is not difficult to think about how motivation would come into play when
constructivism is used in the classroom. Constructivist theory emphasizes the importance
of active cognitive engagement that may call for consideration of motivational factors.
What initiates and keeps these engagements to persist is precisely a question that is best
explained by motivational theories. Some of these motivational factors are self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1981; Graham and Weiner, 1996), goal structures (Crozier, 1997; Graham and
Weiner, 1996; Pintrich et al., 1993; Ames, 1984; and Ames, 1992), control, and value
and interest belief (Pintrich et al., 1993).

The interplay between cognitive and affective factors in the learning process
provides the setting of a simple question on constructivism. Will constructivist
approaches to the teaching and learning process be independent of these affective and
psychological factors in so far as they affect learning? In order to adequately respond to
these possibilities, the questions in the succeeding paragraph need to be addressed.

This study looked into the influence of the radical and social constructivist
teaching approaches and traditional classroom teaching context on student motivation,
mathematics achievement and retention.

2
 Specifically it sought to answer the following questions:

1. Do the following teaching approaches influence the motivational beliefs of

students in terms of control orientation, goal orientation, self-efficacy, and interest
and value beliefs?
a. Highly Independent and Accountable Procedure (HIAP)
b. Interactive Social Procedure (ISGP)
c. Traditional Lecture Procedure (TLP)
2. Do teaching approach and motivational beliefs have different effects on general
achievement and on each of the following achievement areas?
a. Conceptual understanding
b. Problem solving performance
c. Procedural knowledge
d. General knowledge

Importance of the Study

The result of this study is significant to the school community as it addressed

factors that are directly within the control of teachers and administrators. An
understanding of the role of constructivist classroom contextual factors on the students’
motivational beliefs can help the teacher as well as administrators to widen their horizons
as they make informed decisions and choices about contents, methods, and techniques
within a constructivist perspective.

Educational administrators will be guided in their decisions and choices of

training interventions that combine both teaching methodologies and classroom
management with the end view of developing motivational belief and promote learning
with understanding.

Textbook writers and publishers will be guided in the design, methods, and
arrangement of contents of books consistent with the demands of effecting appropriate
constructivist classroom arrangements that enhances the active learning engagements and
eventually promote deeper learning and understanding of science knowledge and skills.

Results of this study are also important to researchers. It may be able to widen
their appreciation of the implications of constructivist models of teaching from a purely
cognitive orientation to a more realistic combination of both cognitive and affective
factors specifically in relation to changes in students’ motivational beliefs. The results
may also offer support to the presence of some situational beliefs that may readily
respond to specific classroom teaching and learning situations.

The results of the study offer potential for further researches such as the
development and evaluation of instructional materials that are suited to the requirements
of constructivist teaching practice and the need to enhance specific beliefs of students;
and as Pintrich et al. (1993) suggest, research on how motivational beliefs affect the
process of conceptual change among learners.
3
 Professional literatures in mathematics education have generally provided
information about the influence of teaching approaches as well as motivational beliefs
generically to achievement and retention. This study, in a way, uniquely contributes to
research in the field by extending the analyses to specific achievement and retention
measures such as conceptual knowledge, problem solving, and procedural knowledge.

The instruments developed and used in this study, specifically on control and goal
orientation, efficacy and interest and value beliefs is a humble contribution to
measurement of motivational beliefs that may be adopted and improved for use in future
research. The instructional modules that were designed to foster greater involvement and
participation of students in their learning with built-in help mechanisms following Vico’s
concept of scaffolding instruction can be adopted and improved for use in instruction and
research.

The constructivist teaching flowchart developed for this study has guided the
preparation of instructional materials and interventions suggests a proactive and reflective
lesson planning procedure as an alternative to the traditional linear lesson planning
practiced in the schools today.

This study was conducted in only one school – at the College of Teacher
Education. The students used in this study were also limited to freshmen students who are
enrolled in the general mathematics course. Due to scheduling constraints two teachers
(although the selection process was designed to tap two equally effective teachers) were
tapped to conduct the experimental classes.

The study was limited to determining the influence of teaching approach on

motivational beliefs and achievement measures as well as the influence, in turn, of
motivational beliefs on achievement measures. It did not determine the strength of these
independent variables as predictors of achievement.

Radical and social constructivism and motivational beliefs in education

Radical and social constructivism are the two most common perspectives in
science and mathematics education (Jones, 1996 and Mathews, 2000). The distinction
between the two is basically rooted to their differing criteria in selecting the “right
construction.” Radical constructivism and social constructivism are referred to
alternatively as endogenous and exogenous constructivism, respectively.

Radical constructivism

Radical constructivism proposes that knowledge results from personal

experiences of the learner within his environment. Heylighen (1997) attach the so-called
viability criteria of coherence to radical constructivism. Coherence is the agreement
among thought patterns within individual as new experiences and their prior knowledge
are brought to bear upon each other. It suggests an independent, individualized

4
instructional design. While it does not reject the importance of negotiating meanings
through social interaction (such as when arriving at a consensus in group discussions).

Social constructivism

Social constructivism on the other hand, views knowledge as a cultural product. It

proposes that knowledge is borne from social interaction. Viability of constructed
knowledge is judged based on the extent to which consensus is achieved from the various
conceptions and experiences of members in a culture (Heylighen, 1997). It suggests a
restructuring of the typical classroom instruction involving whole class discussions, pre-
determined sets of action that emphasizes mechanical compliance to teachers’
prescriptions.

Sacro (1996), in her appreciation of the works of Simon (1995) and Steffe and
D’Ambrosio (1995), implemented a constructivist teaching model and examined the
effects of constructivist teaching approach to the problem solving strategies and
performance of students in statistics. Her findings supported the advantage of
constructivist teaching arrangement in terms of problem solving performance over
traditional teaching. Children in Sacro’s constructivist class were better able to support
and explain their answers, had enhanced problem solving strategies better than those who
were taught in the traditional teaching arrangement. In another study, Bentillo (1996)
studied the effects of constructivist teaching in a microcomputer-based laboratory on
students’ understanding of force and motion. Bentillo’s study showed that the students in
constructivist teaching in microcomputer based laboratory performed better than did
those in the traditional laboratory.

Similar results were found by Santos (2005) in terms of the effects of

constructivist teaching on motivation. Implementing an instructional model based on
constructivist principles, Santos found that students in constructivist teaching approaches
significantly improved in all areas of achievement motivation while the control groups
did not significantly change.

Motivation is concerned with explanations about human behavior. It looks not

only into the causes of (what instigates) behavior, but it also seeks to explain what
maintains and directs certain human behavior (Franken, 1988). Motivation as an
explanation of behavior has been dealt with from a number of perspectives, which may
be classified biological, learned, affective, and cognitive (Franken, 1988 and Myers and
Myers, 1995). While contemporary motivational theories are heavily influenced by
cognitive science, it is not easy to deny that motivation have biological, learned,
affective, and cognitive components. Moreover, there seems to be a growing resurgence
of interest on the role of motivation in learning amidst the heavily cognitive orientation
during these modern times. Schiefele and Csikszentmihalyi (1995) provided four
important reasons for this inclination. They claim that even as modest impact of
motivation and emotion is well supported, it is not enough to simply neglect the role that
affective variables may play.

5
 They argued that:
1. Despite the large amount of variance in achievement explained by cognitive
factors in learning (up to 50%), it has been shown through appropriate
statistical methods that such large amount of explained variance is reduced by
as much as fifty percent (50%) when motivational variables are controlled;
2. The impact of affective variables are often neglected and underestimated as
these tend to have indirect rather than direct effects;
3. Citing their separate works and that of McLeod and Adams (1989), problem
solving, creativity, and deep understanding require high levels of emotion and
intrinsic motivation; and
4. There is evidence for the decreasing trend in average mathematics
performance (especially on task that require deep understanding),
accompanied by significant decrease in students’ level of interest in high
school mathematics.

Motivational Beliefs

Pintrich et al. (1993) equates such self-referent thoughts as motivational beliefs.

He considers four potential motivational constructs that enter within an individual’s
belief system, and which mediate learning. These constructs are: (1) goal orientation
belief, (2) interest and value belief, (3) self-efficacy belief, and (3) control beliefs.

Goal orientation belief has been shown to be a good predictor of behavior. The
goals that people hold on determine the choice of action that people take. Goal theory
(Ames, 1992 and Franken, 1988) suggests that goals not only energize action but it
determines the extent to which such an action is sustained and directed. Goals create
tensions between the current and desired states of behavior and moving up towards that
goal reduces this tension.

The foregoing strands of thoughts on goal orientation beliefs point to the

following general observations:
1. That specific goal orientation lead to different learning strategies, different
level of engagements in learning activities, and consequently, different levels
of achievement;
2. That classroom environments, which is not limited to psychosocial aspects,
but including classroom contextual factors, impact on students’ beliefs and
feelings; and
3. That goal orientation beliefs of students are not stable or trait-type
characteristics but are actively influenced by situational classroom contexts.

Self-efficacy belief is a part of an individual’s “self-system”. This self-system

enables the individual to have certain levels of control over their thoughts, feelings,
emotions, and actions (Pajares, 1996). Bandura (1981) refers to the self-system as self-
referent thoughts focused on the judgments about how well can an individual organize
and execute courses of actions when faced with prospective situations.

6
 Related findings were reported by Pajares (1996) concerning the results of a meta-
analysis of about 36 studies relating to self-efficacy. In this study, self-efficacy beliefs
was found to be fairly correlated to performance (r = 0.38) and accounted for some 14
percent of the variance in academic performance. However, in the studies which
employed specific self-efficacy measures as predictor, stronger correlation (r = 0.52) was
observed. Also, in those studies where self-efficacy were made micro-analytically and
were made to closely correspond to the specific tasks, correlation coefficient ranged from
0.49 to 0.70 and direct effects were found to range from 0.35 to 0.55. Results obtained
show that it tends to have stronger effects in mathematics than in other areas.

The foregoing literatures paint a picture where self-efficacy beliefs are seen as
follows:
1. Self-efficacy beliefs is a product of the individual’s perceptions about his
abilities and competencies in carrying out actions for some future events;
2. That self-efficacy beliefs are strong predictor of students’ performance and
skills, provided appropriate level of specificity and sensitiveness is attained;
3. That situational classroom contexts may influence self-efficacy beliefs of
students; and
4. That efficacy information may be gauged from personal and vicarious
experiences, as well as the social environment, and our ways of logical
reasoning.

Control belief is another motivational concept, which is distinguished from self-

efficacy as this refers to the individual’s perceived control over the outcomes of certain
undertakings (Bandura, 1986 and Bandura, 1981). This construct was further described as
expectations made without any specific reference to the means of attaining such
expectations. While this conception of control beliefs has been questioned by some
authors arguing that efficacy beliefs are dependent from and inextricably intertwined with
outcome expectations, many studies within the same theoretical perspectives offer
support to Bandura’s self-efficacy descriptions as contrasted from control beliefs.

Interest and value belief refer to the students’ general attitude or preference for a
content, tasks, and learning activities as well as their assignments of some degree of
usefulness and importance to such activities. Hidi (1990) distinguishes between two types
of interests: (1) individual interest and (2) situational interest. Individual interest refers to
the more stable characteristics of individuals developed through time and tends to have
lasting effects on a person’s knowledge and values. Situational interest on the other hand
refers to the specific response of an individual person to objects based on cues from the
environment and the object itself (Crozier, 1997 and Ormrod, 1995). Hidi (1990)
reviewed the results of a number of researches on personal interest. She concluded that
both personal and situational interests influence cognitive performance. Personal interest
refers to the individual person’s feeling of liking of task or any object of interest. This
liking may be attributed to the value that an object have on the person. Situational interest
refers to the feeling of liking certain objects in the light of environmental factors within
which objects of interest are situated.

7
 As observed also by Hidi (1990), traditional classroom evaluation does not
distinguish between achievement measures which seemingly render the evaluation less
useful in terms of providing real information about specific abilities of students.
Traditional classroom evaluations in mathematics rely on computational proficiency in
relevant procedures (Baker and Czarnocha, 2004). This orientation appears to interpret
conceptual development as arising from procedural knowledge. In this case, students also
imbibed the belief that the essential part of mathematics is all about computational skills
without real regard to conceptual development. Results of their study indicated that focus
on conceptual knowledge would result in procedural proficiency. This provides evidence
against its converse, the traditional dynamic view.

The New York State Education Department (NVSED, 2000) emphasized the
importance of the goal of developing conceptual, procedural, and problem solving skills
among students. It argued that individually, each of these components of achievement is
necessary but not sufficient for a student to become mathematically proficient.

In another study, Barton (2006) – in a meta-analysis of 52 comparison studies –

concluded that use of technology in mathematics in the classroom for computational
efficiency can be beneficial in raising conceptual understanding without much adverse
effect on the procedural knowledge. In 51 studies they have reviewed, 33 studies
indicated no difference between control and treatment groups on procedural proficiency
while nine studies each favored control and treatment groups.

The foregoing studies indicate that the three components of achievement —

conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and problem solving – may be
differentially affected by specific factors in the teaching and learning process.

On the other hand, problem solving involves the use of both conceptual and
procedural knowledge. There are problems that can be readily solved without much
reliance on procedural knowledge. On the other hand, employing the appropriate
procedural knowledge can provide an effective mechanism to solve more complex
problems.

Conceptual Framework of this Study

An overview of the presented literature binds the variables of the study into a
conceptual framework (Figure 1) that defines the relationships of these variables. The
framework suggests that varying teaching approaches (e.g., radical constructivist teaching
approach, social constructivist teaching approach, and traditional approach) create
changes in the classroom environment that defines the learning context inside the
classroom.

Different teaching approaches demands changes in many components of the

classroom. The behavior of teachers, the nature of students’ interaction, and the manner
instructional materials are used vary significantly across classrooms that implement
different classroom teaching approaches. While there are a number of classroom
8
contextual factors that may influence learning, the adoption of a particular approach have
significant implications on these three major classroom contextual factors.

In view of the foregoing relationships, the framework then suggests that the three
classroom contextual factors potentially moderate the effects of teaching approach on the
motivational beliefs of students.

TEACHING APPROACH MOTIVATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT

BELIEFS MEASURES
Traditional
Goal Orientation
Conceptual
Interactive Social
(ISG) Control
Procedural
Efficacy
Highly Independent Problem Solving
Accountable (HIA)
Interest and Value
General

Figure 1. The Conceptual Framework of the Study

On the other hand, the framework also indicates that teaching approach, and
motivational beliefs affect students’ achievement and retention of learning. As such the
framework indicates that teaching approach has both direct and indirect effects on
achievement and retention. Teaching approach may affect achievement and retention
through its effects on the motivational beliefs of students.

Moreover, teaching approach and motivational beliefs of students affect all areas
of achievement and retention. Finally, the framework also indicates that achievement
measures influence corresponding retention measures of students.

Research Hypotheses

Based from the conceptual framework formulated in this study, the following are
the research hypotheses:
1. Teaching approach has significant influence on the following motivational
beliefs:
a. Control orientation belief
b. Goal orientation belief
c. Efficacy belief
9
 d. Interest and value belief

2. The mean gain scores of students in the treatment groups on the following
achievement areas are significantly higher than those of the traditional group.
a. General achievement
b. Conceptual knowledge
c. Procedural knowledge
d. Problem solving

3. Motivational beliefs of students have significant effects on achievement

areas.

As used in this study, the following terms are defined:

1. HIAG – Highly Independent and Accountable Group were taught an approach
engaging students to individually explore learning materials with built-in
help mechanisms under minimum supervision and intervention of the
teacher in an independent and individualized instructional setting.

2. Social constructivist teaching approach - an approach engaging students to negotiate

and build consensus on their understanding as they collectively explore
learning materials with built-in help mechanisms under minimum
supervision and intervention of the teacher. This approach is conducted in
small groups of four to five students.

3. Traditional teaching approach - the usual whole class teaching approach marked by
teacher lectures and whole class discussions, board work, and periodic
testing.

4. Students’ motivational beliefs - personal explanations by the students of their reasons

for engaging in certain activities. The motivational belief scale (MBS) score
provides a measure of students’ motivational beliefs in the following areas:
a) Control orientation belief – students’ perception about their ability to control
their academic outcomes apart from their perception as to whether or not they
have abilities to achieve such outcomes. Students are categorized as externally
oriented or internally oriented depending on their scores in the control
component of the MBS. Lower scores in the control belief scale mean
external orientation;

b) Goal orientation belief – students’ personal explanations about the purposes

they attach to their learning engagements. Students are categorized
performance or mastery goal oriented depending on their scores in the goal
orientation component of the MBS. Lower scores in the MBS indicate
performance orientation; and

c) Efficacy belief – students’ confidence in their ability or competence to perform

specific mathematical tasks. It is measured by their scores in the efficacy
10
 items of the MBS. Higher scores in this scale indicate higher levels of
efficacy.

d) Interest and value belief – students’ perception of their interest in mastering

their learning engagements as well as in valuing mathematics. This is
measured by their scores in the interest and value items of the MBS. Higher
scores in this scale indicate that students are more interested and put more
value for mathematics.

5. Mathematics achievement – the mathematical facts, concepts, principles, and

procedures students learn from instructional intervention. This is measured
by their test gain scores. As such, the following terms are also considered:
a) General achievement refers to the students’ gain scores on the whole
mathematics achievement test (MAT);

b) Conceptual knowledge refers to the gain scores on 23 items in the MAT

identified to measure conceptual understanding; and

c) Procedural knowledge refers to gain scores on the solutions they employed to

four identified problem solving items in the MAT.

METHODOLOGY

This study made use of the Equivalent Groups Pre-test and Post-test Experimental
Design as well as correlational research procedures. It made use of 92 randomly selected
students and randomly assigned to three experimental groups.

Two class procedures were designed based on the constructivist literature: i.e., the
Highly Independent and Accountable Procedure (HIAP) and the Interactive Group
Procedure (ISGP) while the third group was the Traditional Lecture Procedure (TLP).

The study made use of researcher constructed tests. Motivational Belief

Questionnaire was constructed following strict requirements in multi-dimensional Likert-
type scaled test development. Factor analytic procedures were used to delineate the four
motivational beliefs. Similarly the Mathematics Achievement Test (MAT) was made
following the generally accepted test construction procedures.

Data analysis procedures made use of the t-test for independent samples, one-way
analysis of variance with the Least Significant Difference (LSD) as a post-hoc procedure,
and two-way analysis of variance.
The groups were exposed to the teaching approaches for a period of six weeks.
Pre-achievement and motivational belief measurements were taken a week before the
actual conduct of experimental classes. The post-tests for both achievement and belief
measures were conducted immediately after the conduct of the classes and was timed and
dubbed as the final examinations of the student in their general mathematics course.
11
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Influence of Teaching Approach on Motivational Beliefs

The analysis of the relationship between teaching approaches and the motivational
beliefs of students is based on the mean gain scores of students which reflect the
differences obtained by subtracting the students’ motivational belief pre-test scores from
their post-test scores.

The differences in mean gain scores among the three groups in the four
motivational beliefs were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (Table 1). The
results showed that among the four motivational beliefs, only goal orientation belief of
students did not have significant change as a result of the teaching interventions. This
result means that the differences in goal orientation gain scores observed among the three
groups were not significant, the differences may be attributed to chance or other factors
aside from the teaching interventions or that goal orientation is a generally stable
motivational belief not affected by short-lived experiences.

Table 1. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on students’ motivational belief

gain score by teaching approach

DEGREES
SOURCE OF VARIATION BY SUM OF MEAN
MOTIVATIONAL BELIEF SQUARES
OF
SQUARE
F PROB.
FREEDOM
Control Orientation
Between Groups 404.97 2 202.48 8.90 0.000
Within Groups 2023.93 89 22.74
Total 2428.90 91
Goal Orientation
Between Groups 137.08 2 68.54 2.45 0.091
Within Groups 2489.65 89 27.97
Total 2626.73 91
Math Efficacy
Between Groups 370.82 2 185.41 4.35 0.016
Within Groups 3793.05 89 42.62
Total 4163.87 91
Interest and Value
Between Groups 155.89 2 77.95 3.14 0.048
Within Groups 2210.84 89 24.84
Total 2366.73 91

12
 The Least Significant Difference (LSD) test showed that students in the
constructivist groups have significantly different control orientation mean scores
compared to the traditional group of students at the five percent level of significance.

The results indicated that the two constructivist teaching approaches could equally
and significantly alter the perception of students of their control orientation belief.
However, the negative direction of the changes in control orientation scores of the
constructivist group of students seems to suggest that constructivist approaches made the
students become less confident of their personal control over their learning outcomes by
becoming more externally oriented (attributing success and failure to external factors
such as tasks difficulty and peer support).

On the other hand, the differences in efficacy means between the social traditional
group and the radical constructivist group were found to be significantly different at five
percent level of significance while the difference in means between the traditional and the
social constructivist group were found to be not significant. This indicated that the
students in the radical constructivist class felt less efficacious after being exposed to the
teaching interventions.

It appears that the active and greater personal involvement of students in actually
doing and performing challenging learning tasks as was observed in the constructivist
teaching approaches can actually challenge the existing motivational beliefs of students
tending to create doubts about their ability to have greater control of their learning and
about their competence. Similarly, the differences in interest and value means between
the social constructivist, traditional groups and the radical constructivist group were
found to be significant at the five percent level of significance while the mean difference
between the social constructivist group and the traditional group were found to be not
significant. This indicated that the students in the radical constructivist group increased
their interest and valuing of mathematics than did the students in the other groups. On the
other hand, individuals personally completing and succeeding in performing every aspect
of the learning tasks as experienced by students in the radical constructivist group can
boost their interest and valuing of mathematics.

The foregoing findings imply that control orientation belief, efficacy belief, and
interest and value belief, while admittedly informed by past experiences (Franken, 1988;
Crozier, 1998; and Bandura, 1986) are active and are subject to changes depending upon
specific instructional circumstances. This observation seemingly agrees with the studies
of Garner (1990), Pintrich et al. (1993), Nye and Brower (1996), and Owens et al. (1998)
as discussed above.

This observation appears to challenge the notion that interest is basically informed
by improved feelings of competence (Stipek, 1996). Results of this study showed that
positive changes in interest value beliefs of students might occur under certain
circumstances even as students may have doubts about their efficacy.

13
 Finally, it appears that goal orientation and efficacy belief is relatively more
stable than the other two motivational beliefs considered in this study although literature
(e.g. Ames, 1992; Ames & Ames, 1984; and Meece et al., 1998) strongly suggest that
goal orientation is potentially affected by classroom situations. This seemingly
conflicting result obtained in this study may be due to the relatively shorter duration of
exposure of students to the teaching interventions. Chiapetta, Waxman, and Sethna
(1990) for instance have demonstrated that effects of instructional situations on attitudes
and perceptions about science did not show in the sixth and 12 th week of measurements
but have shown to be significant in measurements taken during the 18th week of their
study.

The Least Significant Difference (LSD) test was used to further explore the
significance of the differences in means among the three groups along the three
motivational beliefs (Table 2). The results showed that students in the constructivist
groups have significantly different control orientation mean scores compared to the
traditional group of students at the five percent level of significance. In fact, the
difference between means of the constructivist groups and the traditional group was
found to be highly significant at the one percent level of significance. However, no
significant difference in means was found between the two constructivist groups. These
results indicated that the two constructivist teaching approaches could equally and
significantly alter the perception of students of their control orientation belief. However,
the negative direction of the changes in control orientation scores of the constructivist
group of students seems to suggest that constructivist approaches made the students
become less confident of their personal control over their learning outcomes by becoming
more externally oriented (attributing success and failure to external factors such as tasks
difficulty and peer support).

On the other hand, the differences in efficacy means between the social,
traditional group and the radical constructivist group were found to be significantly
different at five percent level while the difference in means between the traditional and
the social constructivist group were found to be not significant. This indicated that the
students in the radical constructivist class felt less efficacious after being exposed to the
teaching interventions. It appears that the active and greater personal involvement of
students in actually doing and performing challenging learning tasks as was observed in
the constructivist teaching approaches can actually challenge the existing motivational
beliefs of students tending to create doubts about their ability to have greater control of
their learning and about their competence.

Similarly, the differences in interest and value means between the social
constructivist, traditional groups and the radical constructivist group were found to be
significant at the five percent level of significance while the mean difference between the
social constructivist group and the traditional group were found to be not significant. This
indicated that the students in the radical constructivist group increased their interest and
valuing of mathematics than did the students in the other groups. On the other hand,
individuals personally completing and succeeding in performing every aspect of the

14
learning tasks as experienced by students in the radical constructivist group can boost
their interest and valuing of mathematics.

Table 2. Least significant difference test between group means

by motivational beliefs

MOTIVATIONAL TEACHING SOCIAL

TRADITIONAL
BELIEF APPROACH CONSTRUCTIVIST
Traditional
Mean Difference -4.71
Control Orientation Significance 0.000
Belief Radical Constructivist
Mean Difference -0.52 4.19
Significance 0.671 0.001
Traditional
Mean Difference -0.11
Basic Mathematics Significance 0.949
Efficacy Belief Radical Constructivist
Mean Difference 4.19 4.30
Significance 0.013 0.012
Traditional
Mean Difference 0.32
Interest and Value Significance 0.800
Belief Radical Constructivist
Mean Difference -2.58 -2.90
Significance 0.044 0.025

The foregoing findings imply that control orientation belief, efficacy belief, and
interest and value belief, while admittedly informed by past experiences (Franken, 1988;
Crozier, 1998; Bandura, 1986) are active and are subject to changes depending upon
specific instructional circumstances. This observation seemingly agrees with the studies
of Garner (1990), Pintrich et al.(1993), Nye and Brower (1996), and Owens et al. (1998).

This observation appears to challenge the notion that interest is basically informed
by improved feelings of competence (Stipek, 1996). Results of this study showed that
positive changes in interest value beliefs of students might occur under certain
circumstances even as students may have doubts about their efficacy.

Finally, it appears that goal orientation and efficacy belief is relatively more
stable than the other two motivational beliefs considered in this study although literature
(e.g. Ames, 1992; Ames & Ames, 1984; and Meece et al., 1998) strongly suggest that
goal orientation is potentially affected by classroom situations. This seemingly
15
conflicting result obtained in this study may be due to the relatively shorter duration of
exposure of students to the teaching interventions. Chiapetta et al. (1990) for instance
have demonstrated that effects of instructional situations on attitudes and perceptions
about science did not show in the sixth and 12th week of measurements, but have shown
to be significant in measurements taken during the 18th week of their study.

Teaching Approach, Students’ Motivational Beliefs, and Students’ Achievement

Table 3 provides a summary of the results of the Analysis of Variance and

Covariance performed on teaching approach and motivational beliefs on achievement
measures. In general, teaching approach consistently showed significant differential
effects on all areas of achievement of students. Its effects on conceptual and problem
solving achievement appear to be independent of the effects of motivational beliefs as
indicated by the non-significant interaction effects between teaching approach and the
particular motivational beliefs. Similarly, the effects of teaching approach on general
achievement and procedural knowledge seem to be mediated by interest and value and
goal orientation beliefs, respectively, as indicated by the significant interaction effects.

Table 3. Two-Way Analysis of Variance on teaching approach and motivational

beliefs on achievement areas
GENERAL CONCEPTUAL PROBLEM PROCEDURAL
FACTORS
ACHIEVEMENT2 ACHIEVEMENT SOLVING KNOWLEDGE2
Teaching Approach S* NS S S
Control Orientation NS NS NS NS
Teaching Approach S S S S
Goal Orientation NS S NS NS1
Teaching Approach S S S S
Efficacy NS S NS NS
Teaching Approach S S S S
Interest and Value NS1 NS NS NS

*NS – not significant; S – significant

1
Interaction effects with teaching approach is significant
2
Analysis of covariance was used

Moreover, of the four motivational beliefs, control belief appeared to have no

significant effects on achievement while goal orientation and efficacy have significant
effects on conceptual achievement. Problem solving achievement appeared to be
unaffected by the motivational beliefs of students.

16
General Knowledge Achievement

On general achievement measure, the analysis of covariance results indicate that

teaching approach consistently showed significant effects on general achievement
regardless of control, goal orientation, and efficacy beliefs. DMRT results showed that
the HIAP group performed better than the other two groups. The IGP group performed
better than the TLP group. This result indicates the superiority of constructivist-based
teaching approaches over the traditional lecture method. Moreover, the superiority of the
HIAP confirms the advantages of individual accountability and challenge in one’s own
learning. A closer inspection of the interaction of teaching approach and interest and
value belief (Figure 2) indicates that the HIAP performed better than the traditional
group. On the other hand, the advantage of the HIAP over the IGP occurs only among
student with more favorable interest and value belief in mathematics. It did not show
among students with less favorable interest and value belief in mathematics.

11
General Achievement Means

10

Teaching Approach
8
social

7
radical

6 traditional
Low High

Figure 2. Interaction Effects of Teaching Approach and Interest and Value

Belief on General Achievement

Conceptual Knowledge Achievement

On conceptual knowledge achievement, results showed consistently that teaching

approach significantly influenced conceptual knowledge achievement. The DMRT results
indicate that HIAP and IGP did not differ significantly, but both approaches showed
superior performances than that of the TLP. This result might b explained by the fact that
in the HIAP and IGP the teacher is able to have better monitoring mechanisms as
students worked in groups or are held personally responsible for their own learning which
is not usually observed in traditional whole class lecture. This confirms the results which
claimed that level of engagement of students in constructive activities was the strongest
predictor of achievement. Moreover, the low performance of the traditional lecture
approach supported the findings of Basili and Sanford (1991) who claimed that
17
traditional classrooms with typical teachers did not show much progress in conceptual
change.

Problem Solving Achievement

Table 3 above also shows that teaching approach consistently showed significant
effects on problem solving achievement regardless of motivational beliefs that students
have. Multiple comparison of means by DMRT revealed similar results as in conceptual
knowledge achievement. The HIAP performed better than the other approaches.
Noteworthy is that the IGP did not show significant difference in problem solving scores
of students. This tends to indicate that while interactive activities in constructivist
classrooms contribute to achievement, it may not show significant results when not
combined with imposition of challenge and accountability. This result is well supported
by the observations of Sacro (1996), Bentillo (1996), and Santos (2005).

Procedural Knowledge Achievement

As presented in Table 3, teaching approach consistently showed significant

effects on procedural knowledge achievement. However, a closer look on its interaction
with goal orientation belief has to be unveiled. The DMRT results showed that HIAP and
IGP did not differ significantly from each other. However, both approaches showed
significant advantage over the TLP.

A closer look into the interaction effect issue, Figure 3 indicates that the HIAP
performed better than the traditional lecture approach regardless of goal orientation
belief.

30
Procedural Knowledge Means

20

Teaching Approach
10
Social

Traditional

0 Radical
Performance Mastery

Goal Orientation

Figure 3. Interaction Effects of Teaching Approach and Goal Orientation on

Procedural Knowledge

18
 On the other hand, the IGP tends to be better than TLP among students with
positive or mastery goal orientation and tends to be reversed as students shift from
mastery to a more performance oriented goal orientation.

Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

The study looked into the relationships among teaching approach, motivational
beliefs, and achievement of students. It was posited that teaching approach can
significantly alter or change the motivational beliefs of children and that the
constructivist-based approaches will perform better than the traditional lecture approach
on achievement measures.

Analyses and discussions made adequately support the following conclusions:

1. Varying classroom teaching approaches have differential effects on control

orientation, mathematics efficacy, and interest and value beliefs of students;

2. Those students in the constructivist-based teaching approaches (HIAP and IGP)

have significant negative changes in their control beliefs;

3. Changes in mathematics efficacy and interest and value beliefs were highest
among students in the HIAP than those in the IGP and TLP;

4. Among the four motivational beliefs, only goal orientation and efficacy registered
significant effects on conceptual knowledge achievement, but not in the other
achievement measures;

5. Teaching approach generally showed significant effects on all areas of

achievement;

6. Constructivist approaches that capitalizes on interaction and an imputation of

independence and personal responsibility over their own learning (HIAP)
consistently showed superior performance on all achievement areas; and

7. Constructivist teaching approaches that relies solely on interactive group

discussions, have better performance than the traditional lecture approach on
general, conceptual, and procedural knowledge achievement measures but may
fail to exhibit the same on problem solving achievement.

The foregoing conclusions did not consider the indirect effects of teaching
approach on achievement measures through motivational beliefs as well as the indirect
effects of motivational beliefs on achievement measures through the other achievement
measures. Moreover, while positive results were obtained on the effects of HIAP on
achievement, its effects on all motivational beliefs except interest value belief were
negative. Similarly the same was observed for IGP on control orientation belief.

19
 In consideration of the foregoing limitations, this study generally recommends
that further studies be made in order to provide explanations to the relationships sought.
Specifically, it recommends the following:

1. Further analysis of the same data be made to determine which of the motivational
beliefs and teaching approaches significantly predict each of the achievement
areas using multiple regression and path analysis;
2. Present an analyses of available qualitative data at the time of study to provide
explanations as to the effects of classroom contextual factors have helped shape
the findings of this study; and
3. Present analyses of data at the time of the study to determine the effects of the
beliefs and approaches on retention of knowledge in the four achievement areas.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ames, C. 1992). Classroom goals, structure, and student motivation. Journal of

Educational Psychology. 84:261-271.

Ames, C. 1984. Competitive, cooperative, and individualistic goal structures. Journal of

Educational Psychology. 76:478-487.

Baker, W., Czarnocha, B. and Prabhu. 2004. Procedural and conceptual knowledge in
mathematics. [Online] Available at: http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:Urfo-
OHUVVgJ:www.pmena.org/2004/groups

Bandura, A. 1981. Self-referent thoughts: a developmental analysis of self-efficacy. In

Flavell, J. H. & Ross, L. (Eds.). Social Cognitive Development: Frontiers and
Possible Futures. Cambridge University Press. USA.

Bandura, A. 1986. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Barton, S. 2006. What does the research say about achievement of students who use
calculator technologies and those who do not? [Online]. Printed Material from:
Barton@math.byu.edu

Basili, P.A. and J. P. Sanford. 1991. Conceptual change strategies and cooperative group
work in chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 28:293-304.

Bentillo, E. N. 1996. Microcomputer-based laboratory, constructivist teaching, and

students’ understanding of force and motion. An Unpublished Dissertation,
University of the Philippines College of Education. Diliman, Quezon City.

Chiapetta, E. L., H. E. Waxman, and G. H. Sethna. 1990. Student attitude and

perceptions. The Science Teacher. 57,4:52-55. Manila, Philippines.
20
Crozier, R. W. 1997. Individual Learners: Personality Differences in Education.
Routledge, USA.
English, L. and G. Halford. 1995. Mathematics Education Models and Processes.
Lawrence Earlbaum. USA.

Fiske, S. T. & Goodwin, S. A. 1996. Introduction to social cognition research and small-
group research: A westside story . . .? In: Nye, J. L. & Brower, A. M. (Eds.).
What’s Social About Social Cognition: Research on Socially Shared Cognition in
Small Groups. SAGE Publications. California.

Franken, R. E. 1988. Human Motivation. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. California.

Steffe, L. and B. D’Ambrosio. 1995.Toward a working model of constructivist teaching:

a reaction to Simon. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education. 26:146-159.

Garner, R. 1990. When children and adults do not use learning strategies: towards a
theory of settings. Journal of Educational Psychology. 60:517.

Graham, S. & Weiner, B. (1996). Theories and principles of motivation. In: Berliner, D.
C. and R. C. Calfee (Eds.). Handbook of Educational Psychology. McMillan
Publishing. New York.

Heylighen, F. 1995. Epistemological constructivism. (http://pespmcl.vub.ac.be/

CONSTRUC.html).

Hidi, S. 1990. Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of
Educational Research. 60: 549-571.

Jones, G. 1996. The constructivist leader. In: Rhoton, J. and P. Bower (Eds.). Issues in
Science Education. National Science Teachers Association. USA.

Matthews, M. R. 2000. Constructivism in science and mathematics Education [Online].

Available at: www.csi.unian.it/educa/inglese/matthewshtml

Meece, J. L., P. C. Blumenfeld, and R. H. Hoyle. 1988. Student goal orientation and
cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology.
80:513-523.

Myers, F. and C. Myers. 1995. The Professional Educator. Wadsworth Publishing. USA.

NVSED. 2004. New York State Education Department. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.nrel.org.msec

Nye, J.L. and A. M. Brower. 1996. What’s Social About Social Cognition: Research on
Socially Shared Cognition in Small Groups. SAGE Publications. California, USA.

21
Ormrod, J. E. 1995. Human Learning (2nd Ed.). Prentice Hall. New Jersey.

Owens, K., B. Perry, J. Conroy, P. Howe, and N. Geoghegan. 1998. Responsiveness and
affective processes in the interactive construction of understanding in
Mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics [CD-ROM]. Educational
Studies in Mathematics. 35:105-127. ERIC Accession No. EJ560124. USA.

Oyerman, D. and M. J. Packer. 1996. Social cognition and self-concept: a socially

contextualized model of identity. In: Nye, J. L. & Brower, A. M. (Eds.). What’s
Social About Social Cognition: Research on Socially shared Cognition in Small
Groups. SAGE Publications. California, USA.

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational

Research. 66:543-578.

PCER. 2000. Presidential Commission for Educational Reform. Philippine Congress.

Quezon City.

Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. 1993. Beyond cold conceptual change: the
role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of
conceptual change. Review of Educational Research. 63:167-199.

Ritchie, S. M., K. Tobin, and K. S. Hook. 1997. Teaching referents and the warrants used
to test the viability of students’ mental models. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching. 34:223-238.

Sacro, C. P. 1996. Constructivist teaching: Effects on students’ problem solving

strategies and performance in statistics. An Unpublished Dissertation. University
of the Philippines, College of Education. Diliman, Quezon City.

Santos, M. G. M. 2005. Achievement motivation and task performance in collaborative-

open, reflective-evaluation learning. An Unpublished Dissertation. University of
the Philippines. College of Education. Diliman, Quezon City.

Schiefele, U. and M. Csikszenmihalyi. 1995. Motivation and ability as factors in

mathematics experience and achievement. Journal of Research in Mathematics
Education (26).

Simon, M. A. 1995. Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist

perspective. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education. 26:114-115.

Stipek, D. J. 1996. Motivation and instruction. In: Berliner, D. C. and R. C. Calfee (Eds.).
Journal of Educational Psychology. Simon & Schuster MacMillan. New York.

Steffe, L. P. and T. Kieren. 1994. Radical constructivism and mathematics education.

Journal of Research in Mathematics Education. 26:711-733.
22
Yager, R. E. 1996. Science teachers’ preparation as part of systematic reform in the
United States. In: Rhoton, J. and P. Bower P. (Eds.). Issues in Science Education.
(pp. 140-141). National Science Teachers Association. USA.

23