articulo autoevaluacion

8/6/2019 articulo autoevaluacion

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/articulo-autoevaluacion 1/22

Why am I in School? RelationshipsBetween Adolescents’ Goal

Orientation, Academic Achievement

and Self-Evaluation

Joanna Giota*Goteborg University, Sweden

The purpose of the present article is to study the interrelations between goal orientations,

achievements and well-being in school. For this purpose adolescents’ academic self-perceived

competence, personal interest in school subjects, and affect in regard to different evaluative

situations that take place in school were related to eight different types of goal orientations toward

school and learning. The study suggests that depending on the orientation and domain,

adolescents perceive their competence either positively or negatively. In particular, negatively or

critically oriented pupils show lower academic performance and self-evaluations of competence,

lower future expectations of success with respect to most academic school subjects, and higher

levels of anxiety when compared to other pupils. In addition, the study supports the assumption

that individuals’ beliefs about the self are hierarchically organised and involves beliefs about

general or global competence as well as beliefs about specific ability.

Keywords: Achievement; Goal orientation; Self-evaluation; Well-being

Introduction

Research on self-perceptions of competence is closely related to research dealingwith children’s conceptions of personal identity (Damon & Hart, 1988) and self-

concept (Markus & Nurius, 1986). An important issue in the latter research involves

the domain-specificity of individuals’ self-perceptions. In particular, during the last

decade a shift took place from global or unidimensional models of self-concept

(Wylie, 1989) to multidimensional models, which far more adequately describe the

phenomenology of self-evaluation.

Whereas the extent to which domains are differentiated remains uncertain,

empirical agreement exists about a distinction between academic, social and physical

*Department of Education, Goteborg University, PO Box 300, SE-40530, Goteborg, Sweden.

Email: joanna giota@ped gu se

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

Vol. 50, No. 4, September 2006, pp. 441–461



domains of competence. While these different domains of competence are

moderately positively related to each other, research suggests that they are distinct

and separate. However, if children evaluate their competencies in different academic

domains differently, to which extent are these self-perceptions to become integratedinto more general self-concepts involving academic ability, social relations and

physical activity? And to what degree is the importance of the academic self-concept

to the individual identical to that of the physical or social self-concepts? To date,

empirical findings do not permit any clear answers to these questions. Harter (1985)

suggests that the results of her studies support a non-hierarchical model of self and

the academic self-concept in particular.

Work by Marsh and Shavelson (1985; Marsh & Hattie, 1996) suggests that the

academic self-concept is hierarchically structured, with separate domains of

academic and non-academic competence fitting into a global academic self-concept.

Academic self-concept is, in turn, divided into self-concepts in particular subject

areas, such as mathematics and English, and non-academic self-concept is divided

into social, emotional and physical self-concepts.

A second important issue within the research dealing with children’s self-concept

concerns the accuracy of children’s self-evaluations. According to Assor and Connell

(1992) having inaccurate self-perceptions of competence may be of advantage if they

are higher than should be expected, given actual achievement. These authors

reported that inflated self-reports were related to positive achievement outcomes 2

years later in a longitudinal study of high-school students. Students demonstrating

deflated self-assessments at earlier grades achieved at much lower levels in highergrades.

Interests, Anxiety and Goal Orientations

In spite of numerous problems in the conceptualisation and measurement of

interests (Krapp, Hidi, & Renninger, 1992), research has revealed fairly consistent

relationships between interests, cognitive abilities and achievement outcomes.

Empirical research with regard to the negative effects of anxiety on academic

achievement is also numerous and consistent. On the basis of a meta-analysis of 562studies, in which test anxiety was related to academic achievement, Hembree (1988)

concluded that test anxiety causes poor achievement and is directly related to pupils’

defensiveness and fear of negative evaluations.

With respect to goal orientations, research has shown that both mastery and

performance orientations are related to positive self-perceptions. Most research on

these orientations has consistently found evidence for a positive relationship between

mastery goals and more adaptive outcomes and behavioural processes, such as

positive affects, persistence, interest, and utilisation of effective learning strategies,

including higher levels of academic achievement. Performance goals on the other

hand have more often been linked to ability-related concerns, anxiety and surface-

level strategy use, including lower levels of academic achievement.

442 J. Giota



It has been suggested that the performance orientation should be divided into two

independent components, an approach and an avoidance. Despite the fact that these

components have been conceptualised and measured in rather different ways in

different studies, the overall results suggest that the approach component is relatedto more positive outcomes and approach type of strategy uses. The avoidance

component on the other hand is associated with rather negative self-perceptions and

attitudes, effort withdrawal, a lower level of engagement and self-handicapping

(Skaalvik, 1997). Seen from a multiple goal perspective, it has been suggested

that some patterns of multiple goals, such as adopting both a mastery and an

approach performance goal, would be the most adaptive (Barron & Harackiewicz,

2001).

Interactionist research suggests that pupils’ success and failure in school is also a

matter of how well they succeed in different social situations (Giota, 2001; Wentzel,

1989). The fact that socially desirable behaviour, summarised in the concept of

social responsibility, has a direct effect on pupils’ school achievements, measured by

their grades after adjustment for IQ and social background, has been known for a

long time (Wentzel, 1989). That pupil activities always take place in a social context

implies that the goals that pupils set up and strive for can never be exclusively

cognitive, but must be perceived as being multiple (Giota, 2001; Wentzel, 1989).

Within the interactionist motivation research, multiple goals are regarded as

hierarchically organised. This means that pupils try to attain different types of goals

in school (cognitive as well as social and affective) simultaneously. These goals are to

be attained in different time dimensions and not exclusively in a here-and-now timeperspective, as is assumed within the predominant goal orientation and intrinsic/

extrinsic motivation theory and research (Giota, 2001; Ford, 1992).

Background and Purposes

In my previous studies (Giota, 2001, 2002, 2004), 13-year-old adolescents’ goal

orientations toward school and learning were studied in relation to their academic

achievement in Grades 6, 8 and 9. A brief description of the 8 different goal

orientations involved in these studies is provided in Table 1.In these studies, pupils holding an integrative goal orientation have been

considered adaptive or able to combine extrinsic/performance with intrinsic/mastery

goals (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). The performance goal orientation of this pupil

group has been conceptualised as an approach performance goal orientation (Barron

& Harackiewicz, 2001). Consequently, I expected integrative pupils to do better in

school compared with the other pupil groups, both in a here-and-now as well as in a

future perspective. Pupils holding a self-now goal orientation were also expected to

do well in school given the similarities between this orientation and intrinsic

motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1991), as well as a mastery goal orientation (Dweck &

Leggett), which are expected to promote learning and achievement better than

extrinsic motivation and a performance goal orientation.

Goal Orientation, Achievement and Self-Evaluation 443



These expectations were partly confirmed: integrative 13-year-old pupils were

found to attain the second highest achievement level in mathematics, as measured by

a standardised achievement test, in Grade 6 of Swedish compulsory school, while the

highest results in mathematics were obtained by pupils holding an others-

now+preventive-future goal orientation. The self-now goal orientation was found

to be negatively related to achievement in mathematics in Grade 6. Pupils holding

this orientation demonstrated the lowest achievement in mathematics of all pupils,

including those holding a negative/critical goal orientation.To test the long-term implications of these goal orientations for achievement,

confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on the pupils’ achievement in

mathematics in Grade 6 and their grades in 14 school subjects in Grades 8 and 9.

The analyses showed a strong indirect effect of goal orientation on Grade 8 and 9

achievement via Grade 6 achievement. The largest effects were found between the

integrative goal orientation and a latent general school achievement factor (SchAch)

related to each and every grade. Compared to the integrative goal orientation, the

others-now+preventive-future goal orientation showed smaller direct effects with

respect to SchAch in Grades 8 and 9. The findings suggested in addition that there is

an increasing difference in achievement over time between the negative/critical goal

orientation and all the other goal orientations, to the disadvantage of the former.

Table 1. Brief descriptions of the eight goal orientations covering 97% of the total investigated

group of 7,391 students

Goal orientation Description

Self-now (n52,265 or 30.6%) Positive views of school, the teachers, and the school content. Focus

on learning and self-development in a here-and-now perspective.

Self-future (n5985 or 13.3%) Positive views of school, the teachers, and the school content. Focus on

the long-term consequences of learning and self-development and a

desire to use attained outcomes as a strategy to structure the future

and adult life.

Others-now (n5859 or 11.6%) Going to school and engaging with the school content because society,

the labour market, and/or parents require it.

Preventive-future (n5332 or 4.5%) Going to school and engaging with the school content because of a

self-defined request. Focus on the prevention of personally relevant

fears with respect to the future by learning and a social responsibility

towards society, the labour market, and other people.Self-now+self-future (n51,256 or

17.0%)

Integrative goal orientation. Focus on learning, self-actualisation,

self-determination, self-growth, and well-being through the realisation

of one’s own potentials and capacities in a here-and-now and a future

perspective.

Others-now+preventive-future

(n5146 or 2.0%)

Integrative goal orientation. Focus on the attainment of requirements set

by authorities, and a willingness to achieve the best for oneself, society,

the labour market, and other people.

Integrative (n51,198 or 16.1%) Integrative goal orientation. Involves 9 different goal orientations, which

integrate various internal and external sources of pupil motivation.

Negative/critical (n5326 or 4.4%) Negative and critical views of school, the teachers, and the school

content. Involves no personal reasons for going to school, but indicates

an avoidance orientation towards school and education.

444 J. Giota



In the present study, the 13-year-old adolescents’ goal orientations toward school

and learning are investigated in relation to their self-perceptions of competence in

different academic and non-academic school subjects, personal interest in these

subjects, and affect in regard to different evaluative situations that take place inschool.

Hypothesis I

Empirical research with regard to children’s self-concept has shown that there is a

relationship between academic achievement and pupils’ perceptions of their own

competence in different domains, such as the academic, social and physical domains.

Given this research and my previous findings (Giota, 2002, 2004), I expect that

others-now+preventive-future pupils, who achieved significantly higher in mathe-

matics in Grade 6, will evaluate their own competence in mathematics more highly

than self-now and negative/critical pupils.

Hypothesis II

My previous study (Giota, 2001) shows that pupils holding a negative/critical goal

orientation share some common characteristics with pupils who are considered

‘‘helpless’’ (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Helpless pupils often show maladaptive

behavioural patterns. According to Henderson and Dweck (1990) these patterns are

often not related to achievement but rather to negative self-cognition and negativeaffect. Given this notion, I expect that in comparison to the other pupil groups,

negative/critical pupils will show lower self-perceptions of competence and higher

negative affect in regard to different evaluative situations in school.

Hypothesis III

In addition, the study aims to investigate the extent to which pupils’ personal

(intrinsic) interests in the content of specific subject areas, such as Swedish, English

and mathematics, are related to their self-perceptions of competence with respect tothese subjects. I expect higher self-perceptions of competence to relate to higher

levels of personal interest.

Methods

Participants and Design

The study presented here is based on data collected within the framework of the

Swedish longitudinal project Evaluation Through Follow Up, henceforth abbre-

viated as the ETF project (Harnqvist, 2000). In close cooperation with the Swedish

Central Statistical Bureau, ETF has since its start in 1961 followed up nationally




representative samples, each comprising approximately 10,000 children born in

1948, 1953, 1967, 1972, 1977, 1982, 1987 and 1992 and aged 10 and 13 years.

Within ETF, 13-year-old pupils (born in 1982) in the Swedish compulsory school

(sixth grade) were required in an open-ended question to give their own reasons(motives or goals) for why they were going to school. Out of 7,607 pupils, 7,391 or

97% answered this question. The eight distinct types of goal orientations identified

among the pupils, which form the basis of the study presented in this article, are the

result of putting together the patterns of responses that groups of pupils had in

common (see Table 1).

Instruments

The open-ended question was part of an extended pupil questionnaire, constructedwithin the framework of ETF and consisting of six groups of questions or scales,

described below. The total number of pupils who answered the questionnaire was

7,607 out of 8,683, giving a response frequency of 87.6%. The reliability of the

scales was determined by using, among other things, confirmatory factor analysis

(Reuterberg, Svensson, Giota, & Stahl, 1996).

General self-perceptions of competence in seven educational domains. The General

Perceived Competence (GPC) scale concerns how pupils perceive their competence

in Swedish, English, mathematics, social science, music, arts and sports. For eachitem on this scale a score of 5 was assigned if the pupil perceived him- or herself as

‘‘Very good at mathematics’’ (for example) and 1 if the pupil thought he or she was

‘‘Poor at mathematics’’. The moderate reliability coefficient of 0.60 indicates that

this scale measures rather heterogeneous educational domains, involving academic

as well as non-academic school subjects. General self-perceptions of competence are,

however, by definition a heterogeneous domain, implying that we have to accept the

obtained heterogeneity within the scale as well. This suggestion is corroborated by

the finding that, with the exception of arts, music and sports, the responses indicate

high self-perceptions of competence for four academic domains. That is, about 50%

of the pupils believed that they were ‘‘Fairly good’’ at Swedish, English, mathematics

and social science, as compared to the 30% who believed the same of the non-

academic subjects arts, music and sports.

Intrinsic interest in the contents of the seven educational domains. The goal of the

Intrinsic Interest (II) scale is to assess the pupils’ personal interest in the contents or

acquisition of knowledge with regard to Swedish, English, mathematics, social

science, music, arts and sports. The responses to these items ranged from ‘‘I am very

interested in learning more in the content area of this subject’’ (e.g. Swedish; this

response was scored as 4) to ‘‘I am not at all interested in learning more in the

content area of this subject’’ (this response was scored as 1). The moderate reliability

446 J. Giota



coefficient of 0.61 is again thought to be due to the diversity of the measured

domains. The responses showed that pupils were most interested in acquiring

additional knowledge and develop skills and competences in sports, arts and English

(the proportions of pupils responding with ‘‘Very interested’’ were 55%, 45% and38%, respectively). The subject area which attracted least interest was Swedish (11%

responded with ‘‘Very interested’’ and 40% with ‘‘Not so interested’’).

On the basis of confirmatory factor analyses a distinction is suggested between the

more theoretical school subjects (Swedish, English, mathematics and social science)

and the creative school subjects (arts, music and sports). When the theoretical school

subjects were examined separately the internal consistency of the scale increased to

0.67, indicating a larger homogeneity of the items on the scale (henceforth termed

Intrinsic Interest in Academic Subjects and abbreviated IIAS).

Specific self-perceptions of competence in regard to four different tasks in Swedish. For the

next three Specific Perceived Competence scales (in Swedish, English and

mathematics) the scoring of the responses ranged from 5 (‘‘I perceive myself as

being very good in the accomplishment of a specific task in Swedish, English or

mathematics’’) to 1 (‘‘I perceive myself as being poor in the accomplishment of a

specific task in either of the three subjects’’). The Perceived Competence in Swedish

(PCS) scale reached an alpha of 0.75, indicating that this scale is fairly reliable, or

homogeneous. Most pupils believed themselves to be ‘‘Very good’’ at reading and

understanding a text in Swedish (47%) and at writing short stories (30%). With

respect to their competencies in more social tasks such as reading aloud in the

classroom and communicating or explaining things to teachers and classmates,

approximately 20% of the pupils perceived themselves as ‘‘Fairly poor’’ or ‘‘Poor’’.

Specific self-perceptions of competence in regard to four different tasks in English. The

Perceived Competence in English (PCE) scale attained an alpha of 0.87. With

respect to English, pupils perceived their competencies in listening, comprehension,

and reading higher than in speaking and writing. About 37% of the pupils believed

that they were ‘‘Very good’’ at understanding spoken English and 35% at reading andunderstanding a text in English. Finally, about 30% of the pupils showed high

confidence in their competence to speak English. To write a story in English seemed

to be the most difficult task in this educational domain, however. While 12% of the

pupils perceived themselves to be ‘‘Very good’’ at writing texts, 20% of the pupils

believed they were ‘‘Fairly poor’’ or ‘‘Poor’’.

Specific self-perceptions of competence in regard to six different tasks in mathematics. The

aim of the Perceived Competence in Mathematics (PCM) scale is to assess the

pupils’ perceived competence to accomplish six specific tasks in mathematics:mental calculation, addition and division, problem-solving, calculation of

percentages calculation of area and circumference and explaining mathematics to




classmates or peers. The scale attained an alpha of 0.68. The largest self-perceived

competence was evident with respect to doing addition and division (42% of the

pupils believed they were able to manage this task ‘‘Very well’’). Problem-solving and

explaining mathematics to classmates or peers were perceived to be the most difficulttasks (only 16% of the pupils believed that they were competent in problem-solving

and 12% in explaining mathematics to classmates or peers). The proportion of

pupils who perceived themselves to be ‘‘Fairly bad’’ or ‘‘Bad’’ at explaining

mathematics to classmates or peers was 21%, while for all other tasks in mathematics

this proportion was no higher than 10%.

General affect in regard to seven ordinary evaluative situations that take place in

school. The alpha for the General Affect (GA) scale was 0.68. The items on this scale

concern both positive and negative affects. The positive affect items (e.g. ‘‘Is it easyfor you to give the right answer when the teacher asks you a question?’’) were scored

from 5 (‘‘Very often’’) to 1 (‘‘Never’’). The negative affect items (e.g. ‘‘Do you worry

about things that happen in school?’’) were scored in the opposite way, from 1 (‘‘Very

often’’) to 5 (‘‘Never’’). The confirmatory factor analyses revealed two factors,

involving the items related to feelings of anxiety (4 questions) and the items related

to feelings of success (3 questions). The items focusing on anxiety concerned the

presence of feelings of worry and unease, while the items focusing on success

concerned perseverance, feelings of ease, and ability. When the two groups of items

were examined separately relatively low alpha values of 0.61 and 0.59 were obtained

for the anxiety (the Worry scale or W) and success items (the Success scale or S),

respectively.

The Worry question ‘‘Do you get tired when you have tests in school?’’ offered the

largest variance in responses. About 20% of the pupils ‘‘Often’’ or ‘‘Very often’’

experienced feelings of tiredness when they had tests in school, while 50% of the

pupils experienced these feelings ‘‘Very rarely’’ or ‘‘Never’’. A smaller number, 12%

of the pupils, worried ‘‘Often’’ or ‘‘Very often’’ about ‘‘not being successful in doing

their homework’’. The number of pupils who often worried about or were anxious in

different situations in school (in response to ‘‘Worry about things that happen in

school’’ and ‘‘Feel unease when having to answer questions in school’’) and who saidthey ‘‘Easily give up when getting something difficult to do’’ ranged between 2% and

5%. The low proportion of positive responses to the anxiety items suggests a

relatively high level of positive affect or well-being in the pupils. The question

dealing with the ease of giving up is thought to measure different levels of

perseverance or persistence with difficulties or problems in school and to relate to

low negative affect or anxiety with respect to performance on these problems (i.e.

high motivation and low negative affect). However, about 80% of the pupils felt that

they were frequently successful in accomplishing tasks in school and about 50% also

felt that they could easily find right answers to questions from the teacher.In summary, the reliabilities for the different scales and subscales used in this

study range from 0 59 to 0 87 displaying a moderate although acceptable reliability

448 J. Giota



for some groups of items and, at the same time, a very high reliability for others

(Table 2).

Given the fact that Cronbach’s alpha depends on both the length of the scale and

the correlation of the items on the scale (Carmines & Zeller, 1979, p. 46) the

moderate alpha values is assumed to be on one hand an effect of the small number of

items in the analyses, and on the other, an effect of the fact that some groups of items

measure rather heterogeneous educational domains. The general conclusion is thus

that even though some of the more specific subscales obtained show moderate or

relatively low reliability coefficients, they can still be used as separate scales for

comparisons on a group level.

Results

Self-Perceptions of Competence in Different Domains and Affection

The initial step in the analysis of the data was to calculate the pupils’ average scoresand standard deviations on the different scales and subscales for each of the eight

goal orientation groups. Figure 1 displays standardised ( Z ) scores. These scores

indicate how many standard deviations above or below the mean an observation falls.

The mean of the Z scores is 0, and the standard deviation is 1.

As can be seen in Figure 1, others-now+preventive-future and integrative pupils

demonstrated the highest Z scores across all (sub)scales, while negative/critical

pupils demonstrated the lowest Z scores. The next lowest Z scores across all

(sub)scales were demonstrated by pupils holding a self-now goal orientation.

In the next step, separate ANOVA analyses were conducted on each of the 6 scalesand subscales, in which two different goal orientations were compared pair-wise (see

Table A1 in Appendix A); for example others-now with preventive-future and

Table 2. Means, standard deviations and alphas for each scale for the whole pupil group

(n57,367)

Scales and subscales Abbrev. No. of items Mean SD Alpha

General Perceived

Competence

GPC 7 25.60 3.67 0.60

Intrinsic Interest II 7 20.89 3.27 0.61

Intrinsic Interest in

Academic Subjects

IIAS 4 11.69 2.29 0.67

Perceived Competence in

Swedish

PCS 4 19.27 3.26 0.75


English

PCE 4 19.21 3.76 0.87


Mathematics

PCM 6 26.42 5.01 0.86

General Affect GA 7 25.97 3.91 0.68Worry W 4 14.82 2.78 0.61

Success S 3 15.08 2.34 0.59




others-now with self-now. These analyses showed that others-now+preventive-future

and integrative pupils scored significantly higher than negative/critical pupils on all

assessed variables, including self-perceptions of competence for specific tasks in

Swedish, English, and mathematics and feelings of persistence, success, and ability

in evaluative situations in school (the GA, W and S scale and subscales).

A low average score on the W subscale indicates feelings of low persistence,

success, and ability, and high negative affect or feelings of worry and unease when

meeting difficulties or problems in school. The results presented in Table A1

(Appendix A) reveal that self-now pupils experienced negative affect or feelings of anxiety in evaluative situations in school as well. Self-now pupils evidenced, in

particular, lower scores than integrative, self-future, and self-now+self-future pupils

on all three different positive affect (sub)scales. The lowest scores across all three

different positive affect (sub)scales were, however, demonstrated by pupils holding a

negative/critical goal orientation.

To test the hypothesis that pupils within each of the eight different goal

orientations had different self-perceptions of competence for different educational

domains, separate pair-wise ANOVA analyses were conducted for each of the seven

academic subjects included in the scale assessing general self-perceptions of competence. The results of these analyses are presented in Table B1 in

Appendix B Figure 2 presents the standardised (Z) scores for these subjects

Figure 1. Standardised ( Z ) scores and standard deviations for each scale for each of the eight goal

orientations

450 J. Giota



The findings presented in Table B1 (Appendix B) did not reveal any differences in

self-perceived competence between the others-now+preventive-future and integra-

tive pupils for any of the educational domains, with the exception of Swedish. In

addition, no significant differences were present between the others-now+preventive-

future and the integrative goal orientation with respect to non-academic school

subjects (sports, arts and music). Negative/critical pupils did not evaluate their

competencies in different academic domains identically, however. In comparison to

self-now pupils they evaluated their abilities in mathematics significantly lower; this

was not the case with Swedish. With respect to English, the difference between

negative/critical and self-now pupils tended towards significance (.05 , p , .10).

Compared to others-now+preventive-future and integrative pupils, negative/critical

pupils demonstrated significantly lower self-perceptions of competence for all

academic school subjects.To study the relationship between a global academic self-concept and a domain-

specific self-concept in greater detail, separate ANOVAs were conducted on each of

the items included in the three scales assessing specific self-perceptions for Swedish,

English and mathematics for each of the eight goal orientation groups. The results of

these analyses are presented in Table C1 in Appendix C. Table 3 presents the

average scores on these tasks.

The findings presented in Table C1 (Appendix C) indicate that others-now+

preventive-future and integrative oriented pupils did not seem to distinguish between

their self-perceptions of competence in regard to specific tasks within different

academic domains. A tendency was, however, present with regard to self-perceived

competence in reading and understanding a Swedish text, where others-now+

Figure 2. Standardised ( Z ) scores and standard deviations for each subject within the general

competence scale for each of the eight goal orientations




preventive-future pupils showed higher competence than integrative pupils (.05 , p

, .10). Moreover, to tell things to the teacher and the class in Swedish was

apparently a difficult task for the negative/critical pupils. This particular item is

thought to reflect competencies in interactions with others (social competence)

within this academic domain. As can be seen Table C1 (Appendix C), in comparison

to almost all other pupils, negative/critical pupils evaluated their competence in

interactions with teachers and peers within the context of the classroom significantly

lower. However, in contrast to purely academic tasks in Swedish (reading,

understanding and writing texts), negative/critical pupils perceived themselves to

Table 3. Average scores (first rows) and standard deviations (second rows) for self-perceived

competence with respect to tasks in the academic domains of Swedish, English, and mathematics

for each of the eight goal orientations. The general question asked was, ‘‘How do you manage the

following tasks in …?’’

Task code and

description

Others-

now

(ON)

Preventive-

future

(PF)

Self-

now

(SN)

Self-

future

(SF) ON+PF SN+SF Integrative

Negative/

critical

Sw 15 (read and

understand a text)

4.41 4.30 4.22 4.38 4.57 4.33 4.46 4.22

0.72 0.75 0.79 0.70 0.61 0.74 0.70 0.84

Sw 16 (read aloud to

peers)

3.92 3.89 3.79 3.92 4.03 3.98 4.04 3.71

1.02 0.90 1.02 0.94 0.81 0.96 0.89 1.15

Sw 17 (write stories) 3.88 3.85 3.75 3.82 4.06 3.94 4.06 3.75

1.03 0.97 1.05 1.01 0.96 0.96 0.93 1.15

Sw 18 (tell stories to

teacher and class)

3.52 3.42 3.39 3.48 3.66 3.59 3.68 3.24

1.09 1.05 1.08 1.01 0.93 1.00 0.98 1.17En 19 (speak with

someone)

3.98 4.01 3.88 4.00 4.13 3.99 4.05 3.82

0.87 0.82 0.93 0.85 0.77 0.86 0.84 0.98

En 20 (read and

understand a text)

4.13 4.01 4.02 4.13 4.17 4.11 4.19 3.92

0.85 0.91 0.92 0.83 0.81 0.85 0.87 0.96

En 21 (understand

when somebody is

talking)

4.22 4.11 4.05 4.17 4.28 4.21 4.20 3.99

0.78 0.89 0.90 0.82 0.74 0.79 0.86 1.05

En 22 (write a story) 3.38 3.29 3.25 03.36 04.47 03.39 03.49 03.12

1.08 1.04 1.08 1.02 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.26

Ma 23 (do mental

calculations)

3.98 3.83 3.90 3.92 3.90 3.95 3.97 3.75

0.87 0.96 0.93 0.89 0.94 0.90 0.88 1.10

Ma 24 (do addition

and division)

4.26 4.23 4.15 4.25 4.33 4.29 4.31 4.01

0.81 0.80 0.86 0.81 0.77 0.78 0.80 1.10

Ma 25 (problem-

solving)

3.67 3.55 3.59 3.61 3.74 3.66 3.66 3.47

0.94 0.98 0.97 0.94 1.04 0.90 0.93 1.06

Ma 26 (calculate

percentages)

3.90 3.79 3.79 3.90 3.96 3.87 3.97 3.65

1.00 1.07 1.03 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.15

Ma 27 (calculate area

and circumference)

3.89 3.75 3.77 3.87 4.01 3.90 3.91 3.58

1.00 1.03 1.01 0.95 0.99 0.95 0.99 1.18

Ma 28 (explain

mathematics to

peers)

3.36 3.24 3.23 3.29 3.42 3.43 3.42 2.98

1.08 1.12 1.08 1.00 1.03 1.03 1.01 1.24

Note. Sw5Swedish, En5English, Ma5mathematics.

452 J. Giota



be as competent as others-now+preventive-future pupils at tasks which require social

competence within the context of the classroom.

In comparison with others-now+preventive-future as well as integrative pupils,

negative/critical pupils demonstrated lower self-perceptions of competence on all

tasks within the domain of English; that is, both purely academic tasks (reading,

understanding and writing texts in English) and tasks requiring social (commu-

nicative) competencies (speaking and understanding spoken English).

With the exception of self-perceived competence in doing mental calculations,

negative/critical pupils demonstrated significantly lower self-perceptions of compe-

tence than others-now+preventive-future as well as integrative pupils on all tasks in

this domain as well. The same goes for this pupil group and self-now pupils.

Self-Perceptions of Competence in Different Domains and Interest

The last analysis in this study concerned the relationship between self-perceptions of

competence in the seven assessed domains and personal interest in the contents of

these domains for the eight different goal orientations. In agreement with the finding

that no significant differences were present between others-now+preventive-future

and integrative pupils with regard to their self-perceptions of competence in these

domains (with the exception of self-perceived competence in Swedish), likewise no

significant differences are present in their interest in learning more about these

subjects (see Table B1, Appendix B). With respect to mathematics, however, thedifference between others-now+preventive-future and integrative pupils tended

towards significance to the advantage of the former pupil group ( 05 , p , 10)

Figure 3. Standardised (z) scores and standard deviations for each item referring to interest in

learning more with respect to the different academic and non-academic school subjects




As noted already, negative/critical pupils perceived themselves to be less

competent in Swedish, English and mathematics as well as social science than

others-now+preventive-future and integrative pupils. Table B1 (Appendix B) shows

that this pupil group also indicated less interest in learning more about these subjectsthan the other two pupil groups.

With respect to non-academic subjects, negative/critical pupils demonstrated,

however, an interest in learning more sports, an interest which was present in

comparison to both others-now+preventive-future and integrative pupils, who

indicated less interest in learning more about this subject. Figure 3 presents the

standardised (z) scores for each item referring to interest in learning more with

respect to these subjects.

Conclusions and Discussion

Global and Specific Self-Concept

Previous studies by Giota (2001, 2002) indicated that pupils holding an others-

now+preventive-future goal orientation are strongly focused on achievement rather

than learning per se and show higher achievements in mathematics in Grade 6. In the

present study this pupil group was thus expected to evaluate their own competencies in

mathematics higher than other pupils. In our assessment of self-perceived competence

a distinction was made between global competence for a particular school subject and

more specific, ability-related competence (Marsh & Hattie, 1996), which in

mathematics involved, for instance, problem-solving and calculation. With respect

to global self-competence, others-now+preventive-future pupils seem to evaluate their

own competence for all school subjects (with the exception of Swedish) as high as

integrative pupils, who demonstrated lower achievements in mathematics in Grade 6

than these pupils. This finding was also replicated with the more specific ability-related

competencies in mathematics, Swedish and English.

Self-now pupils demonstrate lower self-perceptions of competence than others-

now+preventive-future pupils when evaluating their abilities to accomplish specific

tasks in mathematics. In other words, while self-now and others-now+preventive-

future pupils perceive themselves as being equally competent in mathematics, thetwo groups differ with regard to different specific tasks within this academic domain.

These findings support Shavelson et al.’s (1976) assumption that individuals’ beliefs

about the self are hierarchically organised and involve beliefs about general or global

competence as well as beliefs about specific ability.

Negative/critical pupils perceive themselves to be clearly less competent with

respect to academic school subjects than others-now+preventive-future pupils.

Differences between these goal orientations were also evident in non-academic

school subjects (arts and music) with the exception of sports, where both negative/

critical and others-now+

preventive-future pupils felt less competent.When evaluations of competence of the eight goal orientation groups are

compared with respect to different specific tasks within Swedish English and

454 J. Giota



mathematics the negative/critical pupils appear to perceive themselves to be as

competent as the others-now+preventive-future pupils in telling things to the teacher

and class in Swedish, while with respect to different specific tasks within English they

feel less competent. With respect to mathematics, the negative/critical pupilsevaluated their competencies, with the exception of doing mental calculations, for all

other specific tasks lower than the others-now+preventive-future pupils. When

compared to the integrative pupils, lower self-perceived competencies were present

for all specific tasks within the three academic domains.

These results support Shavelson et al.’s (1976) distinction between academic and

non-academic self-concepts. Beliefs about the self are multidimensional and their

evaluations differentially related to pupils’ motivation or goal orientation. While

pupils with different goal orientations do not necessarily have to evaluate their

competencies differently with respect to undifferentiated academic school subjects,

they do so when particular school subjects are additionally differentiated into specific

abilities. In general, negative/critical pupils evidence lower self-perceptions of

competence for academic and social, but not non-academic school subjects. The

conclusion to be drawn is thus that these pupils do not perceive themselves to be

equally competent in two very important areas in their life.

The findings of this study also suggest that in order to adequately assess pupils’

self-perceptions of competence, a domain-specific and differentiated approach is

needed. The use of a single score or summing across several different content areas

will not reveal the richness or the complexity of pupils’ beliefs about themselves. In

other words, by using a single score rather than a domain-specific approach it isdifficult to determine the dimensions on which pupils perceive themselves in a

favourable or less favourable manner. However, the use of a domain-specific

approach to assess self-perceived competence or aspects of the self-concept does not

make the study of the relationship between the former and motivation or goal

orientations toward school and learning any easier. The results of this study suggest

that more research is definitely needed to clarify the complex relationship between

pupils’ motivation and self-concept.

Accurate and Inaccurate Self-Perceptions of Competence

The results of the present study show that negative/critical pupils underestimate their

competence. This pupil group believe that they are considerably less competent than

expected by objective measures in mathematics and other academic areas. According

to Giota (2002, 2004) these pupils perform as well in mathematics and other school

subjects as self-now pupils. In this study, negative/critical pupils demonstrate lower

self-perceived competencies for all specific tasks within mathematics as compared to

self-now pupils. Phillips and Zimmerman (1990) noted that underestimators are

most likely to hold very low expectations of future success, to believe that their

parents and teachers have low perceptions of them, to be more anxious, and to be

less willing to try hard and persist on academic tasks.




This study shows that negative/critical pupils, besides being underestimators, are

more anxious and show less perseverance than other pupils when confronted with

difficult academic tasks and social situations in school. These pupils also show lower

future expectations of success with respect to most academic school subjects andarts. According to Harter, Marold, and Whitesell (1992) failures in domains such as

the academic or social, in which success is important for pupils, as well as in domains

perceived to be important by parents, are powerful factors which may set off a chain

of potentially negative events. Equally powerful is support in the form of approval

from parents and peers. Support is here not only defined by its level or intensity but

also by the extent to which it is conditional upon meeting extremely high standards

set by parents or peers. Consequently, if adolescents feel incompetent in domains

which are important to them as well as to their parents, and feel a lack of support

from peers and parents, feelings of hopelessness may result. These reactions in turn

may lead to a constellation of factors, labelled the depression composite, which

includes low self-esteem, depressed mood and general hopelessness. This constella-

tion of depressive symptoms is highly likely to lead among other things to thoughts of

suicide (Harter, Marold, & Whitesell, 1992).

According to Giota (2001) some pupils holding a negative/critical goal orientation

toward school and learning evidence such depressive symptoms. These pupils

believe that they are in school ‘‘to be tortured to death, plagued, to get to know how

it is to be in prison, to feel very bad, to have nightmares’’, and so on. In addition,

negative evaluations of school are not always related to the school itself or the

teachers, but frequently to other pupils in school, when feelings of being bullied byother pupils are reported. Some negative/critical pupils also report that they do not

know why they are in school and that they do not care either. In short, some pupils

holding a negative/critical orientation apparently do not feel well in school and are

very unhappy about their situation (see also Giota, 1995). The present as well as

previously presented studies by Giota (2001, 2002, 2004) offer, in other words,

evidence that negative/critical pupils differ from other pupils. These pupils show

lower academic achievement and self-evaluations of competence as well as higher

levels of anxiety in Grades 6, 8 and 9.

Consequently, some negative/critical pupils may represent a high-risk group; theymay develop negative feelings toward themselves and negative social behaviour to a

larger extent than other pupils if no preventive or intervention efforts are made (see

also Covington, 1992). According to Harter, Marold, and Whitesell (1992)

interventions directed toward influencing pupils’ self-concept and social support

will have the biggest impact on pupils’ self-esteem and related outcomes.

Self-Perceptions of Competence and Interest

The final point of discussion concerns the question of whether there exists a similar

and related pattern of relationships between the goal orientations and the level of

pupils’ interest in academic and non-academic subjects and their grades. By relating

456 J. Giota



our findings to those of Giota (2001, 2002, 2004) two distinct patterns emerge.

First, negative/critical pupils show less interest with regard to academic subjects and

the non-academic subjects of arts and music than others-now+preventive-future,

integrative and self-now pupils. When grades are considered, negative/critical pupilsreceive lower grades for all these subjects than the others-now+preventive-future and

integrative pupils, but not the self-now pupils. Secondly, others-now+preventive-

future and integrative pupils show an equal interest in learning more in all subjects.

With respect to learning more in mathematics, the difference between others-

now+preventive-future and integrative pupils tended towards significance. In this

subject, others-now+preventive-future pupils showed higher achievement in Grade 6

than integrative pupils.

Summary

The findings of the present study suggest that the different types of goal orientations

that pupils possess toward school and learning are differently related to self-

perceptions of competence across a variety of academic and non-academic domains,

actual achievement and feelings of well-being in school. Depending on the orientation

and domain, pupils perceive their competencies either positively or negatively.

However, as noted already, pupils’ self-perceptions of competence have been

linked to most achievement behaviours, including effort, persistence and cognitive

engagement as well as actual achievement. Combined with the problem of pupils’

accuracy in self-evaluations of competence, the complexity of the relationshipbetween self-concept and achievement is evident. In addition, individual, develop-

mental and contextual differences may also affect the relation between self-concept

and achievement. Hence, additional research is required to increase our under-

standing of how self-perceptions, actual achievement and pupils’ motivation or goal

orientation interact and predict future behaviour at different ages, for different

students and in different contexts.

Acknowledgements

The Swedish Research Council financed the work reported here, for which I am

grateful. I also would like to express my gratitude to Professor Jan-Eric Gustafsson

and Professor Emeritus Bengt-Erik Andersson for their valuable support, advice and

helpful comments on my draft.

References

Assor, A., & Connell, J. P. (1992). The validity of students’ self-reports as measures of

performance affecting self-appraisals. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student

perceptions in the classroom (pp. 25–47). Hillsdale, NY: Erlbaum.Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation: Testing

multiple goal models Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80 706–722




Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment [No. 07-017 in the series

Quantitative applications in the social sciences]. London: Sage.

Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Damon, W., & Hart, D. (1988). Self-understanding in childhood and adolescence. Cambridge,England: Cambridge University Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In

R. A. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on motivation

(pp. 237–288). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and achievement.

Psychological Review, 95 , 256–273.

Ford, M. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agency beliefs. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

Giota, J. (1995). Why do all children in Swedish schools learn English as a foreign language? An

analysis of an open question in the national evaluation programme of the Swedish compulsory

comprehensive school. System, 23, 307–324.Giota, J. (2001). Adolescents’ perceptions of school and reasons for learning [Goteborg Studies in

Educational Sciences 147]. Goteborg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Giota, J. (2002). Adolescents’ goal orientations and academic achievement: Long-term relations

and gender differences. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46 , 349–371.

Giota, J. (2004). Stability and change in adolescents’ goal orientations and academic achievement

relating to gender. Unpublished work.

Harnqvist, K. (2000). Evaluation through follow-up: A longitudinal program for studying

education and career development. In C.-G. Janson (Ed.), Seven Swedish longitudinal studies in

the behavioural sciences. Stockholm: FRN.

Harter, S. (1985). Competence as a dimension of self-evaluation: Toward a comprehensive model

of self-worth. In R. Leahy (Ed.), The development of the self (pp. 55–121). New York:Academic Press.

Harter, S., Marold, D. B., & Whitesell, N. R. (1992). Model of psychosocial risk factors

leading to suicidal ideation in young adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 4 ,

167–182.

Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects, and treatment of test anxiety. Review of

Educational Research, 58 , 47–77.

Henderson, V., & Dweck, C. S. (1990). Adolescence and achievement. In S. Feldman & G. Elliot

(Eds.), At the threshold: Adolescent development . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (1992). Interest, learning, and development. In

K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development

(pp. 3–25). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist , 41, 954–969.

Marsh, H., & Shavelson, R. (1985). Self-concepts: Its multifaceted hierarchical structure.

Educational Psychologist , 20 , 107–123.

Marsh, H. W., & Hattie, J. (1996). Theoretical perspectives on the structure of self-concept. In

B. A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of self-concept: Developmental, social, and clinical considerations

(pp. 38–90). New York: Wiley.

Phillips, D., & Zimmerman, M. (1990). The developmental course of perceived competence and

incompetence among competent children. In R. Sternberg & J. Kolligian (Eds.), Competence

considered (pp. 41–66). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Reuterberg, S.-E., Svensson, A., Giota, J., & Stahl, P.-A. (1996). UGU-projektets datainsamling i

arskurs 6 varen 1995 [The ETF-project’s data collection in grade 6 in spring 1995; inSwedish] [Rapport 1996: 18]. Goteborg, Sweden: Institutionen for pedagogik, Goteborg

Universitet

458 J. Giota



Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct

interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46 , 407–441.

Skaalvik, E. M. (1997). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation: Relations with task and

avoidance orientation, achievement, self-perceptions, and anxiety. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 89 , 71–81.Wentzel, K. R. (1989). Adolescent classroom goal, standards for performance, and academic

achievement: An interactionist perspective on primary prevention. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 59 , 830–841.

Wylie, R. C. (1989). Measures of the self-concept . Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Table A1. The results ( p-values) of pair-wise ANOVA analyses on the scales for each of the 8 goal

orientations. A pair-wise comparison is shown by an arrow

Goal orientations and

comparisons GPC II IIAS PCS PCE PCM GA W S

ONRPF n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .020 .025 .024 n.s.

ONRSN .004 n.s. n.s. .000 .000 .001 .000 .001 .000

ONRSF n.s n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

ONRON+PF .04 n.s. n.s. .023 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

ONRSN+SF n.s. .007 .002 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

ONRInteg. .026 .001 .000 .000 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

ONRN/C .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

PFR

SN n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .038PFRSF n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .006 .007 n.s.

PFRON+PF .001 n.s. n.s. .001 .024 .023 n.s. n.s. .003

PFRSN+SF .009 .001 .042 .022 n.s. .006 n.s. n.s. n.s.

PFRInteg. .000 .002 .001 .000 .006 .001 .002 .008 .010

PFRN/C n.s. .000 .000 .037 .034 .018 .000 .001 .000

SNRSF n.s. .035 .025 .000 .000 .014 .000 .000 .000

SNRON+PF .001 .031 .036 .000 .001 .014 .009 n.s. .000

SNRSN+SF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .035 .000

SNRInteg. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

SNRN/C .032 .000 .000 n.s. n.s. .000 .000 .000 .000

SFRON+PF .004 n.s. n.s. .002 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

SFRSN+SF .016 .030 n.s. .046 n.s. n.s. .020 n.s. .015

SFRInteg. .000 .003 .004 .000 n.s. .025 n.s. n.s. n.s.

SFRN/C .005 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

ON+PFRSN+SF n.s. n.s. n.s. .041 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .016

ON+PFRInteg. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

ON+PFRN/C .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

SN+SFRInteg. n.s. n.s. n.s. .000 .025 n.s. .003 n.s. .000

SN+SFRN/C .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

Integ.RN/C .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

Note. n .s .5.05, p,.10. ON5others-now, PF5preventive-future, SN5self-now, SF5self-future,Integ.5integrative, N/C5negative/critical.

Appendix A. Pair-wise ANOVA analyses for goal orientations




Appendix C. Differences between the goal orientations for self-perceived

competence in academic tasks

Table C1. Differences ( p-values) between the 8 goal orientations for self-perceived competence

with respect to tasks within the academic domains of Swedish, English, and mathematics for each

of the 8 goal orientations

Goal orientations

and comparisons

Sw

15

Sw

16

Sw

17

Sw

18

En

19

En

20

En

21

En

22

Ma

23

Ma

24

Ma

25

Ma

26

Ma

27

Ma

28

ONRPF .016 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .041 .030 n.s. .014 n.s. .044 n.s. .036 n.s.

ONRSN .000 .002 .000 .003 .027 .005 .000 .004 .028 .001 .050 .012 .004 .003

ONRSF n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

ONRON+PF .016 n.s. .049 n .s. .054 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

ONRSN+SF .010 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

ONRInteg. n.s. . 006 .000 .000 n.s. n.s. n.s. .024 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

ONRN/C .000 .003 n.s. .000 .005 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000

PFRSN n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .024 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

PFRSF n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .06 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .048 n.s.

PFRON+PF .000 n.s. .028 .018 n.s. n.s. .035 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .009 n.s.

PFRSN+SF n.s. n.s. n.s. .006 n.s. n.s. .035 n.s. .037 n.s. .050 n.s. .011 .004

PFRInteg. .000 .008 .000 .000 n.s. .002 .072 .003 .015 n.s. n.s. .003 .009 .004

PFRN/C n.s. .032 n.s. .048 . 008 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .002 n.s. n.s. n.s. .006

SNRSF .000 .001 n.s. .026 .001 .003 .000 .012 n.s. .003 n.s. .007 .007 n.s.

SNRON+PF .000 .005 .001 .004 .002 n.s. .002 .018 n.s. .015 n.s. n.s. .004 .041

SNRSN+SF .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .008 .000 .000 n.s. .000 n.s. .047 .000 .000

SNRInteg. .000 .000 .000 . 000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .024 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

SNRN/C n.s. n.s. n .s. .024 n.s. .050 n.s. .048 .011 .009 .028 .019 .003 .000

SFRON+PF .003 n.s. .006 .047 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

SFRSN+SF n.s. n.s. .005 .011 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .002

SFRInteg. .006 .002 .000 .000 n.s. n.s. n.s. .004 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .002

SFRN/C .001 .002 n.s. .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .005 .000 .018 .000 .000 .000

ON+PFRSN+SF .000 n.s. n .s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

ON+PFRInteg. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

ON+PFRN/C .000 . 003 .004 n.s. .001 .005 .003 .004 n.s. .001 .011 .006 .000 .000

SN+SFRInteg. .000 n.s. .001 .022 n.s. .032 n.s. .017 n.s. n.s. n.s. .008 n.s. n.s.

SN+SFRN/C .030 .000 .003 .000 .002 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .001 .001 .000 .000

Integ.RN/C .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

Note. n .s .5.05, p,.10. ON5others-now, PF5preventive-future, SN5self-now, SF5self-future,

Integ.5integrative, N/C5negative/critical. Sw5Swedish, En5English, Ma5mathematics. The numbered

codes used for tasks are those used in Table 3.


articulo autoevaluacion

Documents

Transcript of articulo autoevaluacion