Teacher, classroom, and student growth orientation in mathematics: A multilevel examination of growth goals, growth mindset, engagement, and achievement

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103100Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Previous research has examined students’ underlying growth orientation (GO), encompassing growth mindset and growth goals.

  • This is the first examination of GO in students and classrooms (with teacher information).

  • Findings demonstrate there were associations between GO and mathematics outcomes at the student and classroom-levels.

  • At the classroom-level, findings demonstrate both adaptive and potentially maladaptive components of teachers’ GO.

Abstract

This study examined associations between student- (N = 1414), classroom-, and teacher (N = 91) growth orientation and mathematics engagement and achievement using a multilevel model. Results demonstrated positive associations between student growth orientation and mathematics outcomes and positive associations between classroom and teacher growth orientation and mathematics achievement. There was also a marginally significant interaction effect between classroom and teacher growth orientation on classroom engagement. Findings hold relevance for educational interventions surrounding growth constructs and teachers’ personal growth orientation.

Section snippets

Growth orientation

Growth orientation comprises three well-established growth constructs: growth mindset, self-based growth goals, and task-based growth goals (Bostwick et al., 2017, 2019). Growth mindset refers to beliefs about the malleability of intelligence, skills, and ability (Dweck, 2000). Those with a fixed mindset believe that intelligence is resistant to change whereas those with a growth mindset believe that intelligence is capable of development, especially through effort (Dweck, 2000). Self-based

Growth orientation from a multilevel perspective: teachers and classrooms

Although important work has been conducted into students’ GO (Bostwick et al., 2017, 2019), more work is needed – particularly in investigating potential classroom and teacher associations by using multilevel models that can estimate individual-student and between-classroom differences with teacher information simultaneously. In so doing, it is possible to extend current understanding from a student-level knowledge-base on GO to one that also considers classroom and teacher effects. More

Mathematics outcomes

The current study investigated GO of students and classrooms with teachers in relation to two important mathematics outcomes: engagement and achievement. Engagement is defined as a multifaceted construct that includes cognitive, behavioral, and emotional aspects (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). Students who are engaged in mathematics tend to exhibit a lot of effort in their learning (cognitive), they participate actively in classroom settings (behavioral), and they report high rates of

Student and teacher background factors and classroom composition

We controlled for a series of covariates in order to better identify the unique associations between GO and mathematics outcomes at the student and classroom-level. At Level 1 (L1; student-level), we controlled for students’ gender, age, neighborhood socio-economic status (SES), language background, and prior achievement, as each has previously demonstrated relations with growth constructs or mathematics outcomes (Bong, 2009; Chouinard & Roy, 2008; Hemmings; Grootenboer, & Kay, 2011; F. L.;

Aims and hypotheses

The current study examined associations between GO (student, classroom, and teacher) and mathematics outcomes using a multilevel model. The aims of the study were to examine: (a) the associations between student GO and student outcomes (L1), (b) the associations between classroom GO and classroom mathematics outcomes (L2), (c) the associations between teachers’ GO and classroom mathematics outcomes (L2), and (d) the interaction between classroom and teacher GO (classroom∗teacher) and its

Participants

The current project comprised secondary school students (N = 1414) and their mathematics teachers (N = 91; 91 classrooms) from 15 schools across three states in Australia. The student sample was 46.7% male, 82.0% were primarily English-speaking at home, and 1.5% identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. On average, students were 14.3 years of age (SD = 0.9) and had a mean SES (M = 1082.0, SD = 80.8) slightly above the national average (M = 1000, SD = 100). The teacher sample was 56.0%

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations

Descriptive and reliability statistics are presented in Table 1. In addition, the results from UMM are presented in Table 2. All variables were approximately normally distributed (as indicated by skew and kurtosis values; |skew|<3, |kurtosis|<10; Kline, 2015) and demonstrated adequate reliability and all student variables had adequate variance at Level 2 with significant variance in each intercept at Level 2. All bivariate correlations, including correlations with covariates, are presented in

Students’ growth orientation

Concurrent with previous single-level research (Bostwick et al., 2017, 2019), we found that students’ GO was positively associated with their mathematics outcomes. As detailed in earlier research, this is important as it suggests that the ‘growth’ core that underpins growth constructs is also an important component of students’ academic development and functioning. That is, when students are growth oriented, they possess the intersecting components of growth constructs simultaneously, leading

Conclusion

Taken together, the current study found evidence of significant classroom-level and teacher-related associations among GO and mathematics outcomes. After accounting for individual student variation, classroom GO was positively associated with classroom achievement, teacher GO was positively associated with classroom achievement (even after accounting for prior achievement), and there was a marginally significant interaction effect between classroom and teacher GO on classroom engagement. The

Author note

Keiko C.P. Bostwick, School of Education, University of New South Wales; Andrew J. Martin, School of Education, University of New South Wales; Rebecca J. Collie, School of Education, University of New South Wales; Tracy L. Durksen, School of Education, University of New South Wales.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Keiko C.P. Bostwick: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Visualization. Rebecca J. Collie: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Data curation, Writing - review & editing. Andrew J. Martin: Conceptualization, Resources, Writing - review & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Tracy L. Durksen: Investigation, Writing - review & editing.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Drs Emma Burns and Marianne Mansour for assisting with data collection. The authors also thank the Australian Research Council, Discovery Project Grant (DP140104294) for funding the research.

References (77)

  • A. Mouratidis et al.

    Different goals, different pathways to success: Performance-approach goals as direct and mastery-approach goals as indirect predictors of grades in mathematics

    Learning and Individual Differences

    (2018)
  • M.M. Patterson et al.

    General and domain-specific beliefs about intelligence, ability, and effort among preservice and practicing teachers

    Teaching and Teacher Education

    (2016)
  • A. Rattan et al.

    “It’s ok - not everyone can be good at math”: Instructors with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate) students

    Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

    (2012)
  • J. Retelsdorf et al.

    Achievement goals for teaching and teachers’ reference norms: Relations with instructional practices

    Teaching and Teacher Education

    (2011)
  • R.M. Ryan et al.

    Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions

    Contemporary Educational Psychology

    (2000)
  • U. Schiefele et al.

    Teacher interests, mastery goals, and self-efficacy as predictors of instructional practices and student motivation

    Contemporary Educational Psychology

    (2015)
  • T. Urdan et al.

    Classroom effects on student motivation: Goal structures, social relationships, and competence beliefs

    Journal of School Psychology

    (2006)
  • Socio-economic indexes for areas

    (2018)
  • National assessment program

    (2016)
  • The Autralian curriculum: Mathematics

    (2019)
  • C.P. Alderfer

    Existence, relatedness, and growth

    (1972)
  • E.M. Anderman et al.

    Achievement goal theory, conceptualization of ability/intelligence, and classroom climate

  • P.D. Bliese et al.

    Back to basics with mixed-effects models: Nine take-away points

    Journal of Business and Psychology

    (2018)
  • M. Bong

    Age-related differences in achievement goal differentiation

    Journal of Educational Psychology

    (2009)
  • K.C.P. Bostwick et al.

    Students’ growth mindsets, goals, and academic outcomes in mathematics

    Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie / Journal of Psychology

    (2017)
  • J.L. Burnette et al.

    Mind-sets matter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation

    Psychological Bulletin

    (2013)
  • B.M. Byrne

    Structural equation modeling with Mplus

    (2012)
  • Rebecca J. Collie et al.

    Academic buoyancy, student’s achievement, and the linking role of control: A cross-lagged analysis of high school students

    British Journal of Educational Psychology

    (2015)
  • R. de Charms

    Personal causation

    (1968)
  • R. Chouinard et al.

    Changes in high-school students’ competence beliefs, utility value and achievement goals in mathematics

    British Journal of Educational Psychology

    (2008)
  • E.L. Deci et al.

    Causality orientations theory: Individual differences in, and priming of, motivational orientations

  • T.J. Dunn et al.

    From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation

    British Journal of Psychology

    (2014)
  • C.S. Dweck

    Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development

    (2000)
  • A.J. Elliot et al.

    A 2 X 2 achievement goal framework

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (2001)
  • J.A. Fredricks et al.

    School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence

    Review of Educational Research

    (2004)
  • J.M. Froiland et al.

    Intrinsic motivation, learning goals, engagement, and achievement in a diverse high school

    Psychology in the Schools

    (2016)
  • G.J. Geldhof et al.

    Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework

    Psychological Methods

    (2014)
  • S.N. Georgiou

    Beliefs of experienced and novice teachers about achievement

    Educational Psychology

    (2008)
  • Cited by (34)

    • Motivation in context: A multilevel examination of growth orientation across one year

      2022, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Thus, we also examined the moderating role of these classroom-level variables via cross-level interactions (see Fig. 1). Alongside the potential for classroom-level motivational constructs to be directly associated with students' outcomes, classroom-level growth orientations may also moderate the relation between adolescent students' motivation and outcomes (Bostwick et al., 2020; Duffy & Azevedo, 2015; Yeager et al., 2019). That is, it may be that these contextual variables are associated with enhanced or diminished student-level relations.

    • Teachers who believe that emotions are changeable are more positive and engaged: The role of emotion mindset among in- and preservice teachers

      2021, Learning and Individual Differences
      Citation Excerpt :

      Intelligence mindset has been found to be associated with learning-related processes and outcomes (e.g., academic achievement, self-regulation, motivation, engagement) (Burnette et al., 2013; Costa & Faria, 2018; Dinger & Dickhäuser, 2013; King & Trinidad, 2021). Recently, teachers' intelligence mindset, or their perceptions regarding the malleability of their students' intelligence, has also gained attention and has been found to influence important outcomes in both teachers (e.g., well-being, engagement) and students (e.g., students' mindsets, engagement, achievement) (Bostwick et al., 2020; Frondozo et al., 2020; Zeng et al., 2019). However, teachers' emotion mindset has remained relatively underexplored despite the recognition of the importance of emotions in teaching (Sutton & Wheatley, 2003); the evidence that emotion mindset affects student functioning (Romero et al., 2014); and that teachers' mindset can influence that of their students (Bostwick et al., 2020).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text