The classroom environment and students' reports of avoidance strategies in mathematics: A multimethod study.

Abstract

The relation between the learning environment (e.g., students' perceptions of the classroom goal structure and teachers' instructional discourse) and students' reported use of avoidance strategies (selfhandicapping, avoidance of help seeking) and preference to avoid novelty in mathematics was examined. Quantitative analyses indicated that students' reports of avoidance behaviors varied significantly among classrooms. A perceived emphasis on mastery goals in the classroom was positively related to lower reports of avoidance. Qualitative analyses revealed that teachers in high-mastery/low-avoidance and low-mastery/high-avoidance classrooms used distinctively different patterns of instructional and motivational discourse. High incidence of motivational support was uniquely characteristic of high-mastery/ low-avoidance classrooms, suggesting that mastery goals may include an affective component. Implications of the results for both theory and practice are discussed.

‘Generalist genes’ and mathematics in 7-year-old twins

“…In the field of educational psychology some environmental variables, such as aspects of classroom environment, teaching styles, and school environment, have been identified as significantly related to mathematical learning (e.g. Turner et al, 2002). Although the present study does not implicate specific environments, the important feature of the results is the modest effects of shared aspects of both home and school environments.…”

The Role of Teachers’ Self- and Collective-Efficacy Beliefs on Their Job Satisfaction and Experienced Emotions in School

“…For example, teachers' positive emotions positively affected the students of various grade levels regarding motivation, achievement and social behavior in classes (Turner, Midgey, Meyer, Gheen, Anderman, & Kang, 2002;Turner, Meyer, Midgley, & Patrick, 2003;Wentzel, 1996;Wong & Dornbusch, 2000). In contrast, teachers' yelling made the children to feel small, ashamed, guilty, embarrassed and hurt (Thomas & Montomery, 1998), and their negative emotions are predictors of students' development (Hamre & Pianta, 2001).…”

Relations between Teachers’ Goal Orientations, Their Instructional Practices and Students’ Motivation

“…Similar to personal goal orientations, classroom mastery goal structures and classroom performance goal structures are distinguished from one another, often complemented by a differentiation between approach and avoidance components within perceived classroom performance goal structures (Kaplan, Gheen, & Midgley, 2002;Meece et al, 2006;Schwinger & Stiensmeier-Pelster, 2011) 3 . It is assumed that teachers create a mastery goal structure if they emphasize the importance of learning and mastery, for example by using meaningful and individually challenging tasks, by making students responsible for personal improvement and understanding the subject matter, or by recognizing student effort and improvement (Patrick, Anderman, Ryan, Edelin, & Midgley, 2001;Turner et al, 2002). In contrast, it is assumed that teachers create a performance approach and/or avoidance goal structure if they strongly focus on grades and the accuracy of answers, realize a normative grading practice, use ability grouping and competition in the classroom, or reward high-achieving students with privileges and/or refuse privileges to low-achieving students.…”