Journal of Educational Psychology 2009, Vol. 101, No.

1, 51 69

2009 American Psychological Association 0022-0663/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0013200

Achievement Goal Orientations and Self-Regulation in Writing: An Integrative Perspective

Avi Kaplan
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

Einat Lichtinger
Oranim Academic College

Malka Gorodetsky
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
This study tested the hypothesis that self-regulation of writing is a multifaceted modular construct and that students would perceive different goal orientations for writing as involving the application of different writing strategies. Two hundred eleven Jewish Israeli high school students engaged in a writing assignment and then reported on their goal orientations, self-regulation, and writing strategies. Smallest space analyses indicated that self-regulation and writing strategies were perceived as elements within goal orientations, thus suggesting a phenomenological integration of motivation and self-regulation of writing into task-related action orientations. The findings pointed to possible differences in the nature of these action orientations between students from different types of learning environments and with different levels of writing achievement. Keywords: motivation, achievement goals, self-regulation, writing

In the past two decades, a growing body of literature has focused on understanding, assessing, and promoting self-regulated learning in educational settings (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001). Arguably, most conceptualizations of selfregulated learning view it as an individual-differences construct: a set of cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, and behavioral strategies that students, who have the strategic knowledge, use during engagement. Research has also emphasized the important role of students motivation in instigating and maintaining self-regulated learning (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001). Most empirical investigations have treated motivational constructs and self-regulated learning strategies as related but distinct theoretical entities and have hypothesized that higher motivation would lead to greater use of self-regulated learning. The current study proposes an alternative, complementary, perspective on the relations between motivation and self-regulated learning. We suggest that rather than being viewed as distinct entities, motivation and self-regulation strategies may be conceived of as integrated in the contextualized meaning that students construct for engagement in academic tasks. More specifically, we suggest that self-regulated learning is not a unitary set of strategies but is composed of different strategies, each of which may fit better the pursuit of different goals. Therefore, different motiva-

tional orientations for engagement would call for use of different strategies. Moreover, we contend that the perceived fit between specific strategies and certain motivational orientations may depend on the affordances in the educational context that are affected by the types of tasks administered and by teachers instructional practices. Thus, this perspective suggests that simply enhancing motivation for the task may not be enough to facilitate students adaptive use of self-regulated learning. Rather, attention should also be given to the motivational orientations that students adopt in each educational context as well as to the different learning strategies that students in that context perceive as relevant for engaging in the task when adopting different motivational orientations. The current study is a first step in a program of research that focuses on the relations of different motivational orientations for engagementstudents achievement goal orientations (Ames, 1992)and different specific learning strategies within different educational contexts. The aim of this study is to support the notion that motivational orientations and strategies may be integrated in contextual motivationstrategy orientations. The present study focuses on the subject matter of high school academic writing.

Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning

Self-regulated learning is the active, constructive process whereby learners set goals for their learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and behavior, guided and constrained by their goals and the contextual features in the environment (Pintrich, 2000a, p. 453). Research in the past years has focused on identifying general and domainspecific components of self-regulation, including cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, and behavioral strategies, by which students can actively and strategically control and modify their learning to achieve desired academic outcomes (Butler & Winne, 1995; Zimmerman, 1989).
51

Avi Kaplan and Malka Gorodetsky, Department of Education, BenGurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel; Einat Lichtinger, Department of Special Education, Oranim Academic College, Tivon, Israel. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Avi Kaplan, Department of Education, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva 84105, Israel, or to Einat Lichtinger, Oranim Academic College, Tivon 36006, Israel. E-mail: akaplan@bgu.ac.il or licht@012.net.il

52

KAPLAN, LICHTINGER, AND GORODETSKY

An important assumption in most models of self-regulation is that students motivation plays a crucial role in their adaptive engagement in the various phases of self-regulated learning. Zimmerman (2000) argued that self-regulatory skills are of little value if a person cannot motivate themselves to use them (p. 17). Students motivational beliefs, such as their self-efficacy for the task and for the use of self-regulation strategies or their valuing of the task for its own sake, are crucial for their actual and successful engagement in self-regulated learning (Zimmerman, 2002). One of the fruitful directions of research on motivation and self-regulated learning has been in achievement goal theory (Pintrich, 2000a). Unlike the outcome goals that students set when planning their engagement, achievement goal theory focuses on the broader purposes or orientations that students adopt for engagement in the task (Anderman & Maehr, 1994; Kaplan & Maehr, 2007). Traditionally, two such orientations have been defined: mastery goals orientation and performance goals orientation (Ames, 1992). Mastery goals refer to a purpose of increasing competence and thus to a concern with learning, understanding, and mastering the task. Performance goals refer to a purpose of demonstrating ability and thus to a concern with appearing smart and able and not appearing unable. Researchers also make a distinction between approach and avoidance orientations within mastery and performance goals, with approach orientations referring to a focus on the possibility of success and avoidance orientations to a focus on the possibility of failure (Elliot, 1999). Thus, masteryapproach goals refer to engagement with the orientation toward increasing competence, whereas masteryavoidance goals refer to engagement with the orientation toward avoiding deterioration of competence or of missing opportunities for learning. Performanceapproach goals refer to engagement with the orientation toward demonstration of high ability, whereas performance avoidance goals refer to engagement with the orientation to avoid demonstration of low ability (Elliot, 1999; Pintrich, 2000a). Research over the past couple of decades suggests that achievement goals are associated differently with the various components of self-regulated learning. Findings strongly suggest that mastery approach goals are associated with initiation of self-regulation, choice of deep learning strategies, high self-monitoring and control of cognition during engagement, persistence in the face of difficulty, interpretation of feedback in relation to progress, and selfevaluation of comprehension (Pintrich, 2000a). Findings also suggest strongly that performanceavoidance goals are negatively associated with adaptive self-regulated learning and are associated positively with avoidance of effort and with self-handicapping strategies (Urdan & Midgley, 2001). Findings from research concerning performanceapproach goals are more complex. Several studies suggest that performanceapproach goals are positively associated with adaptive self-regulation (e.g., Bouffard, Boisvert, Vezeau, & Larouche, 1995; Pintrich, 2000b; Wolters, Yu, & Pintrich, 1996). However, there are other studies that suggest that this motivational orientation is unrelated to positive indicators of self-regulation (e.g., Kaplan & Midgley, 1997) and some that suggest that this motivational orientation is related to some undesired cognitive, emotional, and behavioral processes that provide negative indicators of self-regulation (Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Miller, Behrens, Greene, & Newman, 1993). Research on masteryavoidance goals is still scarce, and no generalization can be stated at this point about the association of this motivational

orientation with cognitive and motivational strategies (Pintrich, 2003). In addition to research on students personal achievement goals, some research has also investigated the relations between environmental emphases on different achievement goals environmental goal structuresand aspects of self-regulated learning. Although little of this research has focused specifically on self-regulation, findings do suggest that students who perceive the teacher as emphasizing mastery goals are more likely to use adaptive cognitive, emotional, and behavioral regulatory strategies, such as positive coping, help seeking, and expenditure of effort, than are students who perceive the teacher as emphasizing performance goals (Ames & Archer, 1988; Kaplan & Midglely, 1999; Newman, 1998; Ryan, Gheen, & Midgley, 1998; Urdan & Midgley, 2003).

Integrating Motivational Orientations and Self-Regulated Learning

Past research in achievement goal theory has led to some important generalizations concerning the association of different motivational orientations and level of self-regulated learning. However, similar to research that highlighted the positive relationship between self-efficacy and self-regulated learning, most empirical investigations viewed achievement goals and self-regulated learning as distinct entities that are related quantitativelyfor example, suggesting that higher masteryapproach goals would be associated with more self-regulation. However, early conceptualizations of achievement goals suggested a different perspective of motivation and action than a linear quantitative relation. These early models viewed students actions as based in a comprehensive meaning that they constructed for engagement (Ames, 1992; Maehr, 1984; Molden & Dweck, 2000; J. G. Nicholls, 1989). This meaning involved the purpose for engagement as well as the actions that would promote the pursuit of that purpose (Maehr, 1984). From this perspective, mastery and performance goals orientations are not associated simply with higher or lower levels of self-regulation but rather with different types of self-regulation. Pintrich (2000a) suggested, for example, that masteryapproach-oriented students, who focus on learning and understanding, may set different objectives, monitor different types of cues, and choose to use different learning strategies than performanceapproach-oriented students, who focus on appearing able. More comprehensively, J. G. Nicholls (1989, 1992) contended that students motivational orientations represent a lay theory about what it means to succeed as well as how to achieve this success. For example, students who believed that success in a task is defined by deep understanding (i.e., mastery goals) also stated that success in school can be achieved through strategies such as working hard, cooperating with others, helping others, and trying to understand. In contrast, students who believed that success in a task is defined by demonstrating high ability (i.e., performance goals) also endorsed strategies for success such as trying to do better than others, impressing others, and behaving as if you like the teacher. Like Pintrich, J. G. Nicholls (1989) argued that students with different motivational orientations collect different data and interpret them differently (p. 102). Similarly, Maehr (1984) argued that different achievement goal orientations involve different action possibilities: the strategies that the person perceives as available for him- or

MOTIVATION AND SELF-REGULATION

53

herself in the situation in light of his or her construction of the purpose of engagement. More recently, Kaplan and Maehr (2002) presented a dynamic model of achievement goal orientations, in which goal orientations are dynamically constructed in achievement situations through the integration of three main components: the perceived purpose of engagement in the situation, relevant self-perceptions (e.g., selfefficacy for the task, aspects of identity), and the perceived action possibilities for engagement. The integration of the three components results in a situated action orientation that involves the purpose for engagement and the actions to pursue that purpose. Kaplan and Maehrs model also emphasizes that all three of these components are themselves constructed within a cultural milieu and are affected by cultural meanings, including those of achievement, self, and engagement. Several empirical studies have attempted to investigate the integration of motivation and action. Ainley (1993), for example, attempted to support the notion that purpose and strategy are intertwined in action and that they represent an inherent unity (p. 396). She used a person-centered approach and found that students adopting different approaches to learning reported using different combinations of transformational (i.e., deep processing) and reproductive (i.e., superficial) learning strategies when preparing for exams. The profiles Ainley identified were composed of students level of ability and three styles of engagement: deep (similar to mastery goals), achievement (similar to performance approach goals), and surface (similar to work-avoidance goals). Her findings were that students with profiles that included relatively higher deep to surface approaches reported more transformational than reproductive strategies, whereas students with profiles that included relatively higher surface than deep and achievement approaches reported more reproductive than transformational strategies. Ainley also found that type of strategy used was related to students perceived ability in the subject matter. These findings point to the association between approaches for engagement and types of learning strategies used. However, the analytical technique used (multivariate analysis of variance [MANOVA] with purpose as the independent variable and strategy as the dependent variable) nevertheless treated motivational orientation and categories of strategies as distinct constructs. Brten and Samuelstuen (2004) focused on reading and used an experimental design in which they assigned one of three purposes for reading a social science text to high school students and then asked the students to report on four general self-regulation and learning strategies that they used when reading the text. The findings suggested that when reading for the purpose of preparing for a test, students reported more monitoring strategies and less organization strategies than students who read for the purpose of writing a summary or for discussing the material with peers. Moreover, the association of different purposes for reading with the use of certain regulation strategies was moderated by students prior knowledge of the topic. The findings clearly support a relationship between different engagement purposes and the use of different regulation strategies. Still, the methodology used falls short of allowing the conclusion that purpose and strategies are integrated in a comprehensive phenomenological meaning. Using an interview methodology, Lorch, Lorch, and Klusewitz (1993) found that college students pointed to different selfregulatory strategies involved when reading for school and when

reading by personal choice (e.g., leisure). In comparison with reading by personal choice, school reading was slower and involved less visualization and more rereading, thinking, memorization, monitoring of comprehension, critical analysis, relating content to previous knowledge, and use of supports. School reading also involved experiencing less enjoyment, emotion, and interest. The researchers also found distinctions between different purposes within the category of school reading. For example, reading as part of preparing for an exam was slower and involved more rereading, attention to details, memorization, and testing of understanding than reading for research or reading as part of preparing for class. The interview methodology focused on students constructions of different purposes for reading and the actions that are involved and suggests that purpose and strategies may be indeed integrated in students constructions of engagement. Perhaps the most comprehensive program of research to date supporting the phenomenological integration of motivation and strategies is Alexanders (1997, 2003, 2006) model of domain learning. The model, which is based on decades of empirical work, suggests that as students develop their competence in a domain, they increasingly integrate their motivation for the domain (represented in the model by interest) with their knowledge and with their engagement strategies. Less competent students, who are in the acclimation stage, have less interest and knowledge in the domain, engage with the purpose of acquiring and making connections between rudimentary concepts, and use surface learning strategies. Deeper learning strategies may be perceived by these students as detached from their purposes for engagement. Students with increased competence, who are in the competence stage, have more interest in the domain and more comprehensive and structured knowledge. These students engage with the purpose of solving problems in the domain, and they use a mix of surface and deep strategies. As they progress within the competence stage, these students integrate strategies in the domain into particular types of problem solving. Among the competent students, who are in the proficiency stage, there is a synergy between interest, knowledge, and strategies. These students engage with the purpose of learning as well as contributing to the knowledge in the domain, and they use primarily deep learning strategies in ways that are integrated with their engagement purposes.

The Role of Context

There seems to be support for the idea that when pursuing different motivational orientations, students would perceive different strategies as relevant for task engagement. However, the perceived relevance of specific strategies for engagement with a certain motivational orientation would also depend on characteristics of the context (Nicholls, Cobb, Yackel, Wood, & Wheatley, 1989). Different instructional practices and types of tasks afford the use of different strategies (Perry, Phillips, & Dowler, 2004). Moreover, contextual values and norms may imbue the same strategies with different meanings, thus affecting their perceived relevance for engagement. Thus, contextual characteristics may make certain strategies more or less relevant for students pursuit of different purposes for engagement. Indeed, motivational orientations that focus on developing competence (mastery goals) or demonstrating competence (performance goals) may call for different strategies in different subject matters (e.g., art vs. math), in

54

KAPLAN, LICHTINGER, AND GORODETSKY

different types of tasks (e.g., worksheet vs. a personal project), in different stages of learning a topic (e.g., acquiring concepts vs. developing critical perspectives), in different cultures, and under teaching methods with different philosophies (e.g., phonics vs. whole language). Thus, it may be that in different educational environments, students may construe different strategies as serving the same purposes of engagement. This suggests that when attempting to investigate and promote students use of specific self-regulated learning strategies, attention needs to be given not only to students motivational orientations but also to their perceptions of the relevance of these strategies for engagement in the particular context and task. Clearly, the hypotheses that students integrate certain strategies with motivational orientations and that the nature of these integrations may vary in different educational contexts, calls for a more differentiated, contextualized, and domain-specific approach to motivational orientation and learning strategies. Such an investigation requires specification of a repertoire of learning strategies for a task in a particular domain and mapping of the strategies that students perceived as available for different motivational orientations, in different educational environments, and among students with different characteristics.

their personal emotions and be creative in their writing; (b) an orientation to writing as a way of improving ones thinking skills and knowledge of subject matter that involved the belief that writers should be flexible in the strategies that they use; (c) an orientation to writing as a methodical act, with attention to structure and conventions (e.g., spelling, punctuation), that involved the belief that successful writing necessitates close attention to such conventions; and (d) an orientation to writing from a work ethic of conforming to authority as an act that requires investing high effort. These findings seem to suggest that various motivational orientations would indeed involve different perceptions of the strategies that would contribute to success.

The Present Study

The present study aims to support the notion that writing strategies and self-regulation may be perceived by students as integral to their motivational orientation for the writing task. A secondary aim of the study is to explore whether such integration may take different forms in different educational contexts. Thus, our hypotheses for the present study are that (a) different achievement goal orientations for a specific writing task will incorporate different learning and self-regulation strategies (cf. Silva & Nicholls, 1993); (b) the same achievement goal orientation for a specific writing task will incorporate different learning and self-regulation strategies in learning environments with different instructional practices and norms; and (c) the same achievement goal orientation will incorporate different learning and self-regulation strategies among students with different levels of ability, with strategies more integrated within goal orientations among high-ability students in comparison with low-ability students (cf. Alexander, 1997).

Self-Regulation of Writing
The present study explores the relations of achievement goal orientations and learning strategies in a specific writing assignment. Research suggests that capable writers regulate their actions and use a variety of strategies (e.g., Page-Voth & Graham, 1999; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1999). In addition to more general metacognitive strategies, such as monitoring, organization, and evaluation, and motivational strategies, such as regulating task value and efficacy, academic writing requires the use of domainspecific strategies, such as revising the text and being aware of and catering to potential readers. In the past few years, research concerned with identifying such strategies and investigating variables associated with their use has increased (Bruning & Horn, 2000). Nevertheless, research concerned with self-regulation in writing is relatively scarce (Graham & Harris, 2000). The present study is part of a larger project that aims to define writing-specific selfregulation strategies, develop a self-report scale of these strategies, and investigate relations between achievement goals and selfregulation in writing. Little research has investigated specifically the relations of achievement goals and self-regulation of writing strategies. In one of the few studies, Pajares, Britner, and Valiante (2000) found that (a) mastery goals were associated with writing self-efficacy and with self-efficacy for self-regulation of writing, (b) performance approach goals were associated with writing self-efficacy but not with self-efficacy for self-regulation, and (c) performance avoidance goals were negatively associated with writing selfefficacy as well as with self-efficacy for self-regulation in writing. In what may be the only study to date to explore the possible integration of motivational orientations and strategies in the domain of writing, Silva and Nicholls (1993) assessed American freshmens general motivational orientations and beliefs about successful writing and found four motivationwriting beliefs profiles: (a) an orientation to writing as an aesthetic and expressive act that involved the beliefs that to succeed, students should express

Smallest Space Analysis (SSA)

The hypotheses concerning the possible integration of motivation and strategy variables in this study make the use of personcentered analyses (e.g., cluster analysis), such as that used by Ainley (1993), inappropriate. Such methods rely on the a priori definition and construction of variables and therefore do not allow examination of the possible phenomenological integration of different variables. As our hypotheses focus on the nature of variables, a variable-centered approach is called for. However, factor analytic methods are also inappropriate for the purposes of the current study. Factor analysis assumes and seeks a simple structure as organizing the data. The method favors attention to unidimensional latent variables and, therefore, may mask complex relations among the items in the analysis. Thus, to test our studys hypotheses and investigate the possible ways by which students in different educational environments and with different levels of ability construe achievement goal orientations and writing strategies, we used SSA (L. Guttman, 1968; Lingoes, 1973; Shye, 1997). SSA is a nonmetric multidimensional scaling method that uses the rank order of bivariate correlations between each pair of items to form a pictorial representation of the interrelations among the items in the analysis in a Euclidean space. In the analysis, each variable (i.e., item) corresponds to a point in the space. The proximity of each pair of items in the resulting map represents the rank order, or strength, of the correlation between these items, relative to the rank order of all other relations between

MOTIVATION AND SELF-REGULATION

55

items included in the analysis. In providing a pictorial representation of the dispersion of items in a scale, SSA establishes the structural properties of variables (R. Guttman & Greenbaum, 1998, p. 25). It thus provides a geometric representation of the psychological space indicated by the participants responses to the items in the analysis (Shye, Elizur, & Hoffman, 1994). This visual representation can expose, and allow the examination of, underlying dimensions and structural relations that organize the participants responses to the different items. It thus breaks the boundaries between variables and allows constructs that share meaning to overlap. The analysis of the map starts with an examination of the degree of fit between the resulting organization of items in space and the observed correlations among the items. The fit is indicated by the GuttmanLingoes coefficient of alienation (Borg & Lingoes, 1987). The coefficient varies between 0 and 1, with lower values indicating better fit. A coefficient below .25 represents a reasonable fit, and a coefficient below .20 is considered a good degree of fit. The analysis follows with the specification of regions that correspond to the hypothesized theoretical constructs assessed by the items. Unlike a cluster, which refers to a group of items separated from other items by empty space, a region refers to a group of items separated by a theoretical boundary (R. Guttman & Greenbaum, 1998). A region signifies the universe of content, or the concept as it is represented by the responses of the participants. Each point in that region is a hypothetical item assessing one unique aspect of the concept. The items that appear in the map the observed dataare but an inevitably small sample of the potential items assessing the concept (Shye, 1978, 1988). Hence, the larger the region in the map, the more varied its meaning for the participants. This representation provides an opportunity to examine the meaning of items, of groups of items, and of the structure and form of the psychological space that groups of items capture in students responses in light of the theoretical assumptions concerning the distribution of items. For a more thorough discussion of the interpretation of SSA, see R. Guttman and Greenbaum (1998), Canter (1985), and Shye (1997). In the current study, we adopt a variable-centered approach for investigating the possible integration of motivational orientations and strategies: SSA analyses that include items assessing the various goal orientations, perceived goal structures, writing efficacy, and various strategies. The SSA allows the motivational items, which were constructed to assess distinct variables, to be distributed along with all other items, permitting items from various reliable scales to share space and thus indicate shared meaning. Findings of regions that include items from motivational scales as well as strategies would support our hypothesis concerning the phenomenological integration of motivation and strategies. The hypotheses that the integration of goal orientations and strategies may be different in different contexts and among students with different levels of ability is analyzed through separate SSA analyses for groups from different schools and different levels of achievement. In the present study, we collected data from students in two educational environments that ascribe to different educational approaches: traditional and authentic (cf. Newmann & Wehlage, 1993). The traditional approach to creating learning environments emphasizes abstract skill and specific content acquisition and their

evaluation. In comparison, the authentic approach emphasizes the relevance of learning to life outside of school by constructing environments that resemble the real world with its complexity and limitations. The tasks in authentic environments provide opportunities and possibilities that are present also outside academic settings (Herrington & Oliver, 2000; Roth, 1995). Thus, we may expect that students in authentic environments would endorse higher mastery goals and lower performance goals than would students in traditional environments. The difference in meaning of the task may also result in a more complex construction of the purpose of writing among students in authentic environments that may manifest in more integrated purposestrategy constructions.

Method Participants
Participants were 211 ninth-grade Israeli Jewish students (98 boys and 103 girls) from 11 classes in two high schools in the south of Israel. The two schools represent different learning environments. One school defines itself as a traditional environment that is geared toward excellence. Lessons in this school, writing lessons included, are characterized by recitation, homework, exams, and grades. Writing lessons are 45 min long and take place in the classroom. Students are tested frequently and receive numerical grades on their writing assignments and a term grade in writing three times a year. More often than not, writing topics are assigned by the teacher. Although the school prides itself on students achievements, it is also committed to creating a positive social environment, and social activities for students are abundant. All five ninth-grade classes in the school participated, and the sample included 151 students from this school. The other school defines itself as an authentic environment. Five years prior to data collection, this school became involved in a reform project that aimed to turn the school into an environment that is relevant to students lives. Most lessons in the school are now conducted with methods of inquiry. Lessons are 90 min long and take place in various settings (classroom, computer lab, library, yard). Writing lessons in this school are characterized by personal and group projects that concern issues relevant to students lives. Teachers use alternative methods of evaluation of writing assignments, and these are commonly meant to be formative and do not involve numerical grades. For example, the teacher provides personal verbal or written feedback at different stages of the writing project. End of the year evaluations are written and not numerical and focus on the students strengths and on points for improvement. This school is considerably smaller than the traditional school, as is often the case with alternative educational environments. Both ninth-grade classes participated, and the sample included 60 students from this school. The relatively small number of students from this school raises a concern regarding the reliability of findings. However, for the purpose of the study, it was important to sample a distinct group of students from a unique educational environment. These environments tend to serve a smaller population than do traditional schools.

Procedure
Participants completed a writing assignment in their classrooms. To make the experience as similar as possible to students norma-

56

KAPLAN, LICHTINGER, AND GORODETSKY

tive school writing experiences, we consulted teachers concerning the appropriate format, and it was the teachers who administered the assignment to students as part of a regular writing lesson. The assignment asked students to write an essay about the topic, What is true friendship? The instructions involved the suggestion to consider what characterizes a good friend and to compare relationships between friends to relationships between siblings. Teachers told the students that they would collect and evaluate the essays. Students were not limited by time. All students completed the assignment within approximately 30 min. Following completion of the assignment, research assistants entered the classrooms and asked students to complete a survey about their engagement in the writing task. Although such self-report instruments have limitations in comparison with other methods of assessing strategy use (e.g., think aloud, online reporting, stimulated recall), they are more efficient and have been shown to be valid when administered immediately after engagement (Pintrich, Wolters, & Baxter, 2000). The research assistants explained that the survey was part of an academic study of high school students experiences in academic writing and that responses were anonymous and confidential. The survey included scales that assessed students achievement goals for the task, their perceived goal structure for the task, their efficacy for the task, and the strategies that they used in the task.

Learning Questionnaire; Pintrich, Smith, Gracia, & Mckeachie, 1993; see Lichtinger, 2004; Lichtinger et al., 2006). Level of achievement. Students scores on the writing assignment provided an indicator of their level of ability in writing. The scores were determined according to the Israeli Ministry of Education standards, which assigns 40% of the score to content (quantity and quality of ideas that are relevant to the topic), 20% of the score to structure (rhetorical and graphical organization), 20% of the score to style (e.g., richness of vocabulary, grammar), and 20% of the score to aesthetics (e.g., clarity of handwriting, appropriate language). Each students assignment was independently coded by two writing teachers who were not from the research schools. There was 90% agreement between the two coders. In the cases where there was a difference in the coders evaluation, evaluations were averaged. Scores range on a scale from 0 to 100. Although achievement is an indicator of ability as well as motivation, students level of achievement on the task was deemed a sufficient indicator of the individual-difference component in the present study.

Analysis
The specification of boundaries between regions in the SSA maps in the current study involved a combination of theoretically informed and subjective interpretations. The main guiding criteria for specifying regions in the map were the theoretical assumptions of achievement goal theory about the distinctions among motivational orientations and goal structures. These theoretical assumptions provide hypotheses for the organization of items in the SSA maps. For example, on the basis of the theoretical distinction between mastery and performance goals, we hypothesized that the theoretical masteryperformance distinction would manifest in items that assess mastery goals falling on one end of the map, items that assess performance goals falling on the other end of the map, and items that may be perceived by participants to touch on both mastery and performance goals to varying degrees falling in between, depending on their perceived relative relation to the two constructs. The boundary separating the area with items assessing mastery goals and items assessing performance goals would create the mastery and performance goals theoretical regions. In addition to the masteryperformance distinction, the other theoretical assumptions that provided hypotheses concerning the organization of items in the present study were environmental goal structurespersonal goal orientations and approach orientations avoidance orientations. Another assumption concerned the distinction between items assessing motivational variables and the writing strategies. Because these distinctions are orthogonal to each other, we did not expect them to overlap and to be ordered sequentially (an organization labeled a simplex). This theoretical assumption led us to search for regions organized circularly, with dimensions crossing each other in the Euclidean space (an organization labeled a circumplex; R. Guttman & Greenbaum, 1998). Thus, boundaries were marked between regions in the map that housed items assessing the same motivational construct (cf. R. Guttman & Greenbaum, 1998). In addition, however, attention was given to overlapping clusters of items in the marking of regions. Thus, when possible, regions captured areas housing distinct motivational constructs. However, when groups of items assessing different constructs overlapped, regions captured this overlap.

Instruments
All items in the study appear in the Appendix. Achievement goals, goal structure, and academic efficacy. Personal masteryapproach goals, personal performanceapproach goals, personal performanceavoidance goals, mastery goal structure, performance goal structure, and academic efficacy were assessed with scales adapted from the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey (Midgley et al., 2000). These scales were translated to Hebrew and were used in previous studies that confirmed validity and reliability (Bereby-Meyer & Kaplan, 2005; Levy, Kaplan, & Patrick, 2004; Levy-Tossman, Kaplan, & Assor, 2007). Items were modified and phrased to focus on writing. Two items assessing masteryavoidance goals were adapted from Elliot and McGregors (2001) work, and the third additional item in this scale was written for this study. Learning strategies and self-regulation in writing. Fourteen self-regulation strategies in writing were assessed with a selfreport instrument developed and validated by Lichtinger (2004; Lichtinger, Kaplan, & Gorodetsky, 2006). The development of the instrument involved eliciting writing strategies through a process that included individual microlevel observations of the writing process of high-, middle-, and low-ability high school students and using the observation notes as a trigger for a stimulated-recall interview concerning strategies used in writing. The 100 strategies that emerged were transformed into self-report items and were administered as a part of a questionnaire to an independent sample of high school students. Factor analyses resulted in 46 items that assess 14 strategies, including cognitive strategies, such as reader awareness and eliciting a context; metacognitive strategies, such as monitoring content and regulating attention; motivational strategies, such as enhancing task value and administering self-praise; and behavioral strategies, such as seeking help. The validity of the instrument was supported through correlations with established measures of self-regulated learning (e.g., Motivated Strategies for

MOTIVATION AND SELF-REGULATION

57

Similar guidelines were applied to regions involving writing strategies. It is the organization of all of these items and regions in the spatial map, composed on the basis of the ordinal rank of relations among all items (rather than the absolute values of these relations), that provides an insight into the meaning of the items to students within each group. Of importance, as the studys purpose concerns the meanings underlying students construction of motivation and self-regulation strategies and the hypotheses concern the organization of items into regions, the analysis focuses on the emerging organization of items in the SSA maps and on comparing the organization of students from different groups. Although the studys hypotheses are tested with SSA, we nevertheless begin our analyses with a confirmatory factor analysis to establish the psychometric properties of the variables and thus provide a stronger basis for interpreting the relations between items. This also allows for comparison of the results from this study with those of other studies in the literature.

whether strategies are considered elements in students goal orientations for engagement, we elected to include these strategies in the analyses. Conclusions concerning the findings related to these four strategies should be taken with caution.

Correlations
Table 2 presents the correlations between the motivational variables and the writing strategies for the whole sample. The overall pattern of correlations among the motivational variables generally resembles the patterns found in other studies on motivational orientations. Masteryapproach goals were strongly correlated with academic efficacy and with mastery goal structure and weakly correlated with personal performance goals and goal structure. Masteryapproach goals were also strongly correlated with masteryavoidance goals. Masteryavoidance goals, in turn, were moderately correlated with the personal performance goals variables. Masteryavoidance was also correlated more strongly with performanceapproach and avoidance goal structure than with mastery goal structure. Performanceapproach and avoidance goals were very strongly correlated, equally weakly correlated with efficacy and with mastery goal structure, and strongly correlated with the performance goal structure variables. The two performance goal structure variables were strongly correlated. Masteryapproach goals, mastery goal structure, and efficacy were positively and significantly associated with all of the strategies as well as with achievement on the task. The magnitudes of the correlations, however, varied markedly between the strategies, ranging from r .20 to .75 for personal masteryapproach goals, from r .18 to .42 for mastery goal structure, and from r .15 to .54 for efficacy. Notably, the correlations between mastery approach goals and the strategies of task-value encouragement and planning ahead were very high. In comparison, mastery avoidance, performanceapproach and avoidance goals, and performanceapproach and avoidance goal structures were positively associated with some of the strategies but not with others. Of interest, none of these motivational variables was associated with checking and correcting or with eliciting context. These variables were also not associated with achievement on the task. Also, the personal performance goal variables were not associated with verbalization and planning during writing, performanceavoidance goals were not associated with organization, and the performance goal structure variables were not associated with help seeking. This pattern of relations also generally resembles findings from previous studies.

Results
A confirmatory factor analysis run using AMOS 5 (Arbuckle, 2003) with all items in the study supported the structure of the constructs, 2(898) 1,370.53, p .05, normed fit index .93, root-mean-square error of approximation .045. Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and reliability of the variables in the study. All motivational scales had satisfactory reliability. Seven out of the 14 writing strategies had good reliabilities, Cronbachs s .71 to .90. Three strategies had reasonable reliabilities at .66 or above. Three strategies (planning during writing, eliciting context, and help seeking) manifested a somewhat lower reliability of around .60, and one strategy (self-evaluation) manifested low reliability at .54. As the purpose of the study was not to make claims concerning specific strategies but rather to investigate more generally

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of Variables in the Study

Variable Masteryapproach goals Masteryavoidance goals Performanceapproach goals Performanceavoidance goals Mastery goal structure Performanceapproach goal structure Performanceavoidance goal structure Self-efficacy Attention regulation Checking and correcting Reader awareness Monitoring content Success encouragement Organization Verbalization Planning during writing Self-evaluation Eliciting context Task-value encouragement Planning ahead Self-praise Help seeking Achievement No. items 5 3 5 4 6 5 6 5 4 5 5 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 5 3 2 5 M (SD) 2.57 (1.07) 1.94 (0.85) 1.71 (0.89) 1.81 (0.87) 2.92 (0.96) 1.90 (0.83) 1.95 (0.81) 3.44 (0.95) 3.54 (1.06) 3.48 (1.24) 2.63 (1.03) 3.20 (1.04) 2.83 (1.23) 3.45 (1.17) 2.09 (1.20) 3.80 (0.86) 3.38 (1.06) 3.16 (1.08) 2.66 (0.93) 2.58 (1.09) 1.74 (1.04) 1.58 (0.69) 69.24 (14.18) .89 .67 .90 .79 .84 .75 .79 .79 .84 .90 .81 .66 .74 .79 .69 .60 .54 .59 .71 .72 .68 .61

MANOVA
To test the hypotheses concerning the possible relations of type of learning environment and of different levels of ability with the construction of motivational orientations and strategies, we divided the sample into four groups on the basis of school membership and level of achievement on the task (40% of students at the top and 40% at the bottom of the achievement distribution in each school). MANOVA analyses were conducted to characterize the students in the four groups. The results indicated that the groups differed significantly with regard to their motivational profiles, F(24, 447) 2.54, p .01; Wilkss lambda 0.69, p .001, 2 .12, and the patterns of writing strategies, F(42, 451) 2.16,

58

KAPLAN, LICHTINGER, AND GORODETSKY

Table 2 Correlations Between Motivational Variables and Writing Strategies

Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Masteryapp Masteryavd Performanceapp Performanceavd Mastery structure Performanceapp structure Performanceavd structure Efficacy 1 1.00 .55 .29 .27 .50 .33 .39 .50 .53 .35 .37 .46 .58 .42 .28 .47 .42 .31 .72 .75 .36 .21 .20 avoidance. p 2 1.00 .43 .38 .19 .39 .38 .28 .32 .14 .31 .35 .31 .24 .17 .29 .32 .07 .45 .26 .18 .33 .03 .05. p .01. 3 4 5 6 7 8

1.00 .82 .16 .63 .63 .21 .25 .14 .34 .23 .28 .21 .14 .12 .21 .13 .33 .23 .34 .20 .00

1.00 .17 .64 .69 .21 .23 .09 .39 .26 .25 .13 .11 .13 .23 .13 .33 .22 .29 .18 .09

1.00 .19 .32 .39 .33 .24 .18 .29 .42 .39 .20 .34 .33 .32 .39 .31 .27 .22 .25

1.00 .67 .26 .28 .11 .38 .28 .31 .30 .19 .25 .22 .03 .35 .32 .24 .07 .11

1.00 .32 .21 .14 .35 .23 .26 .24 .19 .21 .20 .09 .33 .24 .26 .10 .04

1.00 .42 .29 .29 .38 .45 .33 .17 .38 .38 .53 .54 .32 .26 .15 .25

Attention regulation Checking and correcting Reader awareness Monitoring content Success encouragement Organization Verbalization Planning during writing Self-evaluation Eliciting context Task-value encouragement Planning ahead Self-praise Help seeking Achievement Note. app approach; avd

p .01; Wilkss lambda 0.58, p .001, 2 .16. Levenes tests of equality of effort variance indicated that the assumption of equality was supported in all but one motivational variable (performanceapproach goals, F 3.84, p .01) and two strategies (planning during writing, F 6.79, p .001; and self-praise, F 3.90, p .01). Table 3 presents the results of Tukey post hoc tests assessing differences in the studys variables among the groups.1 The findings indicate that there were no differences among the groups in perceived mastery goal structure and in perceived performanceavoidance goal structure. However, the two groups of students in the traditional school reported significantly higher perceived performanceapproach goal structure than did the highachieving students in the authentic school. In addition, the lowachieving students in the authentic school environment reported significantly less self-efficacy and less masteryapproach orientation than did students in the traditional environment both high and low achieving. The low-achieving students in the authentic school environment also reported less masteryavoidance goals than did the low-achieving students at the traditional school. The low-achieving students at the traditional school, in turn, reported significantly more performanceapproach goals than did the highachieving students at the authentic school and more performance avoidance goals than did the high-achieving students at both the authentic and the traditional schools. No significant differences were found among the four groups in reported use of the seven strategies of regulating attention, reader awareness, success encouragement, verbalization, eliciting context, administering self-praise, and help seeking. The lowachieving students in the authentic school environment reported significantly less use of the six strategies of checking and correcting, monitoring content, organization, planning during writing,

self-evaluation, and task-value enhancement than did the highachieving students in the traditional school environment, and, except for monitoring content but with the addition of planning ahead, they reported less use of strategies than did the lowachieving students in the traditional school environment. The high-achieving students in the authentic school environment reported more use of checking and correcting than did the lowachieving students at the same school but less than did the highachieving students at the traditional school. The high-achieving students in the authentic school environment also reported less use of organization than did the high-achieving students at the traditional school. Overall, it seems that students at the authentic school were less likely to report use of strategies than their counterparts at the traditional school. This was particularly the case for the lowachieving students.

SSA
A two-dimensional SSA analysis that included items assessing motivational orientations, writing regulation strategies, and selfefficacy was conducted for each group.2 All coefficient of alienEach of the four groups significantly differed from all others on task achievement. However, for the purposes of this study, which aimed to test for differences among students with different levels of achievement within each educational environment, the labels high achieving and low achieving seemed appropriate. 2 Because the number of variables included in the analysis is relatively high and because the research question is concerned with the location of strategies within motivational orientations, the analysis included the motivational variables at the item level and the strategies at the scale level.
1

MOTIVATION AND SELF-REGULATION

59

Table 3 Differences Among the Four Student Groups on Motivation and Writing Strategies
Variable Masteryapproach goals Masteryavoidance goals Performanceapproach goals Performanceavoidance goals Mastery goal structure Performanceapproach goal structure Performanceavoidance goal structure Self-efficacy Attention regulation Checking and correcting Reader awareness Monitoring content Success encouragement Organization Verbalization Planning during writing Self-evaluation Eliciting context Task-value encouragement Planning ahead Self-praise Help seeking Achievement High-achieving traditional school (n 63) 2.68a 1.97 1.75 1.72a 3.19 2.10a 1.97 3.65a 3.56 3.95a 2.52 3.46a 2.85 3.99a,b 2.17 3.99a 3.61a 3.14 2.77a 2.65 1.65 1.54 81.68a High-achieving authentic school (n 25) 2.58 1.72 1.42a 1.46b 2.92 1.54a,b 1.69 3.41 3.82 3.13a 2.73 2.91 2.56 2.83b 1.90 3.61 3.20 3.46 2.38 2.49 1.74 1.45 76.88a Low-achieving traditional school (n 58) 2.84b 2.25a 2.07a 2.18a,b 2.81 2.09b 2.15 3.51b 3.74 3.55b 2.93 3.22 3.10 3.47a,c 2.20 3.89b 3.51b 3.09 2.90b 2.76a 1.97 1.76 60.73a Low-achieving authentic school (n 23) 1.96a,b 1.67a 1.58 1.85 2.71 1.75 2.02 2.87a,b 3.08 2.71a,b 2.46 2.78a 2.33 2.43a,c 2.00 3.29a,b 2.76a,b 2.67 2.10a,b 1.98a 1.50 1.56 49.65a

Note. Coefficients in the table are means. Coefficients in the same row that share a superscript letter are significantly different from each other. Coefficients without superscript letters are not significantly different from the other coefficients.

ation levels were smaller than .15, suggesting a good fit with the data. Three researchers independently drew the regions in each analysis, following the guidelines specified above. Although the guidelines provide clear steps, in some cases, the decision concerning the location of the regions may be given to different interpretations. The interpretations of the three researchers were compared, and a consensual solution for each map was chosen through discussion. In only three cases was there a somewhat different interpretation by one of the researchers that needed to be discussed. The minority opinions are noted in footnotes at the relevant place below. Figures 1 and 2 present the results of the analyses of the high achievers in the traditional and authentic learning environments respectively, and Figures 3 and 4 present the results of the analyses of the low achievers in the traditional and authentic learning environments, respectively. All items and their codes in the maps appear in the Appendix. The results pointed to some similarities but also to quite apparent differences between the SSA maps of the four groups. The similarities among the groups included a general distinction between regions with items assessing personal motivational orientations and goal structures (with the exception of a somewhat less clear distinction between performance goals and goal structures among high-achieving students in the traditional environment3). Also, in all four groups, the items assessing personal performance approach goals and performanceavoidance goals were integrated into one region. Another notable similarity among the groups was that certain strategies were integrated with items assessing mastery goalsparticularly masteryapproach goals. Value encouragement, for example, and, to some degree, attention regulation were integrated within masteryapproach goals among three out of the

four groups and were in close proximity to masteryapproach goals in the fourth group. These findings provide support for the notion that strategies can be perceived as integral elements within the purpose for engagement in the task. However, there were also quite marked differences between the maps of the groups. The patterns of differences can be described along students level of achievement, type of learning environment, and the intersection between type of environment and level of achievement. Level of achievement. The main clear difference between the maps of the high-achieving and low-achieving students was in the level of integration of writing strategies and motivational orientations. In the maps of high-achieving students, most, if not all, strategies were located within regions demarcated by items assessing the motivational orientations. In contrast, among the lowachieving students, although some writing strategies appeared within regions of the motivational variable, quite a few strategies did not.4 Type of learning environment. Some apparent differences between the maps seemed to be along the dimension of type of
3 One researcher suggested that in the map of the high-achieving students in the traditional environment, personal performanceapproach and avoidance goals and performance goal structure should be marked as distinct regions, similar to the map of the high-achieving students in the authentic environment. 4 One researcher suggested that in the map of the low-achieving students in the authentic environment, the masteryapproach goals/efficacy region should also include the group of strategies adjacent to it.

60

KAPLAN, LICHTINGER, AND GORODETSKY

papS4

Mastery avoid goals 7 region e3 mavI2 mavI1

Mastery-approach goals region mapI4

papS5

mavI3

mapI1

mapI5

pavS5 papS2 papS3 pavS6 pavS4 pavS2 papI4 papS1

11 12

mapI2

6 9 2

mapI3 8 mS5 mS2 mS1 mS6 mS3 mS4 e5

3 14

4
Mastery structure region

pavI2 pavS1

papI5 papI2 pavI4 pavI3 papI1 pavI1 papI3 Performance approach & Avoid goals & performance structure region

pavS3

10
e4

e2 e1

13

Efficacy region Legend Strategy Motivational items Approach mastery/performance personal goal orientation cluster

Figure 1. Smallest space analysis representation of motivation and strategies among high-achieving students in the traditional school environment. pap performanceapproach goals; mav masteryavoidance goals; map masteryapproach goals; pav performanceavoidance goals; mS mastery goal structure; e writing efficacy.

learning environment. For example, the strategies of planning during writing and self-evaluation were integrated within mastery approach goals among students in the traditional environment but not among students in the authentic environment. Of interest, among high-achieving students in the authentic environment, these two strategies seemed to serve personal performance goals. Similarly, the motivational strategy of self-praise seemed to serve personal mastery goals among students in the authentic environment but not among students in the traditional environment. Among high-achieving students in the traditional environment, self-praise seemed to be associated with efficacy, and among the low-achieving students in the traditional environment, it appeared in the personal performance goals region. Type of learning environment and level of achievement. There were also apparent differences between the maps along the intersection of type of learning environment and level of achievement. For example, differences between the two high-achieving groups in the different environments were apparent in the distribution of strategies within spaces of motivational orientations. Among the high achievers in the traditional environment, most strategies were found within the regions demarcated by items assessing mastery approach goals and mastery goal structure. Only one strategy, catering to the reader, was found in the performanceapproach goals region. In contrast, among the high achievers in the authentic

environment, strategies were distributed among both mastery and performance motivational orientations and goal structures. Also, in both high-achieving groups, some strategies appeared in the mastery goal structure region, however, although one strategy was similar in both groups (success encouragement) the other strategies were different between groups: eliciting context and help seeking in the traditional environment and verbalization and planning ahead in the authentic environment. The intersection of type of learning environment and level of ability was even more pronounced in the differences between the maps of the low-achieving students in the two environments. Among the low achievers in the traditional environment, there were quite clear regional distinctions between achievement goals, goal structures, and several strategies. In comparison, the map of the low achievers in the authentic environment was characterized by a close proximity of all of the items. In this latter map, a distinction could be noted on the personal goals environmental emphasis dimension and on the personal masteryapproach and performance goals dimension. The masteryperformance distinction did not manifest among the goal structure items. Overall, it seems that, in comparison with the relative organization of items in the map of the low achievers in the traditional school, the organization of items in the map of the low achievers in the authentic school seemed to correspond less with theoretical distinctions.

MOTIVATION AND SELF-REGULATION

mS4

61

12 mS4 3
Performance structure region pavS2 papS4 papS5 papS3 14 papS2 pavS6 pavS5 mavI1 pavI4 pavI2 papI3 papI1 papI5 pavI3 pavI1 pavS4 papS1 papI2 papI4 pavS1 mS5

Mastery structure region mS6

7
mS1 pavS3

mS2

e4

Mastery-approach goals & Efficacy region

2 1 13
mapI2 e5 mapI3 mapI1

mapI5

e1 mapI4

10

4 8
e3

11
e2 Legend

mavI3

6
Performance approach & Avoid goals & Mastery avoid goals region Strategy

Motivational items Approach mastery/performance personal goal orientation cluster

Figure 2. Smallest space analysis representation of motivation and strategies among high-achieving students in the authentic school environment. mS mastery goal structure; pap performanceapproach goals; pav performanceavoidance goals; mav masteryavoidance goals; e writing efficacy map masteryapproach goals.

Other clear differences along the intersection of students level of achievement and type of environment include the location of masteryavoidance goals items and efficacy items. Mastery avoidance items (a) were integrated with the performance approach and avoidance items among the high-achieving students in the authentic environment, (b) captured a unique region among the high-achieving students in the traditional environment, (c) were integrated with personal goals items among the lowachieving students in the authentic environment, and (d) seemed to create a central space in the map that overlapped the mastery approach/efficacy, mastery structure, and writing strategy regions among low-achieving students in the traditional environment. Efficacy items (a) were integrated in one region with mastery approach goals items among high achievers in the authentic environment and low achievers in the traditional environment, (b) captured a unique region among the high achievers in the traditional environment, and (c) encompassed all other regions among low-achieving students in the authentic environment. These findings are particularly significant in light of the acceptable reliability of the scales.

Discussion
The findings of the present study support the notion that selfregulation of writing is not a unidimensional construct. This im-

plies that students may vary not only in the level of self-regulation but also in the type of strategies they use while self-regulating their engagement in a writing task. Although it may be that some strategies are used in any type of self-regulation of writing, the use of other components of self-regulation and specific writing strategies may vary among self-regulating students. Moreover, the findings support the theoretical perspectives that propose a view of motivation and action as integrated (Kaplan & Maehr, 2002; J. G. Nicholls, 1992). The findings indicated that in all four groups of students, some strategies were located within regions demarcated by items assessing certain motivational orientationsmost particularly masteryapproach goals. In light of the satisfactory results of the confirmatory factor analysis and the reliability of the motivational scales, the findings imply that students construe these writing strategies as integral elements of purposes for engagement rather than as psychological entities distinct from task motivation. More comprehensively, the findings suggest that adoption of a purpose for engagement in a task, such as to learn and develop skills, also involves perception of the strategies that are relevant for such engagement. It may be said that students integrate motivation and strategies in an action orientation for the task. A few structural characteristics in the distribution of items in the maps suggested similarities in the constructions of the motivation

62

KAPLAN, LICHTINGER, AND GORODETSKY

pavS3

13 14
mavI1 Strategies region pavI3 pavS2 pavS5 PavI4 pavS1 pavS4

Performance approach & avoid goals region pavI1

pavI2 mavI2

3 4 5 12
mapI1 mapI5 mapI2 9 mapI4

Mastery avoid goals region

6 10

11

e3 e4 e1

e5

e2 mapI3

mS4 mS2 pavS3 mS6 mS1

papS4 Performance pavS5 structure region pavS4 papS5 pavS2 papS1 pavS6 papS3 papS2 pavS1 Legend Strategy Motivational items Approach mastery/performance personal goal orientation cluster

mavI3 mS3 mS5

Mastery-approach goals & Efficacy region

Mastery structure region

Figure 3. Smallest space analysis representation of motivation and strategies among low-achieving students in the traditional school environment. pav performanceavoidance goals; mav masteryavoidance goals; map masteryapproach goals; pap performanceapproach goals; mS mastery goal structure; e writing efficacy.

strategy orientations among all students in the sample. For example, students did not distinguish between performanceapproach and avoidance goals, suggesting a phenomenological integration of these conceptually distinct achievement goals in this particular setting and task. Future research should examine more directly the possibility that demonstrating high ability and avoiding demonstrating low ability may be more or less distinct in students construction of purposes for engagement in different units of analysis, settings, and types of tasks. In contrast, students did distinguish between personal goals and environmental goal structures, indicating that these high school students perceived a difference in the psychological meaning of personal orientations toward engagement and the environmental emphases on these orientations. In addition, there were two strategiesvalue encouragement and attention regulationthat all students seemed to view as serving masteryapproach goals. Thus, it may be that some writing strategies are more prone to be perceived as compatible with constructing deep understanding of the material, whereas others would be more compatible with demonstrating ability, developing creative or critical perspectives and skills, or achieving high grades. However, the findings also suggested that the nature of the action orientations may vary between students from different learning environments and with different levels of achievement. In addition to the similarities between groups in the strategies found in the masteryapproach region, there were also differences. For example, among students in the traditional environment, engaging with the purpose of learning and developing skills involved the strategy of self-evaluation and did not involve the strategy of self-praise. Students in the authentic environment seemed to hold the opposite view and saw self-praise, not self-evaluation, as

serving a mastery goal orientation. Self-evaluation was actually tied to the purpose of demonstrating ability among the high achievers in that environment. This suggests that in different educational environments and among students of different levels of ability, pursuing a task with what seems to be the same motivational orientation may call for different engagement strategies. Indeed, these and other findings seem to imply that there may be differences in the meaning of the motivational orientations themselves among students from different environments and with different levels of ability. For example, among capable students in the authentic environment and low achievers in the traditional environment, the purpose of learning and understanding seemed to be inseparable from students sense of efficacy. In contrast, highachieving students in the traditional environment construed efficacy as independent of motivational orientations. Among low achievers in the authentic environment, the efficacy region encompassed all motivational items. Thus, in light of the high reliability of the self-efficacy scale and the assumption that in SSA the size of a region indicates its psychological significance and complexity, we may conclude that among the low-achieving students in the authentic environment, purposes for engagement in the writing task were tied to efficacy. This was not the case in the other groups. It is interesting to note that the MANOVA results suggested that the low achievers in the authentic environment had the lowest level of efficacy for the task. However, this important finding fails to highlight what seems to be the central role of efficacy in engagement in the writing task for these students. Another example for the apparent differences in the meaning of motivational orientations among the groups involves the location of masteryavoidance items in the maps. Among high achievers in the traditional environment, the concern with avoiding not devel-

MOTIVATION AND SELF-REGULATION

63

Goal structure items region mS4

8
e2

7
Mastery approach goals items region

e4 pavS1 PavS4 mS6 mapI4 mS1 mapI2 papS4 pavS5 mS6 mapI1 papS1 10 e3 mapI5 mavI1 pavS2 mS3 12 pavI1 6 papS2 mapI3 pavS2 mavI2 pavS6 papS5 13 Mastery mS2 papS3 11 papI4 e1 mS5 5 avoid region pavI3 papI1 papI2 papI5 1 pavI4 Efficacy e5 4 papI3 9 region pavI2 mavI3

14

2 3
Legend Strategy Motivational items Approach mastery/performance personal goal orientation cluster

Performance goals items region

Figure 4. Smallest space analysis representation of motivation and strategies among low-achieving students in the authentic school environment. mS mastery goal structure; e writing efficacy; pav performance avoidance goals; map masteryapproach goals; pap performanceapproach goals; mav mastery avoidance goals.

oping competence was a unique purpose, conceptually distinct from other motivational orientations. In contrast, among high achievers in the authentic environment, this concern was inseparable from performanceapproach and avoidance goals and therefore seemed to be understood in terms of social comparison of ability. Finally, mastery avoidance goals seemed to capture significant spaces in the maps of low-achieving students in both educational environments: It was integrated with the various personal goals in the authentic environment and with performance goals and mastery and performance goal structures in the traditional environment. These findings seem to suggest that unlike high achievers, low-achieving students consider avoiding not developing competence as a general characteristic of engagement. This understanding is quite different from the one emerging from the MANOVA results, which indicated that level of mastery avoidance was higher among the low achievers in the traditional environment than among the low achievers in the authentic environment but not different between each of these groups and the high achievers in both environments. Thus, the findings of the present study seem to highlight the possibility that motivational orientations may actually mean something different for students who learn in different educational environments and with different levels of ability and that these

different meanings impel students to use different types of strategies for engagement. The confirmatory factor and MANOVA analyses demonstrate that the data in the current study manifest similar properties to data from other studies using these motivational scales. However, findings from the SSA maps raise questions concerning the efficiency of confirmatory factor analysis to confirm structural properties of variables. In addition, analysis of variance methods may not reveal all that there is to reveal about the meaning of motivational and engagement variables. SSA, with its different underlying assumptions and mathematical computations, may be a more useful method to elicit the structural properties and the meanings that groups of students assign to items assessing conceptually distinct constructs. Another important finding of the present study was that level of integration between motivational orientations for the task and writing self-regulation strategies differed by student achievement level. Unlike high achievers, low-achieving students in both school environments seemed to have construed a number of selfregulation and writing strategies as distinct from purposes of engagement. One possibility is that these low-achieving students do not construe a purpose for using these strategies. When students are not familiar with a certain strategy or do not feel highly skilled in the self-regulation of their writing, they are less likely to

64

KAPLAN, LICHTINGER, AND GORODETSKY

perceive such strategies as action possibilities for engagement. However, the relations depicted in the maps can still be interpreted as indicating a relationship between certain strategies and motivation toward the task. Therefore, an alternative interpretation may be that although the low-achieving students may perceive a relationship between purpose and strategies, their view of this relationship is rather mechanical (cf. Silva & Nicholls, 1993, third and fourth profiles). Thus, the findings may suggest that similar to novices, the low-achieving students viewed the strategies as distinct from the flow of the writing activity and as actions to be mastered separately from the overall task. In comparison, the high-achieving students manifested an expert pattern in which strategies are fully integrated into engagement in action (Alexander, 1997). Of interest, the findings also seem to suggest that the authentic environment may be less facilitative of strategies deemed beneficial for writing than the traditional environment. The highachieving students in the authentic environment seemed to be much less concerned with strategies such as checking and correcting, monitoring content, planning during writing, and organization than did the high-achieving students from the traditional school. They also reported lower use of self-evaluation and task-value enhancement. More worrisome, perhaps, is the possible indication that the authentic environment may be not facilitative for low-achieving students. First, the MANOVA results indicated that these students manifested the least adaptive motivational pattern. Moreover, the construction of motivation and strategies among these students suggested that, in comparison with the other groups, these students had a less clear view of distinctions between various purposes for engagement and of relations between certain environmental emphases, personal motivation, and strategies. This was particularly noteworthy when compared with the low-achieving students in the traditional environment. These findings seem to challenge the assumption that educational practices that are thought to emphasize mastery goals are beneficial for the adjustment of lower achieving students. Indeed, the findings highlight an important theoretical point, which is often overlooked: Mastery goal structure is a psychological construct rather than a set of practices (Maehr, 1991). Although scholars make recommendations concerning practices that are likely to emphasize mastery goals to students (e.g., Ames, 1992; Kaplan & Maehr, 1999), it is students perceptions of these practices that mediate their motivational processes and adjustment (Berliner, 1989). Further, as recent research suggests, students do not always interpret teachers practices as intended (Patrick, Anderman, Ryan, Edelin, & Midgley, 2001; Urdan, Kneisel, & Mason, 1999). The current MANOVA results may suggest, for example, that students did not interpret practices in the traditional and authentic educational environments as different in emphasis on mastery goals but rather as different in emphasis on performance goals: Students in the traditional environment perceived more emphasis on performance goals than did students in the authentic environment. These findings again point to the importance of focusing on the contextual meaning that students in different environments and with different characteristics construct for engagement. The above findings should be taken with caution. It is important to note that this study is a first attempt at investigating the integration of self-regulation of writing strategies and motivational

orientations. Replications are required before a strong statement can be made regarding the phenomenological integration of motivational orientations and strategies. Moreover, the current study used relatively small samples. This was due to the commonly small number of students in alternative schools and to the desire to investigate the processes in a unique educational context (i.e., students of a certain age in a particular school). As small samples make intercorrelations among items more susceptible to chance, no definitive general conclusions can be drawn concerning the structure of motivational orientations and strategies in authentic and traditional environments or with regard to the location of specific strategies in certain motivational orientations. Despite these limitations, the current study does support the more general notions of self-regulation as a multidimensional construct, of the phenomenological integration of motivational orientations and strategies into action orientations, and of the possible differences of these action orientations among students from different educational environment and of different level of achievement.

Theoretical and Educational Implications

Conceptualizing self-regulation of writing as a multidimensional construct, which may take different qualitative profiles, should lead to a more complex and critical view on self-regulated learning. Such conceptualization could also have implications for the facilitation of self-regulated writing. Arguably, most current perspectives on the role of self-regulation in learning view it as a unidimensional construct. Although a multicomponent perspective on cognitive or task-strategy training has been advocated and used by several researchers (e.g., Elliott-Faust & Pressley, 1986; Graham & Harris, 1989; Schunk, 2005), this seems not to be the case with the instruction concerning self-regulated learning. Moreover, the findings also imply that characteristics of the learning environment could be associated with different constructions of writing action orientations. The notion of the contextualized nature of the motivationstrategy orientation is in accord with recent sociocultural perspectives on motivation and engagement (McCaslin, 2004; McCaslin & Hickey, 2001; Turner, 2001). Different educational contexts that require students to engage in different types of tasks may afford opportunities for different types of self-regulation, attach different objectives to the same learning strategies, and organize social interactions in which teachers and students coregulate engagement differently (McCaslin & Good, 1996). Thus, the findings indicate that, regardless of level of achievement, writing may mean something different in different learning environments. These different meanings of writing include the orientation toward writing as well as how to engage in it (cf. Silva & Nicholls, 1993). The practical educational implications of these understandings are that educators who seek to facilitate students adaptive selfregulated learning in a subject matter should go beyond teaching a set of strategies and supporting students self-efficacy to use these strategies. These educators should attend to students purposes of engagement in the task and the strategies that they perceive as relevant for pursuit of these purposes. They should further investigate how the type of academic tasks and nature of instructional practices relate to students construction of action orientations. On the basis of these understandings, educators would be able to facilitate adaptive engagement through the modification of envi-

MOTIVATION AND SELF-REGULATION

65

ronmental affordances in ways that would support adaptive purposes of engagement and integration of adaptive types of selfregulation as elements of these purposes.

Limitations
The above interpretations should be qualified by the fact that this study is but an initial demonstration of the integration of self-regulation strategies and motivational orientations for engagement. The findings should also be considered in light of the relatively small size of the sample. Clearly, further support is required, including studies that replicate the finding that different self-regulation strategies are construed by students as actualization of different motivational orientations in larger samples, in different age groups, and from different countries. It is important to note that the studies would not need to replicate the location of the same strategies in designated motivational orientations, as these should be understood within the unique characteristics of the specific learning context and task. However, it would be quite interesting to explore whether such commonalities would be found among learning environments that share many characteristics. Another qualification to the findings of this study is that this investigation was conducted in a specific domain: writing. Recently, theorists have been emphasizing the domain specificity of self-regulated learning (Schunk, 2005). Research in other domains should investigate whether this finding can be generalized across domains, across learning environments, along development, and across groups of students with different characteristics (Pintrich & Zusho, 2002). SSA provides a handy method of analysis for such investigations. However, future research should use a verity of methods, including qualitative observations, talk aloud, and interviews, to corroborate understandings concerning the meanings that students construct for their engagement. The recent research programs that use online assessment of strategies (e.g., Ainley & Patrick, 2006) are particularly promising in this regard (see Turner, 2006).

Conclusion
In conclusion, the current study provided support for the notion that self-regulation is not a unitary construct, that motivational orientations and certain types of self-regulation strategies are integrated in the meaning that students construct for engagement, and that this meaning varies across educational environments and students characteristics. These understandings call for a more contextual and multifaceted approach to the assessment and also facilitation of adaptive engagement among students.

References
Ainley, M. (1993). Styles of engagement with learning: Multidimensional assessment of their relationship with strategy use and school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 395 405. Ainley, M., & Patrick, L. (2006). Measuring self-regulated learning processes through tracking patterns of student interaction with achievement activities. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 267286. Alexander, P. A. (1997). Mapping the multidimensional nature of domain learning: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and strategic forces. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 41, pp. 213250). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Alexander, P. A. (2003). The development of expertise: The journal from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32, 10 14. Alexander, P. A. (2006). Evolution of a learning theory: A case study. Educational Psychologist, 41, 257264. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261271. Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goal in the classroom: Students learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260 267. Anderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64, 287309. Arbuckle, J. L. (2003). Amos (Version 5.0) [Computer Program]. Chicago: SmallWaters. Bereby-Meyer, Y., & Kaplan, A. (2005). Motivational influences on transfer of problem-solving strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 122. Berliner, D. C. (1989). Furthering our understanding of motivation and environments. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Goals and cognitions (Vol. 3, pp. 317342). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Borg, I., & Lingoes, J. (1987). Multidimensional similarity structure analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag. Bouffard, T., Boisvert, J., Vezeau, C., & Larouche, C. (1995). The impact of goal orientation on self-regulation and performance among college students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 317329. Brten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2004). Does the influence of reading purpose on reports of strategic text processing depend on students topic knowledge? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 324 336. Bruning, R., & Horn, C. (2000). Developing motivation to write. Educational Psychologist, 35, 2537. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulation learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245281. Canter, D. (Ed.). (1985). Facet theory: Approaches to social research. New York: Springer-Verlag. Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169 189. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. (2001). A 2 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501519. Elliott-Faust, D. J., & Pressley, M. (1986). How to teach comparison processing to increase childrens short- and long-term listening comprehension monitoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 2733. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 312. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989). Cognitive training: Implications for written language. In J. Hughes & R. Hall (Eds.), Cognitive behavioral psychology in the schools: A comprehensive handbook (pp. 247279). New York: Guilford Press. Guttman, L. (1968). A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinate space for a configuration of points. Psychometrika, 33, 469 506. Guttman, R., & Greenbaum, C. W. (1998). Facet theory: Its development and current status. European Psychologist, 3, 1336. Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic environments. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 48, 23 48. Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (1999). Enhancing the motivation of African American students: An achievement goal theory perspective. Journal of Negro Education, 68, 2335. Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2002). Adolescents achievement goals: Situating motivation in socio-cultural contexts. In F. Pajaers & T. Urdan (Eds.), Adolescence and education: Academic motivation of adolescents (Vol. 2, pp. 125167). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

66

KAPLAN, LICHTINGER, AND GORODETSKY Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1993). Five criteria for authentic instruction. Educational Leadership, 50, 8 12. Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Students as educational theorists. In D. Schunk & J. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 267286). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Nicholls, J. G., Cobb, P., Yackel, E., Wood, T., & Wheatley, G. (1989). Students theories about mathematics and their mathematical knowledge: Multiple dimensions of assessment. In G. Kuhlm (Ed.), Assessing higher order thinking in mathematics (pp. 137154). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Page-Voth, V., & Graham, S. (1999). Effects of goal setting and strategy use on the writing performance and self-efficacy of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 230 240. Pajares, F., Britner, S. L., & Valiante, G. (2000). Relation between achievement goals and self-beliefs of middle school students in writing and science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 406 422. Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., Ryan, A. M., Edelin, K. C., & Midgley, C. (2001). Teachers communication of goal orientations in four fifth-grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 3558. Perry, N., Phillips, L., & Dowler, J. (2004). Examining features of tasks and their potential to promote self-regulated learning. Teachers College Records, 106, 1854 1878. Pintrich, P. R. (2000a). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544 555. Pintrich, P. R. (2000b). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Theory, research and applications (pp. 452 502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667 686. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D., Gracia, T., & Mckeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801 813. Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C., & Baxter, G. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. In G. Schraw & J. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 4397). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Pintrich, P. R., & Zusho, A. (2002). The development of academic selfregulation. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 250 284). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Roth, W. M. (1995). Authentic school science: Knowing and learning in open-inquiry science laboratories. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Ryan, A. M., Gheen, M. H., & Midgley, C. (1998). Why do some students avoid asking for help? An examination of the interplay among students academic efficacy, teachers social emotional role, and the classroom goal structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 528 535. Schunk, D. H. (2005). Commentary on self-regulation in school contexts. Learning and Instruction, 15, 173177. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice. New York: Guilford. Shye, S. (1978). Theory construction and data analysis in the behavioral sciences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Shye, S. (1988). Inductive and deductive reasoning: A structural reanalysis of ability tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 308 311. Shye, S. (1997). Smallest space analysis. In J. P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research methodology and measurement: An international

Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contribution and prospects of goal orientation theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 141187. Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (1997). The effect of achievement goals: Does level of perceived academic competence make a difference? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 415 435. Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (1999). The relationship between perceptions of the classroom goal structure and early adolescents affect in school: The mediating role of coping strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 11, 187212. Levy, I., Kaplan, A., & Patrick, H. (2004). Early adolescents achievement goals, social status, and attitudes towards cooperation with peers. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 127159. Levy-Tossman, I., Kaplan, A., & Assor, A. (2007). Academic goal orientations, multiple goal profiles, and friendship intimacy among early adolescents. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 231252. Lichtinger, E. (2004). Self-regulation in writing: The role of perceived environmental goal structure in the regulation of cognition, motivation, and behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel. Lichtinger, E., Kaplan, A., & Gorodetsky, M. (2006, September). Exploring self-regulation in writing among junior high-school students: A stimulated recalls study. Paper presented at the 10th International Conference of the EARLI Special Interest Group on Writing, Antwerp, Belgium. Lingoes, J. C. (1973). The GuttmanLingoes nonmetric program series. Ann Arbor, MI: Mathesis Press. Lorch, R. F., Lorch, E. P., & Klusewitz, M. A. (1993). College students conditional knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 239 252. Maehr, M. L. (1984). Meaning and motivation: Toward a theory of personal investment. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 1, pp. 115124). New York: Academic Press. Maehr, M. L. (1991). The psychological environment of the school: A focus for school leadership. In P. Thurston & P. Zodhiates (Eds.), Advances in educational administration (Vol. 2, pp. 51 81). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. McCaslin, M. (2004). Coregulation of opportunity, activity, and identity in student motivation: Elaborations on Vygotskian themes. In D. M. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Research on sociocultural influences on motivation and learning: Big theories revisited (Vol. 4, pp. 249 274). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. McCaslin, M., & Good, T. L. (1996). The informal curriculum. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 622 670). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. McCaslin, M., & Hickey, D. T. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A Vygotskian view. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 227252). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An under-explored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710 718. Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., et al. (2000). Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Miller, R. B., Behrens, J. T., Greene, B. A., & Newman, D. (1993). Goals and perceived ability: Impact on student valuing, self-regulation, and persistence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 214. Molden, D. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2000). Meaning and motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 131159). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Newman, R. S. (1998). Students help seeking during problem solving: Influences of personal and contextual achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 644 658.

MOTIVATION AND SELF-REGULATION handbook (pp. 677 684). Adelaide, Australia: Flinders University of South Australia. Shye, S., Elizur, D., & Hoffman, M. (1994). Introduction to facet theory: Content design and intrinsic data analysis in behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Silva, T., & Nicholls, J. G. (1993). College students as writing theorists: Goals and beliefs about the causes of success. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 281293. Turner, J. C. (2001). Using context to enrich and challenge our understanding of motivational theory. In S. Volet & S. Jarvela (Eds.), Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical advances and methodological implications (pp. 85104). Oxford, England: Elsevier. Turner, J. C. (2006). Measuring self-regulation: A focus on activity. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 293296. Urdan, T. C., Kneisel, L., & Mason, V. (1999). The effect of particular instructional practices on student motivation: An exploration of teachers and students perceptions. In T. Urdan (Ed.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 11, pp. 123158). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Urdan, T. C., & Midgley, C. (2001). Academic self-handicapping: What we know, what more there is to learn. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 115138. Urdan, T. C., & Midgley, C. (2003). Changes in the perceived classroom

67

goal structure and pattern of adaptive learning during early adolescence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 524 551. Wolters, C. A., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The relation between goal orientation and students motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 211238. Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). Models of self-regulated learning and academic achievement. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement (pp. 125). New York: SpringerVerlag. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Theory, research and applications (pp. 1339). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Achieving self-regulation: The trial and triumph of adolescence. In F. Pajaers & T. Urdan (Eds.), Adolescence and education: Academic motivation of adolescents (Vol. 2, pp. 127). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1999). Acquiring writing revision skill: Shifting from process to outcome self-regulatory goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 241250. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Appendix Items in Scales MasteryApproach Goals (mapI)

mapI1. Its important to me that I learn as much as I can from the writing assignment. In writing the assignment, it was important to me that I improve my skills and knowledge. One of my goals when I did the writing assignment was to learn as much as I could. It was important to me to really understand what there was to learn from the writing assignment. One of my goals when I did the writing assignment was to develop deep understanding of what we were learning. papI1.

PerformanceApproach Goals (papI)

When I did the writing assignment, it was important to me to look smart in comparison to the other students in my class. When I did the writing assignment, one of my goals was to look smart compared to others in my class. One of my goals in writing was to show others that this assignment was easy for me. When I was writing, it was important to me that other students in my class think I am good at it. One of my goals in doing the writing assignment was to show others that Im good at this work.

mapI2.

papI2. papI3. papI4. papI5.

mapI3.

mapI4.

mapI5.

PerformanceAvoidance Goals (pavI)

pavI1. pavI2. It was important to me that I didnt look stupid when I did the writing assignment. When I did the writing assignment, it was important to me that my teacher didnt think that I know less than others in class. One of my goals in the writing assignment was to keep others from thinking Im not smart. One of my goals in the writing assignment was to avoid looking like I have trouble doing the work.

MasteryAvoidance Goals (mavI)

mavI1. I was worried that I wont learn all there is to learn from the writing assignment. I was afraid that I might not learn all that I could from the writing assignment. I was concerned that I might not learn as deeply as I could from the writing assignment.

mavI2.

pavI3. pavI4.

mavI3.

(Appendix continues)

68

KAPLAN, LICHTINGER, AND GORODETSKY

Mastery Goal Structure (mS)

mS1. My writing teacher thinks mistakes in this writing assignment are okay as long as we are learning. e1. mS2. My writing teacher wanted us to understand our work, not just simply write it. My writing teacher really wanted us to enjoy writing this assignment. My writing teacher gave us time to really explore and understand new ideas in this assignment. My writing teacher helped us see how what we are writing about relates to real life. My writing teacher encouraged us to find interesting and different ways for doing the writing assignment. e2. e3.

Writing Efficacy (e)

I was certain I could do well in the writing task. I can do even the hardest writing assignments if I try. If I had enough time, I could have done a good job on the writing assignment. Even if the writing assignment was hard, I could have done it. If I dont give up, I can do well on the most difficult writing assignments.

mS3.

mS4.

e4.

mS5.

e5.

mS6.

Self-Regulation and Writing Strategies Metacognitive Strategies

Str. # 1. Attention regulation

PerformanceApproach Goal Structure (papS)

papS1. My writing teacher points out those students who get good grades in writing assignments as an example to all of us. My writing teacher lets us know which students get the highest scores on writing assignments. My writing teacher told us how we compare to other students in writing. My teacher told us that our main goal in writing this assignment should be to get the best scores. In this class, it is very important to get the highest scores in writing assignments.

a.

While writing, I focused on the page so that I wouldnt be distracted by other things. During writing, I made sure to concentrate on the work and not to think about other things. During writing, I didnt really make sure to focus on the work and not think about other things. (reverse scored) While writing, I told myself that I need to focus on the work and not to think about other things.

b.

papS2.

c.

papS3.

d.

papS4.

Str. # 12. Planning ahead of writing a. Before I wrote, I planned an outline of what Id be writing about. Before I wrote, I decided what would be the main idea Id write about. Before I wrote, I made a plan of what Id do during the writing.

papS5.

b.

PerformanceAvoid Goal Structure (pavS)

pavS1. My writing teacher said that one of our goals should be to show others that we are not bad in writing. My writing teacher told us that it is important that we do the writing assignment so it doesnt look like we cant do the work. In our writing class, it is very important to students to show others that they are not bad in writing. In our writing class, it is very important not to make mistakes in writing when others are watching. In our writing class, it is very important not to get lower scores than others. In our writing class, it is important that we dont look stupid.

c.

Str. # 4. Content monitoring a. While writing, I checked to see whether what I wrote was correct. During writing, I checked to see if what I was writing fit with what I wrote before. During writing, I went back to the instructions to see if what I wrote was related to the topic.

pavS2.

b.

pavS3.

c.

pavS4.

Str. # 6. Organization a. b. I wrote an ending that summarized the topics I wrote about. I wrote the main idea and later I elaborated on it. I wrote an introduction in which I presented the topic.

pavS5.

pavS6.

c.

MOTIVATION AND SELF-REGULATION

69

Str. # 2. Checking and correcting a. After I finished writing a section, I read to see whether what I had written was good. At the end of writing, I didnt really go back to see whether everything was OK. (reverse scored) After I finished writing a section, I didnt really go back to fix what was not good. (reverse scored) At the end of writing a section, I went back and read the section to make sure it was OK. After I finished writing a section, I went back to fix what I didnt think was good.

Str. # 13. Self-praise a. When I felt that I succeeded, I said to my self that I was good. When I felt that I succeeded, I gave myself a reward.

b.

b.

Behavioral Strategies
Str. # 14. Help seeking a. When I was writing and didnt know enough about the subject, I asked for help from my friends. When I didnt know how to write, I talked about it with my friends. When I didnt know enough about the subject, I asked for help from my teacher. When I was writing and didnt know how to write, I asked my teacher for help.

c.

d.

e.

b.

Str. # 8. Planning during writing a. During writing, I stopped to think how to phrase what I was going to write. While writing, I thought about what I was going to write next. During writing, I thought about how to connect one topic to the next.

c.

d.

b.

Writing Strategies
Str. # 3. Reader awareness a. When I was writing, I thought about who was going to read this, and it affected my writing. When I was writing, I imagined who was going to read this. When I was writing, I didnt think about who was going to read this (reverse scored). When I was writing, I thought about where the text was going to be, and it affected my writing. When I was writing, I was trying to persuade my readers.

c.

Str. # 9. Self-evaluation a. After I finished writing a section or part of it, I thought about whether what I had written was correct. After I finished writing a section or part of it, I thought about whether what I had written was good.

b.

c.

b.

d.

Motivational Strategies
e. Str. # 5. Success encouragement Str. # 7. Verbalization a. While writing, I reminded myself that if I work correctly, Ill succeed. During writing, I told myself that I could succeed in this task. b. Str. # 11. Value encouragement a. When I was writing, I was reminding myself that I have to do this task. When I was writing, I was reminding myself that this task is important to me. b. c. When I was writing, I told myself that I need to invest effort in this task. When I was writing, I said to myself that it is important to me to get a good grade. When I was writing, I read to myself out-loud parts of the instructions or of the text I already wrote. a. When I was writing, I told myself out-loud the words I was going to write.

b.

Str. # 10. Eliciting context a. When I was writing, I imagined pictures of what I was writing about. When I was writing, I felt again my emotions about what I was writing about. Received March 2, 2006 Revision received December 27, 2007 Accepted March 25, 2008

b.

d.