Social perceptions of achieving students and achievement goals of students in Malaysia and the...

Soc Psychol Educ (2010) 13:385–407DOI 10.1007/s11218-010-9118-y

Social perceptions of achieving studentsand achievement goals of students in Malaysiaand the Philippines

Allan B. I. Bernardo · Rosnah Ismail

Received: 12 January 2009 / Accepted: 27 January 2010 / Published online: 21 February 2010© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract The study investigates the hypothesis that country differences in achieve-ment goals of students are associated with differences in how students with differentachievement goals are perceived by students in different cultures. University studentsfrom Malaysia and the Philippine were asked to complete questionnaires on theirachievement goals and on their perceptions of hypothetical students who exemplifythe different achievement goals. The perception questions related to social goals suchas peer affiliation, personal qualities, and likeability. The achievement goals data indi-cated that Filipino students reported higher levels of mastery goals compared to theirMalaysian counterparts, who in turn reported higher levels of performance approachgoals. Hierarchical regression analysis indicate that country differences in mastery andperformance goals can be accounted for by differences in perceptions of mastery- andperformance-goal oriented peers, particularly those perceptions that relate to socialaffiliation and social approval. The results are discussed in terms of how achievementgoal constructs are perceived in different countries, and how differences in perceptionmay relate to some social dimensions in the adoption of achievement goals.

Keywords Achievement goals · Goal theory · Achievement motivation ·Social perception · Malaysia · Philippines

A. B. I. Bernardo (B)Counseling and Educational Psychology Department, De La Salle University, Rm 1609 Br AndrewGonzalez Hall, 2401 Taft Avenue, 1004 Manila, Philippinese-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

R. IsmailUniversity of Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia

123

386 A. B. I. Bernardo, R. Ismail

1 Introduction

The achievement goals theory has been a very popular framework used to study moti-vation and achievement in North America. The theory distinguishes between masteryand performance goals, and research has shown the relationship between each typeof achievement goal and various learning-related processes and variables (see Ames1992; Pintrich 2000). Despite the theory’s popularity, very little work has been doneto examine how social psychological processes influence the adoption of the differentachievement goals. There is even less work done specifically undertaken to study theadoption of achievement goals cross-culturally, and explain the difference in relationto social psychological processes. The goal of this paper is to study the difference inadoption of achievement goals between university students in Malaysia and the Phil-ippines, and to relate the differences found to how students in both countries sociallyperceive students with different achievement goals.

1.1 Achievement goals, learning, and achievement

Achievement goal orientation was defined by Ames (1992, p. 261) as “an integratedpattern of beliefs, attributions, and affect that produces the intentions of behavior andthat is represented by different ways of approaching, engaging in, and responding toachievement type activities.” Two broad categories of achievement goal orientationshave been defined in the literature: mastery and performance goal orientation. Mas-tery goal orientation [Ames 1992; also referred to as task-involved goals by Nicholls(1984), task-focused by Maehr and Midgley (1991), or learning goals by Elliot andDweck (1988)] focuses on the intrinsic value of learning and effort utilization. Astudent who is mastery goal oriented is focused on acquiring new knowledge andskills, improving their levels of competence, and gaining mastery in a specific domainof learning based on personal standards. Performance goal orientation [Ames 1992;Elliot and Dweck 1988, also referred to as ego-involved goals by Nicholls (1984), orability-focused goals by Maehr and Midgley (1991)] focuses on one’s ability and selfworth, particularly as evidenced by doing better than other students, or by surpassingnormative standards of performance (Ames 1992), with the corresponding public rec-ognition of this superior performance (Meece et al. 1988). The research literature alsodifferentiates between two types of orientations for mastery and performance goals:approach and avoidance (Elliot and McGregor 2001), and the difference between thetwo relates to the focus of the regulatory behaviors, that is either to attain (approach)a positive outcome or to avoid a negative outcome. However, the current study did notfocus on this dimension of mastery and performance goals.

Most research on goal orientation (see Ames 1992; Pintrich 2000; Pintrich andSchunk 1996 for reviews) suggests that compared to performance goals, mastery goalsare more strongly associated with school achievement. Mastery goals are also associ-ated with other adaptive/adjustment achievement-related outcomes like task interest(Harackiewicz et al. 1997), intrinsic motivation (Barron and Harackiewicz 2001; Elliotand Harackiewicz 1994), and task engagement (McGregor and Elliot 2002). The con-sequences of performance goals are less consistent (Ames 1992); but in some very

123

Social perceptions of achievement goals 387

specific cases, performance goals (especially when adopted with mastery goals) mayhave some positive achievement-related outcomes (see e.g., Harackiewicz et al. 1998,2002; Pintrich 2000).

1.2 Socio-cultural dimensions of achievement goals

Although most of the research on achievement goals has been done in North America,there have been investigations on achievement goals in different cultures. Most ofthese investigations apply the achievement goal theories and associated quantitativemeasures developed in North America (e.g., Elliot and Church 1997; Middleton andMidgley 1997) to students in different cultures. Some work has been done using theachievement goals framework to Asian students and some of the findings are consis-tent with the North American literature (Ng 2000), but most other research involvingAsian students indicate that the constructs might be operating differently (Hau and Ho2008). In particular, the related effects of mastery and performance goals on learningstrategies and achievement is a finding that has been shown in a number of studiesinvolving different Asian students. Several studies with Chinese (Chan and Lai 2007;Chan et al. 2005; Eaton and Dembo 1997; Ho and Hau 2008; Salili et al. 2001; Tao andHong 2000; Lau et al. 2008; Liem et al. 2008a; Xiang et al. 1997) and Filipino students(Bernardo 2003, 2004, 2005, 2008) have found significant correlations between stu-dents’ adoption of mastery and performance goals, and positive associations betweenboth mastery and performance goals, on the one hand, and deeper learning strategies(Bernardo 2003, 2004; Chan et al. 2005; Lau et al. 2008; Liem et al. 2008a) andacademic achievement (Bernardo 2005; Chan and Lai 2007), on the other.

Most Asian researchers explain the specific findings on achievement goals and onperformance goals, in particular, to unique features of the educational system andsome relevant cultural beliefs and practices found in Asian countries, but not in NorthAmerican countries. They argue that these achievement goals have different meaningsfor Asian students. For example, Tao and Hong (2000) contended that performancegoals were associated with achievement in Chinese students because these goals arerelated to social-oriented achievement motivations (Yu and Yang 1994) which arefound among Chinese students. Similarly, Bernardo (2008) argued that among Filipi-nos, performance goals are similar to mastery goals because both are associated withparent-oriented achievement motivations and with setting personal performance stan-dards. Unfortunately, none of these studies actually involved comparison data witha North American or any other culture, and thus the inconsistent pattern of resultsbetween Asians and North Americans remains tentative.

There are a few studies that explicitly compared Asian and North American stu-dents’ achievement goals, but these have also yielded inconsistent results. For example,Whang and Hancock (1994) argued that Asian students tend to be more mastery goaloriented than their non-Asian or Western counterparts. However, the results of studiesby Ng and Renshaw (2002) and by Salili et al. (2001) indicate the opposite. Even ifconsistent cultural differences become well established, the existence of cultural dif-ferences in and of themselves does not explain how the socio-cultural contexts actuallyshape the adoptions of achievement goals (Zusho and Pintrich 2003).

123


A more fruitful line of research involves those that relate cultural differences toparticular individual-level variables or cultural mediators. For example, Elliot et al.(2004) studied avoidance goals among Russians, South Koreans, Asian–Americansand non-Asian Americans. They demonstrated that avoidance goals were positivelyassociated with interdependent self-construals (linked to collectivist cultures) and neg-atively associated with independent self-construals (linked to individualist cultures).They argued that cultural differences in avoidance goals are actually related to differ-ences in self-construals.

In a comparison of students from two Asian countries, Liem and Nie (2008) founddifferences in the adoption of achievement goals between Chinese and Indonesianstudents. They examined the relationship between achievement goals and Schwartz’ten basic values, and found some similar correlations with Chinese and Indonesianstudents. For example, in both countries, the values of conformity and universalismwere positively associated with the adoption of mastery goals. They also found cor-relations between values and achievement goals that were unique to either Chinese orIndonesian students. However, they do not go so far as to claim that the differencesin adoptions of mastery and performance goals between the Chinese and Indonesianstudents are due to these patterns of relationships between goals and values. These fewstudies cited indicate how social or culturally-rooted variables such as self-construalsand values may be associated with the adoption of achievement goals.

Cross-cultural research in social psychology has emphasized the need to study suchcultural mediators for understanding cultural differences in psychological variables.This approach referred to as “unpackaging culture” (Matsumoto 2006; Matsumoto andYoo 2006) and involves looking at whether cultural differences in the target variableare actually mediated by cultural level variations in other individual-level variables(hence, the term cultural mediators). This approach prescribes an analytic procedurewhich involves regressing the target variable first into culture (a dummy variable), andthen into the cultural mediators using hierarchical multiple regression. The culturaldifference in the target variable is supposed to be verified by the significant coef-ficient for culture in the first step of the hierarchical multiple regression. The roleof the cultural mediators is assessed in the second step of the regression analysis.If the cultural mediators also have significant coefficients, and the regression coeffi-cient of culture is smaller compared to that in the first step, we can conclude that themediator accounts for supposed culture difference. Thus, in a sense, we unpackagedthe effect of culture by identifying the specific individual-level cultural mediator thatactually determines the cultural difference. If the regression coefficient of culture isreduced and is no longer a significant predictor of the target variable, we concludethat the individual-level variable completely mediates the effect of culture. But if theregression coefficient of culture is reduced but is still significant, we conclude that theindividual-level variable partially mediates the effect of culture.

Although this approach has gained popularity in cross-cultural research in socialpsychology and personality research (e.g., Pualengco et al. 2009), it has not been usedas extensively in education-related research in psychology. But there have been a fewattempts to apply this research design to education-related variables. One such attemptinvolved comparing how Australian students’ classroom social interactions differedfrom those in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Singapore, (Liem et al. 2008b). The study

123


showed that the cultural differences are partially mediated by cultural values such asconformity, social distance, and security, among others. However, there have been noprevious attempts to apply this approach to study cultural differences in achievementgoals, particularly to study how individual-level differences in social-psychologicalprocesses may mediate cultural differences in achievement goals.

1.3 Perceived social instrumentality and achievement goals

In our attempt to identify possible individual-level variables that may mediate culturaldifferences in achievement goals, we considered the different factors that have beenshown to influence students’ achievement goals in mono-cultural studies. For exam-ple, there has been much research on how different student perceptions and cognitionsinfluence the development and changes in achievement goals. The research has shownhow students’ perceptions of the goals and purposes of schooling (e.g., Nicholls etal. 1985; Simons et al. 2000), perceptions of the goals and structure of the classroom(e.g., Anderman and Midgley 1997; Greene et al. 2004), perceptions of the causesof academic success (e.g., Thorkildsen and Nicholls 1998), beliefs about the natureof learning and knowledge (e.g., Braten and Stromso 2004), and how these percep-tions change across the different school levels (e.g., Anderman and Anderman 1999),influence students’ adoption of achievement goals.

These research studies typically draw from the achievement goals theory devel-oped as articulated by Elliot (1999), which assumes that perceived instrumentalityinfluences the adoption of either mastery or performance achievement goals. The the-ory assumes that students will adopt a particular achievement goal based on theirperceptions regarding how learning and achievement relates to their personal needsand goals. Elliot’s theory assumes that the perceived instrumentality in relation toachievement needs is the primary concern. However, the theory is open to the possi-bility that other types of needs and concerns may influence the adoption of achievementgoals.

In this regard, many researchers have proposed how achievement goals may bedynamically related with students’ social goals. Urdan and Maehr (1995) noted manycases in the achievement-goals research literature where definitions of achievementgoals were actually closely related to social approval goals. Dowson and McIner-ney (2003) also noted various types of social goals (e.g., social affiliation, social ap-proval, social responsibility, etc.) that interact with students’ achievement goals. Urdan(1997) also demonstrated influences of peers’ positive and negative orientations to-ward learning and achievement on students’ adoption of mastery and performancegoals, and related such findings to the importance of social goals in defining one’sachievement goals. Thus, the adoption of either mastery or performance goals mightbe based on the perceived social-instrumentality of either goal. Urdan and Maehr(1995) even suggested that in some cultures, students who do schoolwork in order toplease their parents may actually be acting on mastery goals instead of performancegoals. Similar arguments have been proposed by Asian scholars when accountingfor the disparate findings related to the performance goals of Asian students (e.g.,Bernardo 2008; Chan and Lai 2007; Chan et al. 2005; Ho and Hau 2008; Tao andHong 2000).

123


1.4 Higher education and achievement goals in Malaysia and the Philippines

In this research, we examined the achievement goals of university students from Malay-sia and the Philippines. The focus on students from these two Asian countries allowsfor a test of our hypothesis that students’ social perceptions related to achievementinfluence their adoption of mastery and performance goals because previous researchindicates that whereas Filipino students tend to report higher levels of mastery goalscompared to performance goals (Bernardo 2003, 2004, 2005, 2008), Malaysian stu-dents report higher levels of performance goals compared to mastery goals (Ismail2006).

We speculate that the difference may be due to the contrasting higher educationalsystems in the two countries, which may foster different attitudes and social per-ceptions regarding mastery and performance goals. In particular, we suggest that theMalaysian higher education system is more competitive than the Philippine system,because the former has far fewer places in universities compared to the number ofapplicants. A study of the Asian Development Bank (2001) estimated that the 2000enrollment rate in higher education in Malaysia was only 14.2% compared to 34.3%in the Philippines. There were 49 public and 706 private higher education institutionsin Malaysia in 2002 (Lee 2004) compared to the 413 public and 1,305 private highereducation institutions in the Philippines during the same period (Tayag and Calimlim2004). Even if we consider that the population of Malaysia is less than that of the Phil-ippines, there are clearly fewer opportunities to enter higher education in Malaysia,especially in the more prestigious public universities.

Moreover, Malaysian public universities (including the university from which theparticipants in the current study were sampled) adopt ethnic-quota policies and merit-based criteria for admitting students (Lee 2004). Within such a system, we couldexpect that Malaysian students who gain admission in a state university must be quitecompetitive, and they probably have developed a strong valuing for normative basesfor setting and assessing their goals related to learning and achievement. Within sucha competitive context, students who are performance-goal oriented (i.e., who striveto do better than their classmates, who seek approval of teachers and fellow students,etc.) may be positively regarded because they exemplify the qualities that would allowa student to gain access to university, enrolled in their preferred program and courses,and to succeed in university. In an earlier study, Ismail (2006) noted this ethos ofhealthy competition among Malaysian university students, and how it is believed togenerate positive outcomes. However, she notes further that this healthy competitiondevelops performance goals that may be avoidant in orientation.

On the other hand, most Filipino students would have a wide range of options tochoose from when entering a university. Qualified students could gain admission inseveral universities with selective admission, and if they fail to do so, they still have achance to enter other institutions with less selective or even open admission policies. Asurvey of higher education institutions in the Philippines (Science Education Institute2001) indicated that most institutions adopt rather minimal admission requirements,and most institutions practically admit all applicants. Thus, without the pressure todemonstrate normative competence in order to gain admission to college or univer-sity education, the Filipino students sampled may be attending university for more

123


personal motivations. Thus, they may give more value to personal choice and standardsin setting goals for learning and achievement, and also give less value to competitionand normative demonstrations of achievement. Within this context, students who aremastery-goal oriented (i.e., who seek to learn for the sake of personal development,who set personal standards and do not care much for the approval of teachers, etc.)may be more favorably regarded, while those who are performance-goal oriented maybe less positively perceived.

In summary, we hypothesize that the higher education environments in Malaysiaand the Philippines may foster different attitudes and perceptions of students who aremore competitive and performance-goal oriented, on the one hand, and of students whoare more learning-oriented and mastery-goal oriented, on the other. Moreover, thesedifferences in perception would influence Malaysian and Filipino students’ adoptionof mastery and performance goals.

1.5 The present study

In the present study, we used the unpackaging-culture approach used in cross-culturalsocial psychology research to study Malaysian and Filipino students’ mastery andperformance goals. We sought to account for possible differences in reported achieve-ment goals between students from the two countries by referring to the students’social perceptions related to achievement goals as cultural mediators. We assumedthat students adopt particular achievement goals because these relate to some of theirsocial goals such as social affiliation and social approval. We considered three types ofsocial perceptions related to (a) peer affiliation, (b) social likeability, and (c) personalqualities. Peer affiliation refers to perceptions regarding the likelihood that one wouldhave close social affiliations or friendships with a student who exemplifies a partic-ular achievement goal, or that one would like to work with such a student in groupactivities in school. Social likeability refers to perceptions regarding the likeability,sociability and friendliness of a student who exemplifies a particular achievement goal.Perceived likeability can refer to being liked by the student’s classmates or teachers.Finally, personal qualities refer to perceptions that a student who exemplifies a partic-ular achievement goal possesses positive personal characteristics such as intelligence,morality, and happiness.

Regarding peer affiliation, we hypothesize that the adoption of mastery and per-formance goals would be associated with positive social affiliation perceptions withmastery- and performance-goal oriented students, respectively. That is, students whoperceive that they would have positive peer or class-related group affiliations with mas-tery-goal oriented students would be more likely to adopt mastery goals for themselves.Similarly, students who perceive that they would have positive peer or class-relatedgroup affiliations with performance-goal oriented students would also tend to adoptperformance goals. The hypothesis on peer affiliation is based on previous findings onthe importance of social affiliation goals among students (e.g., Dowson and McInerney2003; Nicholls et al. 1985) and the influence of the orientation of peers on students’achievement goals (e.g., Urdan 1997). In other words, students will adopt either mas-tery or performance goals if they perceive that students who exemplify these goals arepeers that they are likely to affiliate with.

123


Regarding social likeability, we hypothesize that perceptions on the sociability,friendliness and likeability of a student would influence the adoption of that student’sachievement goals. In other words, students are likely to adopt achievement goals ifthey perceive that students who exemplify such goals are well liked. However, thishypothesis should only apply to the adoption of performance goals but not of masterygoals. By definition, mastery goals do not involve the need for social approval. Inthis regard, we predict that perceptions of social likeability of mastery-goal orientedstudents would not be relevant to the adoption of mastery goals. On the other hand,the adoption of performance goals involves the desire to be recognized by significantothers, such as peers, parents, and teachers. Thus, we predict that perceiving that per-formance-goal oriented students are likeable, sociable, and friendly should predict theadoption of similar performance goals.

Related to the preceding point, we also predict that perceptions of positive per-sonal qualities would be associated with adoption of performance goals, but not ofmastery goals. Following the same arguments regarding the need to be positivelyregarded by significant others, we predict that students who perceive that performance-goal oriented students are intelligent, moral, and happy will be more likely to adoptperformance goals. No such associations are predicted for mastery goals.

We hypothesize that students’ decisions to adopt an achievement goal should berelated to their perceptions of how these goals are aligned with these social goals, andthat students from Malaysia and the Philippines would have different perceptions ofthese two achievement goals. Thus, any country-related differences on achievementgoals should be mediated by social perceptions related to achievement goals.

In summary, we predict that the perceptions of mastery and performance goal ori-entations would affect the adoption of these goals as these perceptions relate to twosocial goals: social affiliation and social approval. Positive perceptions that relate topeer or social affiliation should be associated with the adoption of both mastery andperformance goals. Positive perceptions that relate to social approval should be associ-ated with the adoption of performance goals only. Finally, we predict that these socialperceptions will account for country differences in mastery and performance goals.Thus, we hypothesize that social perceptions mediate the country differences on theadoption of mastery and performance goals.

2 Method

2.1 Participants

A total of 458 university students from Malaysia (N = 229) and the Philippines(N = 229) participated in the study as part of a class requirement. Because of theshorter length of the Philippine basic education system (Filipino students are onlyrequired to complete a 10-year basic education cycle to qualify for higher education),the Malaysian students were slightly older than their Filipino counterparts. For theMalaysians, the mean age was 20.59 years (range: 17–26 years); for the Filipinos, themean age was 18.08 years (range: 16–26 years).

123


2.2 Instruments and procedures

2.2.1 Achievement goals questionnaire

To assess the participants’ mastery and performance goals, the two scales from theachievement goals questionnaire developed by Elliot and Church (1997) and Harack-iewicz et al. (1997) were used. There were 18 items on the original scale, but only thesix items each for the mastery and the performance-approach scales were used in thecurrent study (the six performance-avoidance scales were not used). For this sectionof the questionnaire, the students were asked to decide whether the statement was trueor not for them using the same seven-point likert scale, with 1 = not at all true of me,and 7 = very true of me.

The achievement goals questionnaire was validated using separate ConfirmatoryFactor Analysis (CFA) procedures for the Malaysian and Philippine datasets. Thetwo-factor structure provided an acceptable fit to both the Malaysian (χ2/d f = 1.99;RMSEA = .065; CFI = .957; TLI’s = .947) and Philippine (χ2/d f = 2.41; RMSEA =.081; CFI = .942; TLI = .928) data. The internal consistency of both scales were verygood in both countries. For the Malaysian data, α = .90 for the mastery goal scale,and, α = .82 for the performance goal scale. For the Philippine data, the correspondingvalues were α = .87 and α = .85, respectively.

To establish the cross-cultural validity of the scales, an invariance analysis ofthe two-factor structure was conducted using a series of multigroup CFA proce-dures, which successively constrained the various elements of the model (Cheungand Rensvold 1999). In the first multigroup CFA, all the factor loadings, unique-ness, and correlations were freely estimated. The fit indexes for this CFA indicated anacceptable fit with the two datasets (χ2/d f = 2.20; RMSEA = .073). For the secondmultigroup CFA, the factor loadings were held invariant, and the fit indexes still indi-cated an acceptable fit (χ2/d f = 2.42; RMSEA = .079). Both the factor loadings anduniqueness were held invariant in the third multigroup CFA, and this also indicated anacceptable fit with the data (χ2/d f = 2.42; RMSEA = .079). Finally, the factor load-ings, uniqueness, and correlations were all held invariant and the fit indexes for thisfourth multigroup CFA no longer met the criteria for acceptable fit (χ2/d f = 2.92;RMSEA = .088). However, taken all together, the results of these multigroup CFA pro-vide good evidence for partial invariance of the two-factor structure of the achievementgoal scales.

2.2.2 Perceptions of achievement goals scales

To assess the participants’ perceptions of the mastery and performance achievementgoals, four vignettes were created describing a student who exemplified the character-istics of each achievement goal (see “Appendix” for examples). Two vignettes werecreated for each achievement goal, one describing a female student and the other amale student.

To check whether the participants perceived the student in the vignette as intended(i.e., mastery or performance oriented) a manipulation check was included in thescales. The participants were asked two manipulation-check questions: (a) “[Name of

123


vignette character] is motivated by his/her desire to learn as much as possible” for themastery goal, and (b) “[Name of vignette character] is motivated by his/her desire tobe better than others” for the performance goal.

To assess the participants of the vignette characters, the students were asked toindicate their perceptions of the person in the vignette by answering questions aftereach vignette. Three categories of questions on perceptions were assessed: (a) peeraffiliation, (b) positive qualities, and (c) likeability. The specific questions for eachcategory are as follows:

Peer affiliation

• In school, I have many close friends who are like [Name].• I would be happy to be work in a school group project with [Name].

Positive qualities

• [Name] is an intelligent student.• [Name] is a moral student who fulfills her duty as a student.• [Name] is a happy student.

Likeability

• [Name] is probably a sociable and friendly student.• [Name] is probably well liked by her classmates.• [Name] is probably well liked by her teachers.

For each question, the participants were asked to indicate their agreement using a6-point scale with 1 = strongly disagree and 6 = strongly agree. The responses for eachof the about questions were treated as independent variables referring to differentaspects of the participants’ perceptions of the two achievement goals.

3 Results

3.1 Manipulation check

In both countries, the respondents were rated the mastery-oriented vignette charac-ters as more motivated by the desire to learn compared to the performance-orientedvignette characters [Malaysia: Mmast = 4.90 vs. Mperf = 3.94; t (228)= 10.09, p <

.0001; Philippines: Mmast = 5.69 vs. Mperf = 3.04; t (228)= 25.90, p < .001]. Therespondents in both countries also rated the performance-oriented vignette charactersas more motivated by the desire be better than others compared to the mastery-ori-ented vignette characters [Malaysia: Mperf = 4.96 vs. Mmast = 4.63; t (228)= 3.93,p < .0002; Philippines: Mperf = 5.52 vs. Mmast = 3.62; t (228)= 19.81, p < .001].Overall the manipulation check items indicate that the participants in both countriesperceived the vignette characters as having the achievement goals intended by theresearchers.

123


3.2 Self-reported achievement goals

The Filipino students reported higher levels of mastery goals (M = 5.34, SE = .06)compared to their Malaysian counterparts (M = 4.98, SE = .07; F(1, 456) = 16.93,MSE = 0.88, p < .0001). Conversely, the Malaysian students reported higher levelsof performance goals (M = 5.34, SE = .06) compared to their Philippine counterparts(M = 4.13, SE = .08; F(1, 456) = 69.23, MSE = 1.28, p < .0001). These resultsmirror the results of separate studies that looked into achievement goals of Filipino(Bernardo 2008) and Malaysian (Ismail 2006) students.

3.3 Perceptions of achievement goals

The responses to the perception questions after each vignette were summarized andthe means are shown in Table 1. The univariate comparison of perceptions for theMalaysian and Filipino students (also shown in Table 1) indicate that in general,Filipino students had more favorable social perceptions of students with mastery goalscompared to their Malaysian counterparts. On the other hand, the Malaysian studenthad more favorable perceptions of students with performance goals compared to theirFilipino counterparts.

3.4 Hierarchical multiple regression analyses

To test the hypothesis that country differences in achievement goals are due to differentsocial perceptions associated with the achievement goals, two hierarchical multipleregression analyses were conducted, one for each achievement goal. Before undertak-ing the regression analyses, the correlations among the various scales were examinedand these are reported in Tables 2 and 3. Note that although some of the correlationswere high, no correlations were high enough to suggest multicollinearity among thevariables in the two datasets.

For each of the two hierarchical multiple regressions, the variable of country wasentered as the predictor in the first block. The eight perception variables were en-tered in blocks in the subsequent steps as follows: (a) second block: peer affiliation:close friend and groupmate; (b) third block: personal qualities: intelligent, happy, andmoral; (c) fourth block: likeability: sociable, liked by classmates, and liked by teacher.However, consistent with the procedures prescribed for unpackaging-culture research(Matsumoto 2006; Matsumoto and Yoo 2006), only those perception variables whereMalaysian and Filipino students differed significantly were entered in the analysis(see Table 1). Thus, the variable close friend was not included in the second blockof predictors for mastery goals; whereas the variables intelligent and moral were alsoexcluded in the third block of predictors for performance goals.

For the mastery goals, the results of the hierarchical regression analysis are shown inTable 4. The overall model accounted for 21.9% of the variance, F(8, 449) = 15.763,p < .0001. As hypothesized, the perceptions of peer affiliation account for a signifi-cant proportion of the variance of self-reported mastery goals. The adoption of masterygoals seems to be associated with the tendency to affiliate with similar goal-oriented

123


Tabl

e1

Mea

npe

rcep

tion

scor

esfo

rm

aste

ryan

dpe

rfor

man

cego

als

for

each

coun

try

Perc

eptio

nsM

aste

rygo

als

Perf

orm

ance

goal

s

Phili

ppin

esM

alay

sia

Uni

vari

ate

com

pari

son

Phili

ppin

esM

alay

sia

Uni

vari

ate

com

pari

son

MSE

MSE

Fp

MSE

MSE

Fp

Peer

affil

iatio

n

Clo

sefr

iend

3.90

1.01

3.79

.94

1.66

ns4.

41.9

24.

80.8

721

.01

.000

1

Gro

upm

ate

4.90

.95

4.36

1.08

32.3

0.0

001

3.59

1.11

4.28

.96

51.4

4.0

001

Pers

onal

qual

ities

Inte

llige

nt5.

03.7

94.

57.9

333

.97

.000

14.

47.8

64.

48.9

40.

02ns

Hap

py4.

89.7

74.

39.9

837

.28

.000

14.

66.7

14.

42.9

39.

75.0

02

Mor

al5.

12.7

64.

52.9

952

.58

.000

14.

41.9

14 .

36.9

90.

35ns

Lik

eabi

lity

Soci

able

4.48

.74

4.19

.87

15.5

7.0

001

4.81

.85

4.64

.93

4.18

.041

Lik

edby

clas

smat

es4.

52.7

84.

23.8

214

.97

.000

13.

621.

034.

411.

0764

.89

.000

1

Lik

edby

teac

her

4.67

.84

4.30

.94

19.1

8.0

001

3.61

1.01

4.22

.90

46.7

0.0

001

123


Tabl

e2

Inte

r-co

rrel

atio

nm

atri

xfo

rm

aste

ryor

ient

atio

nva

riab

les

12

34

56

78

9

1.C

ount

rya

−2.

Mas

tery

goal

orie

ntat

ion

−.19

∗∗∗

−Pe

eraf

filia

tion

3.C

lose

frie

nd−.

18∗∗

∗.3

2∗∗∗

−4.

Gro

upm

ate

−.26

∗∗∗

.42∗

∗∗.3

3∗∗∗

−Pe

rson

alqu

aliti

es

5.In

telli

gent

.−26

∗∗∗

.33∗

∗∗.1

3∗∗

.57∗

∗∗−

6.H

appy

.−27

∗∗∗

.37∗

∗∗.2

0∗∗∗

.56∗

∗∗.6

0∗∗∗

−7.

Mor

al−.

32∗∗

∗.3

9∗∗∗

.19∗

∗∗.6

0∗∗∗

.73∗

∗∗.6

5∗∗∗

−L

ikea

bilit

y

8.So

ciab

le−.

18∗∗

∗.3

3∗∗∗

.28∗

∗∗.4

9∗∗∗

.45∗

∗∗.6

2∗∗∗

.51∗

∗∗−

9.L

iked

bycl

assm

ates

−.18

∗∗∗

.32∗

∗∗.3

0∗∗∗

.55∗

∗∗.4

6∗∗∗

.59∗

∗∗.5

3∗∗∗

.72∗

∗∗−

10.L

iked

byte

ache

r−.

20∗∗

∗.3

3∗∗∗

.27∗

∗∗.5

7∗∗∗

.55∗

∗∗.5

9∗∗∗

.61∗

∗∗.5

7∗∗∗

.66∗

∗∗a

1=

Phili

ppin

es,2

=M

alay

sia;

∗∗p

<.0

1;∗∗∗

p<

.000

1

123


Tabl

e3

Inte

r-co

rrel

atio

nm

atri

xfo

rpe

rfor

man

ceor

ient

atio

nva

riab

les

12

34

56

78

9

1.C

ount

ry−

2.Pe

rfor

man

cego

alor

ient

atio

n.3

6∗∗∗

−Pe

eraf

filia

tion

3.C

lose

frie

nd.2

1∗∗∗

.73∗

∗∗−

4.G

roup

mat

e.3

2∗∗∗

.74∗

∗∗.4

9∗∗∗

−Pe

rson

alqu

aliti

es

5.In

telli

gent

.01

.29∗

∗∗.4

0∗∗∗

.26∗

∗∗−

6.H

appy

−.14

∗∗.1

6∗∗∗

.28∗

∗∗.2

3∗∗∗

−.29

∗∗∗

−7.

Mor

al−.

03.2

7∗∗∗

.32∗

∗∗.3

0∗∗∗

.50∗

∗∗.6

5∗∗∗

−L

ikea

bilit

y

8.So

ciab

le−.

10∗

.59∗

∗∗.4

7∗∗∗

.37∗

∗∗.3

6∗∗∗

.32∗

∗∗.3

7∗∗∗

−9.

Lik

edby

clas

smat

es.3

5∗∗∗

.71∗

∗∗.4

7∗∗∗

.59∗

∗∗.2

5∗∗∗

.18∗

∗∗.2

8∗∗∗

.45∗

∗∗−

10.L

iked

byte

ache

r.3

0∗∗∗

.73∗

∗∗.5

4∗∗∗

.61∗

∗∗.2

8∗∗∗

.13∗

∗∗.2

5∗∗∗

.45∗

∗∗.6

9∗∗∗

1=

Phili

ppin

es,2

=M

alay

sia;

∗ p<

.05;∗

∗p

<.0

1;∗∗∗

p<

.000

1

123


Table 4 Hierarchical regression model of mastery goals

Variables Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4

β β β β

Countrya −.189∗∗∗ −.086∗ −.045 −.047

Groupmate .400∗∗∗ .262∗∗∗ .246∗∗∗Intelligent .003 .003

Happy .116∗ .079

Moral .137∗ .125†

Sociable .074

Liked by classmates .003

Liked by teachers .008

R2 .036 .185 .216 .219

F change 16.925∗∗∗ 83.445∗∗∗ 5.864∗∗ 0.677

d f 1/456 1/455 3/452 3/449

a For country, 1 = Philippines & 2 = Malaysia; * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .0001, † p = .076

peers. Moreover, the effects of peer affiliation perceptions seem independent of theeffect of country. Note that although the standardized coefficient of country becamesmaller after peer affiliation was entered, the coefficient was still significant. Theperceived positive personal qualities also account for significant amount of variance,but perceived morality and happiness of mastery-goal oriented students were onlymarginally significantly associated with the participants’ adoption of mastery goals.Interestingly, when perceptions of positive personal qualities was entered into the anal-ysis, country dropped out as a significant predictor of mastery goal orientation. Whenthe final block of variables was added, there was no significant improvement in themodel; thus, perceived social likeability was not an important predictor of adoptionof mastery goals.

To summarize the results of the hierarchical regression on mastery goals, consis-tent with the hypothesis, students’ perceptions of affiliation with mastery-goal orientedpeers predict the likelihood of adopting mastery goals among the participants. Otherperceptions regarding mastery-goal oriented peers, such as their personal qualities andsocial likeability are not related to the tendency to adopt mastery goals. Finally, thecountry differences in levels of mastery goals disappear when we consider the effectsof differences in perceptions of affiliation with mastery-goal oriented peers in the twocountries. Thus, the effect of country on adoption of mastery goals is actually mediatedby these perceptions related to social affiliation.

For the performance goals, the results of the hierarchical regression analysis areshown in Table 5. The overall model accounted for 83.3% of the variance, F(7, 450) =320.502, p < .0001. The large percentage of variance accounted for suggests that theadoption of performance goals is highly related to perceptions of performance-goaloriented students. As hypothesized, the perceptions of peer affiliation also accountfor a significant proportion of the variance of self-reported performance goals. Theadoption of performance goals seems to be associated with the tendency to affiliate

123


Table 5 Hierarchical regression model of performance goals

Variables Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4

β β β β

Countrya .363∗∗∗ .114∗∗∗ .103∗∗∗ .112∗∗∗Close friend .482∗∗∗ .492∗∗∗ .330∗∗∗Groupmate .464∗∗∗ .472∗∗ .294∗∗∗Happy −.044 -.073∗∗Sociable .223∗∗∗Liked by classmates .145∗∗∗Liked by teachers .145∗∗∗

R2 .132 .737 .738 .833

F change 69.233∗∗∗ 521.417∗∗∗ 2.809 84.968∗∗∗df 1/456 2/454 1/453 3/450a For country, 1 = Philippines & 2 = Malaysia; ** p < .01, *** p < .0001

with similar performance-goal oriented peers. Moreover, as predicted, the adoptionof performance goals was strongly predicted by perceptions of the person’s sociallikeability and the positive quality of being a happy person. Interestingly, the effect ofcountry remained significant even after all the perception variables were entered intothe analysis.

To summarize the results of the hierarchical regression on performance goals, stu-dents’ perceptions of affiliation with performance-oriented peers predict the likelihoodof adopting performance goals among the university students who participated in thestudy. Consistent with the notion that performance goals involve the aim of demon-strating normative competence in order to be recognized by significant others, positiveperceptions on the sociability, the quality of being happy, and the likeability of perfor-mance-goal oriented students were significant predictors of the likelihood of adoptingperformance goals. Finally, we again see how the effect of country was actually med-iated by these social perceptions of the goal-oriented students. Although country wasstill a significant prediction of performance goals, the coefficient for country signifi-cantly declined after the effects of the social perception variables were considered.

4 Discussion

Although achievement goals have been studied in different countries in North America,Europe and Asia, not much work has been done to account for the possible differencesin achievement goals across countries. There is some indication in the research liter-ature that students’ adoption of particular achievement goals may be related to theirvarious social goals. In this study, we attempted to account for country-differencesin achievement goals by considering social perceptions related to these achievementgoals that also relate to social affiliation and social approval. The results indicate thatFilipino university students are more likely to adopt mastery goals compared to their

123


Malaysia counterparts, and that these differences are actually mediated by positive peeraffiliation perceptions of students who exemplify mastery goals. On the other hand,Malaysian university students are more likely to adopt performance goals comparedto their Filipino counterparts, and that these differences are mediated by positive peeraffiliation perception and perceptions of sociability and likeability of students whoexemplify performance goals. The results were generally consistent with the hypothe-ses, except that perceptions of positive personal qualities of performance-goal orientedstudents were not found to positively predict the adoption of performance goals.

Before we discuss these results more extensively, we should note some method-ological limitations that should be considered in a more careful interpretation of theresults. First, we cannot claim representativeness of the Malaysian and Filipino sam-ples in the study, as both samples of students came from only one university in eachcountry. Perhaps future comparisons involving both countries should consider draw-ing from a more diverse set of universities. Second, the questionnaires were given tothe students in English, which was the second language of most of the participants.Prior to administration of the questionnaires, the researchers ascertained whether theparticipants would be able to comprehend the questionnaire by inquiring a small num-ber of students. It was decided that the English questionnaires were comprehensible,and the confirmatory factor analysis in both countries suggest that the achievementgoal scales were valid for both countries. Nevertheless, the use of an English languagequestionnaire is a limitation of the present study and it would be important to deter-mine whether similar findings would be found if the questionnaires were administeredin Filipino and Bahasa Malaysian. Third, although the hypotheses of the study assumethat the perceptions of the achievement goals relate to the students’ social goals (i.e.,social affiliation and social approval), there was no actual assessment of these socialgoals. The researchers simply assumed that such social goals exist among the studentswho participated in the study.

These caveats notwithstanding, the results provide evidence for the notion thatsocial perceptions of achievement goals that are related to university students’ socialgoals may influence the particular achievement goals adopted by the students, andthat these perceptions mediate the country differences in achievement goals. For bothmastery and performance goals, the variance explained by country decreased as theperception variables were included in the regression model. And in the case of mas-tery goals, country was no longer a significant predictor after the perception variableswere considered. This pattern of results suggests that differences in social perceptionsrelated to types of achievement goals in Malaysia and the Philippines may actuallyaccount for the country differences in reported achievement goals. That is, Filipinostudents might have adopted higher levels of mastery goals compared to Malaysianspartly because Filipino students were more likely to perceive that they would havepositive interactions and relationships with mastery-oriented students. On the otherhand, Malaysian students might have adopted higher levels of performance goals com-pared to Filipinos partly because Malaysians were more likely to perceive that theywould have positive interactions and relationships with mastery oriented students, andthat these students are more friendly, happier, and well-liked by students and teachers.

What the study documented was a country-difference in a particular social percep-tion that may account for the country-difference in achievement motivations. But what

123


might account for the differences in perceptions of Filipino and Malaysian students?In particular, why would Filipino university students have more favorable percep-tions of mastery-goal oriented students, and why would Malaysian university studentshave more favorable perceptions of performance-goal oriented students? Other cross-cultural social psychology researchers (e.g., Schug et al. 2009) suggest that culturaldifferences may be explained by referring to the socio-ecological context. Thus, in theintroduction section, we speculated that these differences may be due to the contrast-ing higher educational systems in the two countries, and in the availability of accessto higher education, in particular. The Malaysian system seems to be more selective,and thus, requires students to be more competitive. Within such a system, Malay-sian students may have developed a strong valuing for normative bases for definingand measuring their learning and achievement goals. Thus, Malaysian students mayhave more positive social regard for their peers who are performance-goal oriented(i.e., who strive to do better than their classmates, who seek approval of teachers andfellow students, etc.) because these peers exemplify the qualities that would allow astudent to gain access to university, enrolled in their preferred program and courses,and to succeed in university. On the other hand, the Philippine higher education systemseems to be less selective, and thus, there is less pressure to demonstrate normativecompetence. Within this context, Filipino students may be less competitive, and theirmotivations may be more personal. Thus, they may give more value to personal choiceand standards in defining and measuring their learning and achievement goals, and alsogive less value to competition and normative demonstrations of achievement. Thus,Filipino students may have more positive social regard for peers who are mastery-goaloriented (i.e., who seek to learn for the sake of personal development, who set personalstandards and do no care much for the approval of teachers, etc.).

Unfortunately, the data from the study cannot verify whether Malaysian studentsdo perceive their higher education experience as being competitive or that Filipinostudents give value to personal choice in setting their achievement goals. Althoughthe latter assertion has been verified in qualitative studies that inquired into Filipinoadolescent students’ motivations for learning (Bernardo et al. 2008), it is important todirectly verify the role of these perceptions of the educational experience in shapingstudents social perceptions of their peers. This verification will need to be addressedin future studies.

But even as we can only tentatively explain the differences in perceptions of achieve-ment goals in the two countries, the results of the study already suggest that stu-dents’ social perceptions of their peers who are mastery- or performance-goal orientedare associated to their own achievement goals. Social affiliation is one of the socialgoals that have been identified in various research and theories on student motivation(Nicholls et al. 1985). Students’ various motivations in schools are sometimes relatedto the desire to build and maintain interpersonal relationships, and different behavioral,affective, and cognitive aspects of this social goal have been identified (Dowson andMcInerney 2003). In line with this social goal, the results of the study indicate thatpositive perceptions of peer affiliation with students with particular goals are asso-ciated with the adoption of the similar goals. Students who have close friends whoare mastery-goal oriented or who perceive that they can work well with such studentin their school projects are more likely to adopt mastery goals also. The same seems

123


to be the case for performance-goals. Thus, person perceptions related to the aim ofmaintaining interpersonal relationships may converge with one’s own goal choices.

The results also suggest that person perceptions related to the aim of getting socialapproval may also converge with such choices, but only with the choice of perfor-mance goals. Performance goals involve the motivation to achieve in order to gain theapproval or recognition of significant others. The results indicate that students whoperceive performance-goal oriented peers as sociable and well-liked by both teachersand students are more likely to adopt performance goals, too. Interestingly, the resultsdid not verify our hypothesis that perception of positive personal qualities of perfor-mance-goal oriented peers would also be positively associated with adoption of per-formance goals. This pattern of results underscores the importance of social approvalgoals. The results seem to suggest that perceiving the positive personal qualities ofa performance-goal oriented peer might not be sufficiently relevant or influential toone’s adoption of performance goals; instead, that peer must be perceived to be well-liked to be relevant to the adoption of such goals. After all, positive personal qualitiesdo not guarantee social approval.

A comparison of the regression models also indicates that the person perceptionsexplain much more of the variance of performance goals compared to mastery goals.This result suggests that these person perceptions are apt to be associated with stu-dents’ social goals, as performance goals are more likely to have a social dimension andmastery goals are more strongly associated with individual purposes and aspirations.

We should underscore that we are not claiming that there is a causal relation-ship between the perceptions and the adoption of achievement goals. Indeed, recentresearch (Ho and Chau 2009) has pointed to the methodological problems inherent instudying people’s social perceptions in interpersonal contexts, as the perceptions mayalso reflect projections of personality processes. Instead, we just note that there seemsto be a systematic relationship between peer affiliation perceptions related to achieve-ment goals and the adoption of such goals. A positive perception of peer affiliationmay influence the adoption of specific achievement goals, just as the adoption of anachievement goal may cause one to be more attracted to affiliate with those with sim-ilar goals. Similarly, perceiving that performance-goal oriented peers are well-likedmay lead the student to adopt a similar goal, just as the adoption of performance goalsmight make one assume a more positive stance towards similar peers. Future studiesthat carefully measure the same variables at appropriate points in time should be ableto more credibly argue for the causal relationships for these variables.

5 Summary

Many Asian researchers on achievement goals have suggested that Asian studentsascribe different meanings to the achievement goals, and as such, different patterns ofassociations are found between achievement goals and academic achievement com-pared to North American students. The current study probes a specific aspect of these“meanings” by inquiring into the perceptions of two different groups of SoutheastAsian students related to the mastery and performance achievement goals. The dif-ferent meanings that students from two countries may associate with mastery and

123


performance goals are likely to be linked to their perceptions of peers who exemplifythese two goals. Thus, their own adoption of either achievement goal was shown tobe related to these peer perceptions. Moreover, the study showed positive associationsbetween perceptions related to social goals and the adoption of achievement goals, thusproviding evidence to strengthen for the social dimensions of students’ achievementgoals. Finally, using the unpackaging culture approach to cross-cultural research, thestudy provided evidence for the hypothesis that differences in these perceptions thatrelate to social goals mediate the country differences in the adoption of achievementgoals.

Acknowledgments This research was supported by the Br. Arthur Peter Graves Distinguished Profes-sorial Chair, De La Salle University-Manila given to the first author, and by a Universiti Malaysia SabahFundamental Research Grant to the second author. We would like to acknowledge the assistance of AlphaZamora Tan and Assis Kamu in encoding the data, and of Ron Resurreccion, Ma. Caridad Tarroja, JohnAddy Garcia, Ferlis Bahari and Naimah Yusof for facilitating the data-gathering activities in the variousclasses.

Appendix: Vignettes used in study

Mastery goal

Steve wants to learn as much as he can in school. He prefers challenging tasks, even ifthese are difficult, as long at it makes him understand the topics as thoroughly as pos-sible. Steve does not worry about the evaluation of his teacher, and is more concernedabout his own standards of learning.

Xenia really enjoys learning for the sake of learning. In school she aims to expandher knowledge as much as possible. She is willing to do difficult tasks; in fact sheprefers tasks that would challenge her to learn more and more. She is not worriedabout grades and is focused on meeting her own learning goals.

Performance goal

Queenie works very hard in all school requirements because she wants to be in the topof her class. Queenie believes that it is important for her to get grades that are higherthan most of her classmates. She enjoys getting the praise of her teachers, parents, andother people when she performs at the top of her class.

William wants to be the top student in his class. He exerts all effort to excel in allclass requirements and to get the highest grades compared to his classmates. Whenexam results are given, William would often compare his grades with those of hisclassmates. He feels good when others acknowledge how well he performs in class.

References

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 84, 261–271.

123


Anderman, L. H., & Anderman, E. M. (1999). Social predictors of changes in students’ achievementgoal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 21–37.

Anderman, E. M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in achievement goal orientations, perceive academiccompetence, and grades across the transition to middle-level schools. Contemporary EducationalPsychology, 22, 269–298.

Asian Development Bank. (2001). Education and national development in Asia: Trends, issues, policies,and strategies. Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.

Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation: Testingmultiple goal models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 706–722.

Bernardo, A. B. I. (2003). Do Filipino youth really value education? Exploring Filipino adolescents’beliefs about the abstract and pragmatic value of education and its relationship to achievementgoals and learning strategies. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 36(2), 49–67.

Bernardo, A. B. I. (2004). Culturally-rooted beliefs and learning: Exploring the relationships amongsocial axioms, achievement goals, and learning strategies of Filipino college students. PhilippineJournal of Psychology, 37(2), 79–100.

Bernardo, A. B. I. (2005). Exploring new areas for helping low-achieving students in the Philippines:Beliefs, goals, and strategies. In A. D. Thomas, N. Dayan, A. B. I. Bernardo, & R. Roth (Eds.), Helpingothers grow (pp. 133–142). Aachen, Germany: Shaker Verlag.

Bernardo, A. B. I. (2008). Individual and social dimensions of Filipino students’ achievement goals.International Journal of Psychology, 43, 886–891.

Bernardo, A. B. I., Salanga, M. G. C., & Aguas, K. M. C. (2008). Filipino adolescent students’ concep-tions of learning goals. In O. S. Tan, D. M. McInerney, A. D. Liem, & A.-G. Tan (Eds.), Whatthe West can learn from the East: Asian perspectives on the psychology of learning and motiva-tion (pp. 169–190). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Braten, I., & Stromso, H. I. (2004). Epistemological beliefs and implicit theories of intelligence aspredictors of achievement goals. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 371–388.

Chan, K. W., & Lai, P. Y. (2007). Revisiting the trichotomous achievement goal framework for Hong Kongsecondary students: A structural model analysis. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 16, 11–22.

Chan, K. W., Lai, P. Y., Leung, M. T., & Moore, P. J. (2005). Students’ goal orientations, studystrategies and achievement: A closer look in Hong Kong Chinese cultural context. The Asia-PacificEducation Researcher, 14, 1–26.

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (1999). Testing factorial invariance across groups: A reconceptualizationand proposed new method. Journal of Management, 25, 1–27.

Dowson, M., & McInerney, D. M. (2003). What do students say about their motivational goals? Towardsa more complex and dynamic perspective on student motivation. Contemporary EducationalPsychology, 28, 91–113.

Eaton, M. J., & Dembo, M. H. (1997). Difference in the motivational beliefs of Asian American andnon-Asian students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 433–440.

Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychol-ogist, 34, 169–189.

Elliot, A. J., Chirkov, V. I., Kim, Y., & Sheldon, K. M. (2004). A cross-cultural analysis of avoidance(relative to approach) personal goals. Psychological Science, 12, 505–510.

Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievementmotivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218–232.

Elliot, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12.

Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1994). Goal setting, achievement orientation, and intrinsic motivation:A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 968–980.

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 30, 957–971.

Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, H. M., Duke, B. L., & Akey, K. L. (2004). Predicting highschool students’ cognitive engagement and achievement: Contributions of classroom perceptionsand motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 462–482.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Lehto, A. L., & Elliot, A. J. (1997). Predictors andconsequences of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest and making thegrade. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1284–1295.

123


Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Rethinking achievement goals: When arethey adaptive for college students and why?. Educational Psychologist, 33, 1–21.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Revisionof achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94,638–645.

Hau, K. T., & Ho, I. T. (2008). Editorial: Insights from research on Asian students’ achievementmotivation. International Journal of Psychology, 43, 865–869.

Ho, D. Y. F., & Chau, A. W. L. (2009). Interpersonal perceptions and metaperceptions of relationshipcloseness, satisfaction and popularity: A relational and directional analysis. Asian Journal of SocialPsychology, 12, 173–184.

Ho, I. T., & Hau, K. T. (2008). Academic achievement in the Chinese context: The role of goals,strategies, and effort. International Journal of Psychology, 43, 892–897.

Ismail, R. (2006). The interplay of students’ goal orientations, self-beliefs, and attitudinal factors inacademic help-seeking behaviors. Paper presented at the Academic Achievement of Malay Studentsin Higher Learning Colloquium, 7–10 November 2006, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Lau, S., Liem, A. D., & Nie, Y. (2008). Task- and self-oriented pathways to the use of deep learning:A mediational role of achievement goals, classroom attentiveness, and group collaboration. BritishJournal of Educational Psychology, 78, 639–662.

Lee, M. N. N. (2004). Restructuring higher education in Malaysia. Penang, Malaysia: Universiti SainsMalaysia.

Liem, A. D., Lau, S., & Nie, Y. (2008a). The role of self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goalsin predicting learning strategies, task disengagement, peer relationship and English achievementoutcome. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 486–512.

Liem, A. D., Nair, E., Bernardo, A. B. I., & Prasetya, P. H. (2008b). The influence of culture on students’classroom social interactions. Implications for best teaching and learning practice in multiculturaland international education. In D. M. McInerney & A. D. Liem (Eds.), Teaching and learning:International best practice (pp. 377–404). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Liem, A. D., & Nie, Y. (2008). Values, achievement goals, and individual-oriented and social-orientedachievement motivations among Chinese and Indonesian secondary school students. InternationalJournal of Psychology, 43, 898–903.

Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1991). Enhancing student motivation: A school-wide approach. EducationalPsychologist, 26, 399–427.

Matsumoto, D. (2006). Are cultural differences in emotion regulation mediated by personality traits?. Jour-nal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 421–437.

Matsumoto, D., & Yoo, S. H. (2006). Toward a new generation of cross-cultural research. Perspectiveson Psychological Science, 1, 234–250.

McGregor, H. A., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Achievement goals as predictors of achievement-relevantprocesses prior to task engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 381–395.

Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal orientation and cognitiveengagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514–523.

Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An underexploredaspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710–718.

Ng, C. H. (2000). A path analysis of self-schemas, goal orientations, learning approaches, and perfor-mance. Journal of Psychology for Chinese Societies, 1(2), 93–121.

Ng, C. H., & Renshaw, P. D. (2002). Self-schema, motivation and learning: A cross-cultural com-parison. In D. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Sociocultural influences on motivation andlearning (Vol. 2, pp. 55–87). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publications.

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, taskchoice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328–346.

Nicholls, J. G., Patashnick, M., & Nolen, S. B. (1985). Adolescents’ theories of education. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 77, 683–692.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pin-trich, & M. Zeidner, The handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: AcademicPress.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applica-tions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

123


Pualengco, R. P., Chiu, C. Y., & Kim, Y. H. (2009). Cultural variations in pre-emptive effort down-playing. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 12, 12–19.

Salili, F., Chiu, C. Y., & Lai, S. (2001). The influence of culture and context on students’ motivationalorientation and performance. In F. Salili, C. Y. Chiu, & Y. Y. Hong (Eds.), Student motivation:The culture and context of learning (pp. 221–247). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

Schug, J., Yuki, M., Horikawa, K., & Takemura, K. (2009). Similarity attraction and actually selectingsimilar others: How cross-societal differences in relational mobility affect interpersonal similarityin Japan and the USA. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 12, 95–103.

Science Education Institute. (2001). A survey on teacher education institutions offering bachelor ofscience education programs. Taguig, Philippines: Department of Science and Technology.

Simons, J., DeWitte, A., & Lens, Q. (2000). Wanting to have vs. wanting to be: The effect of perceivedinstrumentality on goal orientation. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 335–351.

Tao, V., & Hong, Y. Y. (2000). A meaning systems approach to Chinese students’ achievementgoals. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 1(2), 13–38.

Tayag, J. C., & Calimlim, C. V. (2004). HEI and program map of the Philippines. In Towards rational-izing Philippine higher education (pp. 123–141). Pasig City, Philippines: Commission on HigherEducation.

Thorkildsen, T. A., & Nicholls, J. G. (1998). Fifth graders’ achievement orientations and beliefs:Individual and classroom differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 179–201.

Urdan, T. C. (1997). Examing the relations among early adolescent students’ goals and friends’ orientationtoward effort and achievement in school. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 165–191.

Urdan, T. C., & Maehr, M. L. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation and achievement:A case for social goals. Review of Educational Research, 65, 213–243.

Whang, P. A., & Hancock, G. R. (1994). Motivation and mathematics achievement: Comparisons betweenAsian American and non-Asian students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 302–322.

Xiang, P., Lee, A. M., & Solmon, M. A. (1997). Achievement goals and their correlates among Americanand Chinese students in physical education. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 645–660.

Yu, A. B., & Yang, K. S. (1994). The nature of achievement motivation in collectivist societies. In U. Kim,H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism:Theory, method, and applications (pp. 239–250). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zusho, A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A process-oriented approach to culture. Theoretical and methodo-logical issues in the study of culture and motivation. In F. Salili & R. Hoosain (Eds.), Teaching,learning, and motivation in multicultural context (pp. 33–65). Greenwich, CT: Information AgePublishing.

Author Biographies

Allan B. I. Bernardo is University Fellow and Professor of the Counseling and Educational PsychologyDepartment, De La Salle University, Philippines. His current research interests relate to social, cultural,motivational, and emotional dimensions of learning and achievement, and to social cognitions related topoverty and wealth in the context of social inequality.

Rosnah Ismail is Professor of Psychology and currently Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research & Innovation)at Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia. Her research interests are in the areas of cross-cultural psychology,psychological studies on families and couples, gender issues with a focus on Malaysian women, and ethnicgroups in Malaysia.

123

Social perceptions of achieving students and achievement goals of students in Malaysia and the...

Documents

Transcript of Social perceptions of achieving students and achievement goals of students in Malaysia and the...