CORRELATIONS AMONG FIVE VARIABLES AND THE MATHEMATICS

PERFORMANCE OF CAYMANIAN ELEVENTH-GRADERS

A Research Project

Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Award of the Degree

of

Master of Education in Educational Measurement

of
The University of the West Indies

Shawn A. McBean
2010

Department of Educational Studies

School of Education
Mona
 ii

Abstract

The study was designed to find out if (a) the performance of selected Caymanian

11th-graders in their 2009 Xmas term mathematics test was satisfactory or not; (b)

there were significant differences in their performance based on their (i) gender,

(ii) nationality, (iii) opinions of their mathematics classroom assessment

environment, (iv) opinions of their achievement goals, and (v) opinions of their

academic self-efficacy; and (c) if there were any significant correlations among

the students’ five independent variables and their mathematics performance. Data

were collected by surveying 221 Caymanian 11th-graders from two high schools

using a Student Questionnaire. The results indicated that (a) the students’

performance on the 2009 Xmas term test was unsatisfactory; (b) while there were

statistically significant differences in the students’ performance on their 2009

Xmas term math exam based on their nationality and opinions of their academic

self-efficacy in favour of non-Caymanians and students with high overall opinions

of their academic self-efficacy respectively, there were no significant differences

in the students’ math performance based on their gender, opinions of their

mathematics classroom assessment environment and opinions of their

achievement goals; and ( c) whereas there were positive, statistically significant

but weak relationships among the students’ nationality (r =.23; p<.05) and their

opinions about their mathematics classroom assessment environment (r =.23;

p<.05) and their performance on the 2009 Xmas term mathematics test, the

relationships among their gender (r =.12; p>.05) and their opinions about their

achievement goals (r =.12; p>.05) and their performance on the math test were
 iii

positive, but not significant. There was a moderately statistically strong

relationship between the students’ opinions about their academic self-efficacy (r

=.45; p<.05) and their performance on the math test.

 iv

Acknowledgements

The accomplishment of this project was a blessing from God. It represents

the culmination of several dreams I would never have attained without the

guidance and support of so many. Thanks to God from everlasting to everlasting;

His blessings are innumerable. Special thanks are due to several others whom I

must mention by name.

I express thanks and appreciation to my academic supervisor, Prof.

Kolawole Soyibo, for his patience, expertise, guidance and for his insight and

critique of my work. Having him in that capacity enabled me to learn

immeasurably and be inspired.

Thanks to my colleagues: Ms. Icilma Cornelius, Ms. Lorna Harriott and

Mr. Kevin Roberts of the Cayman Brac High School and Ms. Wilma Daley, my

friend and colleague from the University of the West Indies, for their assistance

either in proof reading my study, critiquing or giving advice and encouragement

when necessary.

I would also like to express my appreciation to the Department of

Education Services in the Cayman Islands for granting me permission to collect

cognate data from the country’s public schools. Specifically, I thank the

principals, teachers and students involved for their willing participation during the

data collection.

Finally, my great appreciation and thanks go to my mother and father, to

my brothers and sisters and sister-in-law for their endless love, support, and

encouragement throughout my study. To my very special and close friend,

 v

Surijdai Brijmohan, your encouragement and support in terms of your numerous

calls and text messages will be eternally cherished.

 vi

Table of Contents
Page

Abstract ii

Acknowledgements iv

Table of Contents vi

List of Tables viii

List of Figures x

Chapter 1 Statement of the Problem 1

Introduction 1

Rationale for the study 9

Objectives of the study

11 Research questions

12 Significance of the study

13

Operational definitions of key terms 15

Chapter 2 Review of Relevant Literature 19

Students’ mathematics performance 19

Achievement goal orientations and academic performance 20

Mathematics performance, gender and ethnicity 25

Academic self-efficacy and mathematics performance 32

Classroom assessment environment 39

Conclusions from the literature review 45

Chapter 3 Methodology 48
 vii

Research design 48

Sampling

49 The pilot sample

51 The main study’s sample

51 Instrumentation

54

Administration of the instrument 58

Pilot study results

59 Data analyses

60

Ethical considerations 62

Limitations of the study 63

Chapter 4 Results and Discussion 65

Research question 1 65

Research question 2 68

Research question 3 71

Research question 4 81

Chapter 5 Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations 86

Conclusions 86

Implications

88 Recommendations

89 Suggestions for future research

90
 viii

References 92

Appendix A - Student questionnaire 2010 with cover letter 107

Appendix B - Letter seeking permission to conduct research 111

Appendix C - Letters of appreciation to principals, cooperating 113

teachers and students

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Percentages of Caymanian and Caribbean students 3

passing CSEC general mathematics for the period

2005 – 2009

Table 3.1 Distribution of the main study’s sample with respect 53

to the independent variables

Table 3.2 Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients of the students’ 60

responses to the three main scales of the questionnaire

items

Table 4.1 Frequency distribution, mean and standard deviation 65

of the students’ scores in the 2009 Xmas term

mathematics test

Table 4.2 Frequency distribution, mean and standard deviation 69

of the students’ opinions of their mathematics

classroom assessment environment

Table 4.3 Frequency distribution, mean and standard deviation 70

of the students’ opinions of their achievement goals

Table 4.4 Frequency distribution, mean and standard deviation 71

 ix

of the students’ opinions of their academic self-efficacy

Table 4.5 Means and standard deviations of the students’ 73

performance in the mathematics test based on their

gender, nationality, opinions of their mathematics

classroom assessment environment (MCAE),

opinions of their achievement goals (AG) and

opinions of their academic self-efficacy (ASE)

Table 4.6 Five-way analysis of variance in the students’ 75

performance on the mathematics test based on their

gender, nationality, opinions of their mathematics

classroom assessment environment (MCAE),

opinions of their achievement goals (AG) and

opinions of their academic self-efficacy (ASE)

Table 4.7 Pearson correlation coefficients relating the Students’ 82

gender, nationality, opinions of their mathematics

classroom assessment environment (MCAE),

opinions of their achievement goals (AG) and

opinions of their academic self-efficacy (ASE) and

their performance in the mathematics test

 x

List of Figures

Figure 4.1 Histogram with normal curve for the students’ 67

2009 Xmas term mathematics score.

xi
 1

Chapter 1
Statement of the Problem

Introduction

Many students reach high school and even college without acquiring the

essential skills needed to solve the myriads of complex problems that confront the

modern society in which they live. Today’s increasingly complex society favours

individuals who process information and operate effectively in ambiguous and

unstructured situations (Brooks-Corliss, 2005). In this global village, our high

school students need to be prepared for life in a world where the tasks demanded

in advanced study, daily work, and citizenship require mathematical

understanding and skills which are far different from those that were acceptable

only a decade ago.

Mathematics as a subject affects all aspects of human life in different

degrees. The social, economic, political, geographical, scientific and

technological activities of humankind are pivoted on the use of numbers.

Disciplines where numbers are predominant and form an integral part of

mathematics include: statistics, accounting, arithmetic, and engineering. For

example the earliest civilization of humankind came through mathematical

manipulations (Maliki, Ngban, & Ibu, 2009). The inter-relationships among

mathematics, development and the advancement of humans show the importance

of mathematics in life due to its numeral and symbolic nature, it is more related to

the scientific and technological facets of human’s world than to any other aspect

as it occurs and re-occurs in the physical and natural sciences. The basic skills

underlying all scientific and technological skills are the control of the tools of
 2

mathematics. Important principles from algebra and geometry are basic to the

design of medical treatments like laser eye surgery and diagnostic devices like

CAT scans and MRI. Careers in familiar areas of the sciences, engineering, and

business require broader and deeper mathematical knowledge than ever before,

and emerging fields like computer science and operations research are opening

brand new aspects of the subject (STEM, 2007).

With the increasing emphasis on mathematics, science, and technology in

today’s business world, from the researcher’s observations and experiences, the

performances of high school students (grades 10&11) in these areas have become

of great significance to researchers, well-meaning educators, employers and

politicians alike. Both Awokoya (1975) and Fafunwa (1980), as cited in Maliki,

Ngban, & Ibu (2009), agreed in different studies that we live in a world where

science and technology have become an integral part of the world culture,

therefore for any nation to be relevant, it must not over look the importance of

mathematics in the educational system. In spite of this warning, the mathematics

performance of students in the senior grades (10 and 11) both locally and

internationally continues to be disheartening. The Fourth Trend in International

Mathematics and Sciences Study (TIMSS, 2007) showed that even though there

has been an increase in mathematical achievement for a few participating

countries, many students worldwide are performing poorly in mathematics. The

Caribbean Examinations Council Secondary Education Certificate Examination

(CXC-CSEC) reports (2005-2009) on students’ mathematics performance (see

table 1.1) revealed similar findings for the Caribbean. For these years in question
 3

and even from its inception in 1979, less than 50% of the students who sat the

CXC-CSEC general proficiency examinations in mathematics obtained the grades

required for matriculation to tertiary studies, (i.e. grades 1, 2, and 3). This is

extremely poor especially in light of the fact that all Grade 11 students are not

automatically sent to write the examinations. Students’ poor performance in

mathematics over the years has been attributed to the notion that the subject is

difficult. In the same view, student’s performance in mathematics tests has been

observed to vary from student to student and from school to school which

according to Kiamanesh & Mahdavi-Hezaveh (2006), is the product of socio-

economic, psychological and environmental factors.

Table 1.1

Percentage of Caymanian and Caribbean students passing CSEC general

mathematics for the period 2005 – 2009

Cayman's Cayman's Caribbean's

Candidate Candidates Cayman's Candidates Caribbean'
Year
s Writing Passing % Pass Writing s % Pass
(#) (#) (#)
2005 ---- ---- --- 88,559 39
2006 241 68 28 86,479 35
2007 211 101 48 86,835 34
2008 231 99 43 57,000 37
2009 221 98 44 91,370 41

Among the factors identified as contributing to significant differences in

school students’ performance in mathematics are: the differences in their gender,

socioeconomic background, school location, the type of school they attend, self-

esteem, attitudes to mathematics, methods of assessment, and racial and ethnic

 4

differences. Many of the studies done on these factors have produced conflicting

findings. Below is a brief review of some of such studies.

Gender differences in students’ performance in mathematics

Gender differences in students’ mathematics performance has been a great

controversial issue in the educational domain and research documents show great

discrepancies among girls’ and boys’ performance in school mathematics

(Sprigler & Alsup, 2003). Research in this area has shown that male advantage in

mathematics achievement is a universal phenomenon (Janson, 1996; Mullis et al.,

2000). While earlier research (Fennema & Sherman, 1977) indicated that males

outperformed females in mathematics achievement at the junior high and high

school levels, there were also significant differences in attitudes towards

mathematics between the two groups. Gallagher and Kaufman (2006) recognised

that the mathematics achievement and interest of boys were better than the girls’.

However, they explained that they do not know the main cause of these

differences. O’Connor-Petruso, Schiering, Hayes and Serrano (2004) have shown

that gender differences in students’ mathematics achievement become apparent at

the secondary level when female students begin to exhibit less confidence in their

mathematical ability and perform lower than males on problem-solving and

higher level mathematical tasks.

Despite research evidence of males’ superiority in mathematics

achievement, some research findings do not support the difference between the

two genders in mathematics achievement. As an example, Sprigler & Alsup

(2003) refer to researcher indications that show no gender difference on the

 5

mathematical reasoning ability at elementary level. Findings from longitudinal

study about gender differences in mathematics show that there is no difference

among boys and girls in mathematics achievement (Ding, Song & Richardson;

2007). From the findings reviewed, the evidence surrounding gender difference

remains inconclusive.

Racial and ethnic differences in students’ mathematics performance

Race and ethnicity according to TIMSS (2007) continue to play a role in

students’ scores in mathematics. Although the average scores of students of all

races have improved since 1995, and the gap is closing for both black and

Hispanic students in relation to their white and Asian peers, test results continue

to show that US white and Asian 4th-graders scored above the international

average, while Hispanics’ scores were average, and black students scores were

below the international average.

Effects of assessment and students’ perceptions of assessment and the

assessment environment on students' mathematics performance

A significant number of recent literatures has focused on classroom

assessment and grading as essential aspects of effective teaching and learning.

There is an increased scrutiny of assessment as indicated by the popularity of

performance assessment and portfolios, newly established national assessment

competencies for teachers, and the interplay between learning, motivation,

achievement and assessment (Brookhart, 1993, 1994; Tittle, 1994). Classroom

assessment involves a wide range of activities from designing assessment tasks to

grading, communicating assessment results, and using them in decision-making

 6

(Zhang & Burry-Stock, 2003). Most of these activities are created by the

classroom teacher to assess and motivate students to learn (Brookhart, 1997,

1999; Gronlund, 1998, 2006; Stiggins, 1999). The overall sense or meaning that

students make out of the various aspects of classroom assessment activities

constitutes the classroom assessment environment (Brookhart & DeVoge, 1999).

Because a substantial proportion of classroom time is devoted to the assessment

for and of student learning (Mertler, 2003) and that students’ opinions of

classroom activities and achievement goals, their purposes of task engagement

(Maehr, 1989), play a critical role in the learning process (Ames, 1992b;

Brookhart, 1997; Brophy, 1999), it seems reasonable to argue that careful

consideration of the impact of teachers’ classroom assessment practices on

students’ opinions of the classroom assessment environment and achievement

goal orientations is certainly warranted.

An evolving movement in classroom assessment research has been

towards the role of classroom assessment on students’ motivation. Brookhart

(2004, p. 444) contends that each classroom has “an assessment ‘character’ or

environment” that largely springs from the teacher’s classroom assessment

practices. As such, Brookhart (1997) has developed a theoretical model based on

a synthesis of classroom assessment literature and social cognitive theories of

learning and motivation. In this model, classroom assessment environment is

construed as a classroom context experienced by students as the teacher

establishes assessment purposes, assigns assessment tasks, sets performance

criteria and standards, gives feedback, and monitors outcomes. Brookhart (1997)
 7

has postulated that students’ perceptions of the classroom assessment

environment influence students’ motivational beliefs and achievement-related

outcomes. Consequently, this suggests that students’ opinions of their classroom

assessment environment deserve recognition and investigation as a valuable

instructional factor in the learning process.

Achievement goal theorists have traditionally identified two types of

achievement goal orientations (also called a dichotomous framework of

achievement goals): mastery goals and performance goals (Ames, 1992b; Dweck,

1986; Nicholls, 1984). Mastery goals centre on the development of competence,

whereas performance goals centre on the outward showing of competence (Ames,

1992b; Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1984). Students who adopt mastery goals are

expected to persist in the face of difficulty, seek challenging tasks, and have high

intrinsic motivation (Ames, 1992b; Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1984). In contrast,

students who adopt performance goals are expected to minimally persist in the

face of difficulty, avoid challenging tasks, and have low intrinsic motivation

(Ames, 1992b; Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1984).

Elliot and his colleagues have developed a trichotomous framework of

achievement goals that further differentiates performance goals into performance-

approach and performance-avoidance goals (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot &

Harackiewicz, 1996). In particular, in this trichotomous framework of

achievement goal theory, three achievement goals have been identified: (a)

mastery goals that focus on improving competence, (b) performance-approach

goals that focus on displaying competence, and (c) performance avoidance goals
 8

that focus on avoiding a display of incompetence (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot &

Harackiewicz, 1996). Hence, students’ achievement goal orientations deserve

recognition and investigation as a valuable achievement-related outcome to be

promoted in the classroom.

Studies conducted by Brookhart and her colleagues (Brookhart &

Bronowicz, 2003; Brookhart & DeVoge, 1999) suggested that students’ academic

self-efficacy might need to be considered when investigating the impact of

classroom assessment practices on students’ achievement goal orientations. Self-

efficacy pertains to students’ judgments of their performance capability on a

particular type of assessment tasks (Bandura, 1986). According to Bandura’s

(1986) social cognitive theory, performances in previous assessment tasks

influence self-efficacy judgments for tasks of the same assessment type. If

students have experienced success in earlier assessment tasks, they are more

likely to feel capable to succeed in future tasks of the same type of assessment,

which in turn may lead to the adoption of performance-approach and/or mastery

goal orientation (Schunk, 1991, 1996). As such, one could argue that there may be

a cross-level interaction effect for teacher’s use of a particular assessment type

and students’ self-efficacy on students’ achievement goal orientation.

Against this backdrop, the present study was designed to investigate the

relationships among selected Caymanian Grade 11 students’ gender, nationality,

and opinions of their academic self-efficacy, classroom assessment environment

and achievement goal orientations and their mathematics performance.

Rationale for the study

 9

Many studies have investigated teachers’ classroom assessment practices

(e.g., Alsarimi, 2000; Mertler, 1998). However, few have considered their effects

on student perceived classroom assessment environment and achievement goal

orientations (e.g., Stefanou & Parkes, 2003; Wang, 2004).

In the Cayman Islands, the findings of the Education Standards and

Assessment Unit (ESAU) 2004 – 2007 revealed that

Overall, standards in mathematics are too low. In 2006, only 31% of the

students in their final year at the government high schools achieved a

higher pass in mathematics… progress is slow in Key Stage 3 as teachers

do not build enough on the knowledge, skills and understanding that

students bring from their primary schools.

Further examination showed that

The effectiveness of assessment varies across the three mainstream

government secondary schools but is satisfactory overall… generally

though, diagnostic tests are not used to identify specific weaknesses or set

targets ... work is marked but with little feedback to the student on what

they have done or what they need to do to improve (pp. 5 – 7).

Definitely, teacher assessment seems to be lacking especially as it seems

that the students received little or no feedback on their performance. According

to Stiggins (1992), this deficient practice by teachers impacted negatively on

students’ perception of their classroom assessment environment.

Achievement gains are maximised in the context where educators increase

the accuracy of classroom assessments, provide students with frequent

 10

informative feedback (versus infrequent judgmental feedback), and

involve students deeply in the classroom assessment, record keeping, and

communication process. In short, these gains are maximised where

teachers apply the principles of assessment for learning (Stiggins, 1992,

p.5).

Furthermore, other reasons justified the execution of this study. As

developing positive attitudes in students is one of the main aims for mathematics

education in the Cayman Islands, a measure of the extent to which selected senior

secondary school students in our country had achieved this aim was considered

worthwhile. In addition, as a part of a large research project on new assessment

strategies, it is hoped to assess students’ opinions about their teachers’ assessment

strategies and the assessment environment before the implementation of the new

strategies to provide a benchmark in this important aspect of students’ affective

domain for future comparison and improvement. And, because many educators

believe that opinions about how they are taught play an important role in students’

learning of mathematics, more effort on studies about students’ opinions about

their mathematics learning environment in Cayman’s educational setting is

needed.

There are several studies which show that teachers engage in assessment

and grading practices that are not consistent with what would be recommended by

measurement "experts." While the descriptions of grading practices are plentiful,

there is little research on the relationship between grading practices and student

motivation and achievement. Therefore, the problem addressed in this study,

 11

within the framework of classroom assessment literature and achievement goal

theory, is to explore students’ opinions about the assessment practices of

mathematics teachers as well as their opinions about their classroom assessment

environment, achievement goal orientations, academic self-efficacy and

performance in mathematics for the government secondary schools of the Cayman

Islands.

Objectives of the study

The purposes of this study were fourfold, namely to find out

(a) whether or not the level of the selected Grade 11 Caymanian students'

performance in their 2009 Xmas term mathematics examination was

satisfactory;

(b) whether the opinions of the selected Caymanian students about (i) their

math classroom assessment environment, (ii) achievement goals, and (iii)

academic self-efficacy were favourable or not;

(c) if there were any statistically significant differences in the students'

performance in their mathematics test based on their (i) gender, (ii)

nationality, (iii) opinions of their mathematics classroom assessment

environment, (iv) opinions of their achievement goals, and (v) opinions of

their academic self-efficacy; and

(d) whether any significant correlations existed among the students' (i)

gender, (ii) nationality, (iii) opinions of their mathematics classroom

assessment environment, (iv) opinions of their achievement goals, and (v)

 12

opinions of their academic self-efficacy and their performance in their

mathematics test.

Research Questions

Four research questions – which are stated below – shaped this

investigation.

1. Was the level of the selected Grade 11 Caymanian students'

performance in their 2009 Xmas term mathematics test satisfactory or

not?

2. Were their opinions about (a) their mathematics classroom assessment

environment, (b) achievement goals, and (c) academic self-efficacy

favourable or not?

3. Were there any significant differences in the students' performance in

their mathematics test based on their (a) gender, (b) nationality, (c)

opinions of their mathematics classroom assessment environment, (d)

opinions of their achievement goals, and (e) opinions of their academic

self-efficacy?

4. Were there any significant correlations among the students' (a) gender,

(b) nationality, (c) opinions of their mathematics classroom assessment

environment, (d) opinions of their achievement goals, and (e) opinions

of their academic self-efficacy and their performance in their

mathematics test?

Significance of the study

 13

The current study revealed that (a) the selected students’ performance on

the 2009 Xmas term test was unsatisfactory; (b) while there were statistically

significant differences in the students’ performance on their 2009 Xmas term

math exam based on their nationality and opinions of their academic self-efficacy,

in favour of non-Caymanians and students with high overall opinions of their

academic self-efficacy respectively, there were no significant differences in the

students’ performance based on their gender, opinions of their mathematics

classroom assessment environment and opinions of their achievement goals; and

whereas there were positive, statistically significant but weak relationships among

the students’ nationality and their opinions about their mathematics classroom

assessment environment and their performance on the 2009 Xmas term

mathematics test, the relationships among their gender and their opinions about

their achievement goals and their performance on the math test were positive, but

not significant; there was a moderately statistically strong relationship between

the students’ opinions about their academic self-efficacy and their performance on

the math test.

These findings on students’ mathematics performance could provide a

road sign for the Grade 11 Caymanian math teachers to improve the teaching and

learning climate of mathematics within the classroom because evidence from this

study now links this phenomenon to the students’ opinions of classroom

assessment environment, achievement goals and academic self-efficacy here in

the Cayman Islands. Consequently, evidence on the attitudes and opinions of

students as it relates to classroom assessment as an effective instructional strategy

 14

and as an essential tool for improved achievement and motivational orientations

of students is likely to help address the critical findings of ESAU (2004-2007) as

stated earlier.

Moreover, the finding of this study that there were statistically significant

relationships among the selected Grade 11 Caymanian math students’ opinions

of their academic self-efficacy and their performance in mathematics is likely

to acquaint Caymanian Grade 11 math teachers and educators of the import of this

finding. This is because the finding has implications for the teaching and learning

of mathematics in the Cayman Islands and it specifically implies the need for the

mounting of in-service training of Caymanian high school math teachers to

provide support for and address any fundamental differences in attitudes,

instructional practice and any other related issues the teachers may have so as to

optimise students’ mathematics achievement.

Perhaps and even more significant is that, although teacher assessment

practices is widely researched, there is a dearth of research on the effects this and

other variables have on the academic achievement in mathematics of Caymanian

Grade 11 students. This investigation on the relationship among these variables

and students’ achievement in mathematics, therefore, is likely to be an added

value to the research on mathematics instruction and even inspire future research

on this study’s topic.

Operational definitions of key terms

For the purpose of clarification, the following are the definitions of the

key terms related to classroom assessment and achievement used in this study.
 15

Classroom assessment - Classroom assessment refers to the process used

in the classroom by the teacher to obtain information about students’

performances on assessment tasks, either as a group or individually, using a wide

range of assessment methods, to determine the extent to which students are

achieving the target instructional outcomes (Gallagher, 1998; Gronlund, 1998).

Classroom assessment environment - Classroom assessment

environment has been defined as the assessment context experienced by students

as the classroom teacher establishes assessment purposes, assigns assessment

tasks, sets performance criteria and standards, provides feedback, and monitors

outcomes (Brookhart, 1997). In this study, the focus was on an individual

student’s and aggregate (i.e., class) opinions of the classroom assessment

environment as the classroom teacher assigned assessment tasks, set performance

criteria and standards, and provided feedback. The students in this study might be

of the opinion or view that their classroom assessment environment was a

learning-oriented environment if their teachers used a variety of interesting and

meaningful assessment tasks, provided them with clear performance criteria and

standards in advance of an assessment task, and gave them continuous and

informative feedback about their strengths and weaknesses in their mathematics

performance (Wang, 2004).

In this study, the individual student’s opinions about the classroom

assessment environment refer to the opinions of an individual student about the

various aspects (i.e., assessment tasks, assessment feedback, and assessment

standards and criteria) of the classroom assessment environment. This would be

 16

reflected for each student by a total rating score across all the items pertaining to

his or her opinion about his/her classroom assessment environment on the

Student’s Questionnaire.

The aggregate opinion of the classroom assessment environment refers to

the shared opinions of students (i.e., have in common, or taken as a whole, or

collective) in grade 11 about the various aspects (i.e., assessment tasks,

assessment feedback, and assessment standards and criteria) of their classroom

assessment environment. In this study, the aggregate opinions of the students’

about their classroom assessment environment would be reflected by the average

levels of individual students’ opinions (i.e., overall average) on each of the items

pertaining to the mathematics classroom assessment environment they

experienced which were highlighted on the Student’s Questionnaire. Higher

scores on each dimension would represent positive opinions of the classroom

assessment environment defined in that dimension.

Academic self-efficacy - Academic self-efficacy has been defined as

students’ judgments of their capabilities to complete their class work successfully

(Bandura, 1986; Midgley et al., 2000; Ryan et al., 1998; Schunk, 1991). It

pertains to answering the question “Can I do this task?” (Stipek, 2002, p. 41);

“I’m certain I can figure out how to do the most difficult class work in science”

(Midgley et al., 2000, p. 20). In this study, academic self-efficacy was measured

at both the student-level and the grade-level. At the student-level, it was reflected

by a total rating score for each student across all the items pertaining to academic
 17

self-efficacy on the Student’s Questionnaire. Higher scores would represent a

higher level of academic self-efficacy in mathematics.

Achievement goal orientations - Midgley et al. (2000, p. 7) defined

achievement goal orientations as “students’ reasons or purposes for engaging in

academic behaviour.” For example, one student might approach a science class

assignment with a goal of learning as much as possible about the content of the

assignment, whereas another student might approach the same assignment with a

goal of doing better than the others in the class. For the purpose of this study, a

student’s achievement goal was reflected by an average rating score across all

responses to the items pertaining to achievement goals on the Student’s

Questionnaire. Higher scores on each dimension represent a higher adoption or

endorsement of the achievement goal defined in that dimension.

Government secondary school - Government secondary school is an

institution solely managed and operated by the government and which provides

all or part of secondary education. Secondary education in itself refers to the final

stage of compulsory education which follows primary education. In the Cayman

Islands, this stage is from year 7 to year 12 typically for the average student aged

11 to 16 years. Senior students refer to those students in Grades 10, 11 and 12.

Mathematics performance - For the purpose of this study, academic

performance refers to a measure of how well students are performing in school.

Mathematics performance, one of the components of the broader domain of

academic performance, refers to students’ performance in school mathematics.

Mathematics performance scores were obtained from the 2009 Xmas Term
 18

Examinations as the researcher’s supervisor recommended and approved by the

class teachers. In this study, the “traditionally” accepted pass mark of 50% is

considered as a satisfactory performance.

Chapter 2
Review of Related Literature

Over the years, the assessment of the classroom practices of teachers has

been a critical issue for researchers. The impact of these practices on students’

motivation and consequently academic achievement has recently received

increased attention in the classroom assessment literature. The following is a

 19

review of relevant literature based on research conducted on classroom

assessment and students’ motivation (defined as achievement goal orientations) in

relation to students’ academic achievement in mathematics. The five major

subdivisions into which the review is divided are: students’ mathematics

performance and its relation to the variables: gender, nationality and students’

opinions of their achievement goal orientations, academic self-efficacy, and

classroom assessment environment.

Students’ mathematics performance

Academic performance is an assessment of how well students are

performing in the various academic disciplines. Mathematics is one of the core

components of school subjects; mathematics performance refers to students’

performance in school mathematics (Brown-Mothersill, 2003). In the current

study, an end-of-term math examination covering a wide range of topics which

tested students’ achievement in the cognitive domain, was used to measure the

students’ mathematics performance. The classroom teachers constructed and

validated the test.

Banks and Finlayson (1973), Christenson, Round, and Gorney (1992), and

Hess and Halloway (1985), as cited by Barrett (1995) stated that the explanation

of the differences in the academic performance of students is one of the most

complex issues in education as academic performance is determined by a

multiplicity of factors. The students’ achievement in the outcome of mathematics

tests depends on how much interest they have in the subject. Maliki, Ngban and

Ibu (2009) opined that achievement processes are the results of the students’
 20

characteristics, their environments, utilisation of teaching-learning models,

instructional materials as well as the students’ structural ability. Consequently,

students’ gender, nationality and opinions pertaining to their achievement goals,

classroom assessment environment and their academic self-efficacy are factors

which will influence their performance in mathematics.

Achievement goal orientations and academic performance

Psychologists and educators have long considered the role of achievement

goals in student learning and for the purposes of describing the goal orientations

of particular people or groups (e.g., Finney & Davis, 2003; Pastor & Richarde,

2003), or examining how goal orientation relates to other important educational

variables, such as study strategies, intrinsic interest, and academic performance

(e.g., Ames, 1992b; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Dweck and Leggett (1988) and

Maehr (1989) defined achievement goals as the purpose of an individual’s

achievement pursuits. In educational motivation research, achievement goal

theory has evolved within a social-cognitive framework. Subsequently, the

achievement goal theorists have traditionally identified two types of achievement

goals (also called a dichotomous framework of achievement goals): the goal to

develop ability and the goal to demonstrate ability or avoid demonstrating the lack

of ability (Elliot, 1999). These two goals have alternatively been labelled learning

and performance goals (Dweck, 1986), task-involvement and ego-involvement

goals (Nicholls, 1984), and mastery and performance goals (Ames & Archer,

1987, 1988). Dweck and Leggett (1988) proposed that “the goals individuals are

pursuing create the framework within which they interpret and react to events”.
 21

According to Dweck and Leggett (1988), mastery goals create a framework in

which inputs and outputs provide information about one’s learning and mastery,

whereas performance goals create a framework in which inputs and outputs are

interpreted in terms of one’s ability and its adequacy.

According to achievement goal theorists, mastery goals centre on the

development of competence, whereas performance goals centre on the outward

showing of competence. Achievement goals are thought to vary across individuals

(Maehr, 1983, 1984) and positive and negative patterns of cognition and affect

may be elicited by the adoption of a particular achievement goal (Ames, 1992a).

From the perspective of achievement goal theory, students who adopt mastery

goals are expected to persist in the face of difficult events, seek challenging

activities, and have high intrinsic motivation. In comparison, students who adopt

performance goals are expected to minimally persist in the face of difficult events,

avoid challenging activities, and have low intrinsic motivation (Ames, 1992b;

Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1984). Consequently, mastery goals have consistently

been linked to a positive set of processes and outcomes such as deep processing of

studying materials, long term retention of information, adaptive attributional

patterns of success and failure, and appropriate help seeking behaviours (Ames,

1992b; Elliot, 1999; Weiner, 1990, 1994, 2000). Hence, it seems reasonable to

argue that students' adoption of mastery goals should deserve recognition and

investigation as an important achievement-related outcome to be promoted in the

classroom learning environment. However, the effects of pursuing performance

goals are indecipherable. Some studies have found that the adoption of
 22

performance goals has negative effects when accompanied by low perceived

competence (e.g., Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Dweck, 1988), whereas other

studies have not supported these effects (e.g., Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996;

Harackiewicz & Elliot, 1993). As a result, achievement goal theory has undergone

a number of theoretical advances.

Elliot and his colleagues have proposed a trichotomous framework of

achievement goals that further differentiates performance goals into approach and

avoidance goals. In this framework, three types of achievement goals are posited:

mastery goals that focus on the development of competence, performance-

approach goals that focus on having favourable judgments of competence, and

performance-avoidance goals that focus on avoiding unfavourable judgments of

competence (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). The validity

and utility of this trichotomous framework of achievement goals have been

demonstrated for middle school and college level students.

Research has indicated that the motivational orientations and affective

variables are important factors influencing learning achievement at tertiary level

education (Al Kharusi, 2007). Possibly, there is a close relationship between

motivation, the goals set by the students, the strategies they employ and their

subsequent achievement. In other words, achievement is a function of both the

“will” and “skill” to learn (McCombs, 1984; Pintrich & Schunk, 2000). Roeser,

Midgley and Urdan’s (1996) research illustrated the positive effects of learning

goal orientations on academic achievement through the mediating variable of

academic self-efficacy. Further, they reported a positive relationship between

 23

performance goal orientation and self-consciousness. These studies have

suggested that learning goal orientation is positively related to the deep approach

to learning and subsequently academic outcomes. However, more recent work

suggests that performance goals may not be as maladaptive as indicated above.

For example a number of studies piloted by Harackiewicz and her colleagues

(Harackiewicz et al., 1997, 1998) have shown that performance goals were

positively related to academic achievement. A similar finding also emerged from

Cockle and Moore’s (1999) research of university students studying aviation and

flight training - the more performance oriented students not only performed

academically better but also piloted their aircraft on their own earlier than those

not possessing such an orientation.

Tao and Hong’s (2000) study demonstrated that both performance and

learning goal orientations were related positively to academic efficacy in

university students in Hong Kong. Ng (2000) investigated Hong Kong students’

achievement goal orientations. With anticipated rather than actual achievement as

the outcome variable, Ng found positive paths from learning goals to deep and

achieving approaches to learning (Biggs, 1987) and on to predicted achievement.

By way of contrast, a complex set of relationships emerged from the performance

goal data. Performance goals were positively related to the achieving approach

and subsequently predicted achievement but they were also positively related to

the surface approach (Biggs, 1987), which in turn was negatively related to

predicted achievement. In other words, both the adaptive and maladaptive

outcomes emerged from performance goals.

 24

Ee’s (1998) study of 6th-graders in Singapore showed different patterns of

relationships between goal orientations, knowledge and use of strategies and

achievement. For the top band of students, both learning and performance goals

positively predicted achievement (with stronger relationship with performance

goals). For the middle band, this pattern was repeated. However, for the lowest

band of students, performance goals played no role in the outcomes with learning

goals positively impacting on achievement through knowledge of learning

strategies. In another study of high-achieving students, Ee reported that students’

goals were only weakly correlated with achievement goals (Ee, Moore &

Atputhasamy, 2003) and she cautioned the interpretation of these weak

relationships.

Roebken (2007) in analysing the relationship between different types of

goal orientations and student behaviour and academic outcomes using data on

2309 college students from the University of California Undergraduate

Experience Survey (UCUES), found via ANOVA that students who pursued a

performance/mastery orientation achieved better college grades than students who

pursued a mastery orientation alone. Students with a work avoidance/performance

orientation displayed the lowest level of academic achievement.

Significant differences were found among all three clusters of

achievement goals. This indicated that the relationship between goal orientation

and achievement might be more complex than often hypothesised in previous

studies. Early works on goal theory found that a mastery orientation was

positively associated with academic achievement, while a performance orientation

 25

was linked to lower achievement test scores (e.g., Ames, 1992b). The multiple

goal approach indicates that the combination of performance and mastery goals

can lead to higher academic achievements than the pursuit of mastery goals alone

or the adoption of a work-avoidance/performance orientation. Archer (1994) and

Bouffard et al. (1995) pellucidly supported this argument as they gleaned similar

results from their study and showed that students with multiple goals obtained a

higher level of academic achievement.

Mathematics performance, gender and ethnicity

Traditionally, education has been given different values for both male and

female students in many countries. Subsequently, education of males was given

greater priority than the education of females. The Women Liberation Movement,

the breakdown in family structure and many other factors have engendered a

paradigm shift in the traditional roles of males and females. Consequently, the

general trend now is that there is a continuous increase in the proportion of

females gaining qualifications within the education system of many countries. In

spite of this development, the traditional stereotyped gender roles are still deeply

embedded in many societies and there are still gender biases with regards to what

disciplines are available for females to obtain qualifications. This is particularly

true of mathematics and science related fields which continue to be male

dominated areas. According to Sherman (1982), mathematics is referred to as a

‘critical filter’ that bars women from entering scientific and technological

occupations. In this scientific and technological era such a perception of

 26

mathematics is extremely significant with regards to equal opportunity for both

sexes.

The 1997 analysis by the National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP) of students’ performance on the USA’s National Mathematics

Assessment Test for the period 1973 to 1994 revealed no significant gender

differences for 9-year-old and 13- year-old students in the USA (Office of the

Assistance Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, 1997). The performance of 13-

year-old boys, however, increased at a faster rate than the performance of their

female counterparts. In 1973 and 1978 females performed slightly better than

males but in 1994 males performed slightly better. In the case of 17-year-olds,

although the performance of both genders decreased between 1973 and 1982, and

then the performance of girls increased between 1982 and 1994 while boys’

performance basically remained constant, boys always performed significantly

better than girls.

In support of these findings, the Kansas State Board of Education (1999),

USA, reported that for the period 1995 to 1999 there were no significant gender

differences for Grade 4 and Grade 7 students with respect to three mathematical

sub-scales namely, communication, problem-solving and reasoning as well as for

the students’ overall mathematics performance. However, significant gender

differences in favour of Grade 10 males were found on all subscales as well as for

the students’ overall mathematics performance. Somewhat similarly, Pattison and

Grieve (1984) have shown that grades 10 and 12 school boys tended to out-

perform their female counterparts in graphs, proportionality, three dimensions

 27

solid geometry, analytic trigonometry, and the applications of mathematics.

Conversely, Brandon, Newton and Hammon (1987), and Pattison and Grieve

(1984) found that Grades 10 and 11 girls performed better than their male

counterparts in computation, set operations, and symbolic relations.

From a different perspective, Young-Loveridge (1992a), cited in Alton-

Lee and Praat (2003) in a longitudinal study over the period 1985 to 1989, that

followed the mathematical progress of 81 New Zealand students in their first four

years in primary school, found no overall gender difference but found significant

gender difference within ability groups. At the start of the study, the students were

split into three ability groups (low, medium and high). It was discovered that girls

in the low ability groups performed below and progressed significantly slower

than boys in the same ability group and also slower than both boys and girls in

higher ability groups.

Upon analysing the results of the 1997 Trends in International

Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) for New Zealand’s primary school

students, Chamberlain (1997), as cited in Alton-Lee and Pratt (2003), reported no

significant gender differences in the mathematics performance of these students.

Using data from 1996 and 1997 TIMSS, Chamberlain (1996, 1998) further

reported that in New Zealand, while there were no significant gender differences

in the overall mathematics performances of Grade 8 and Grade 9 students, gender

differences with respect to content area were beginning to emerge. Grade 8 girls

performed better on items requiring routine procedure and recall while the boys

performed better on items requiring complex procedure. In Grade 9, the boys

 28

performed significantly better than the girls in fractions, measurement,

proportionality, and problem-solving. In the final year of school, males were

found to perform significantly better than females in most content area. Similarly,

using the data from TIMSS, Fierros (1999) reported few significant gender

differences favouring males in the eighth grade whereas in the final year of

school, males outperformed females in the majority of countries participating in

the study. Block (1976), Burton (1979), Fennema and Carpenter (1981), Fennema

and Sherman (1977), Hilton and Berglund (1974), Peterson and Fennema (1985),

and Sherman (1980) further corroborated the latter discussed findings.

Using data derived from the Pennsylvania Educational Quality

Assessment Programme for the years 1981 to 1984, Kohr (1987) reported no

gender differences in the mathematics performance of Grade 5 and Grade 8

students as well as for Grade 11 students. Similarly, no gender difference in the

mathematics performance was found in a sample of 269 Grade 11 students from

eight high schools in Shanghai, China (Zu & Farrell, 1992). With regards to sixth

form students, in an analysis of the results of the sixth form mathematics

examination taken by New Zealand students, Forbes, Clark, Blithe and

Chamberlains (1998), as cited in Alton-lee and Praat (2003), reported that in the

1980s more males were at the extreme ends of the distributions and more females

were in the middle. However, in the 1990s, females progressed steadily until more

females in comparison to males were at the higher end of the distribution. More

recently, as part of a large Australian project, Rothman and McMillan (2003)

examined the influences on Year 9 students’ achievement in numeracy. Gender

 29

emerged to be a statistically significant influence with the achievement of females

lower than that of the males. However, this result is at odds with the results of

Australian students in the Programme for International Student Assessment

(PISA) 2000 (Lokan, Greenwood, & Cresswell, 2001) and TIMMS (Mullis, et al.,

2000). While gender differences were statistically significant in the Rothman and

McMillan study, they were not as prominent as the differences noted for

socioeconomic status (SES).

Maple and Stage (1991), affirmed that over the period 1970 to 1990 the

gender gap on the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) and other mathematical

measures of achievement has been steadily decreasing. They attributed this to the

fact that more females had begun to take more mathematics classes. Similarly, in

an investigation into the gender differences in mathematics achievement among

high school students in the United Arab Emirates, Alkhateeb (2001) divulged that,

over the period 1991 - 2000, although high school boys continued to perform

significantly better than their female counterparts, the gender gap with respect to

mathematics performance was decreasing. In explaining this decrease, Alkhateeb

(2001) suggested that because there had been significant improvement in females’

educational achievement, girls were motivated to follow their female relatives. It

was also suggested that because Arab females spent much more time indoor than

males, they were likely to spend more time on their school work. Moreover, it is

the belief that the structure of the Arab educational system may also explain the

decrease in the gender gap as it relates to the students’ mathematics performance.

 30

In this system, girls and boys are taught separately; with females teaching the girls

while the men teach the boys.

More recently in the international arena, there has been further verification

of a decreasing gender gap in the performance in mathematics. Reston (2008) in

examining the results of the 2007 TIMSS found that the average scores of US

males and females in the tested grades showed that fourth grade males scored 6

points higher than their female counterparts, while there was no measurable

difference among eighth grade males and females. Further, both boys’ and girls’

scores were higher than in previous years. Boys’ scores, on average, in fourth

grade were 12 points higher in 2007 than in 1995; girls’ scores were 10 points

higher, on average. Additionally, eighth-grade females improved by 17 points, on

average, whereas males scored 15 points higher.

Historically, the achievement of girls in mathematics, across a range of

different contexts, was lower than that of the boys, and this was attributed to a

variety of reasons including affective factors (Leder, 1992). In a meta-analysis of

studies on “gender comparisons of mathematics attitudes and affect”, Hyde,

Fennema, Ryan, Frost, and Hopp (1990) found that, in general, female students

held more negative attitudes to mathematics than male students, and these

differences increased with age. They suggested that this was problematic because,

“if females have more negative affect and attitudes about themselves and

mathematics, they will ... learn less mathematics than males do” (p. 301).

Mathematics performance in relation to race and ethnicity

 31

Research conducted in a range of countries has shown that the dominant

ethnic group achieves better in mathematics than indigenous or minority groups

(Bouchey & Harter, 2005; Demie, 2001; Ladson-Billings, 1997; Rothman &

McMillan, 2004; Tate & D’Ambrosio, 1997) as cited in Grootenboer and

Hemmings (2007). This pattern has also been reflected in New Zealand where

Maori and Polynesian students had lower achievement levels in international

studies compared with their European/Pakeha peers (Garden, 1997; Walker &

Chamberlain, 1999). Furthermore, the data from a PISA study revealed that there

was a large gap between the mathematical literacy of the relatively high achieving

Pakeha group and the Maori and Pasifika students (May, 2003). These findings

were also reflected in New Zealand studies where the same pattern of

achievement is continually repeated (e.g., Crooks & Flockton, 2002).

Grootenboer and Hemmings (2007), in a study examining the factors

which contribute to the mathematics performance of a sample of children aged

between 8 and 13 years in New Zealand, discovered that the results of this

analysis showed that, in relation to gender, there was a significant difference (t

(1376) = -4.58) between males and females. That is, males tended to be rated

more highly in mathematical performance than their female counterparts. The

results of the t-test with respect to ethnicity also yielded a significant difference (t

(1180) = 3.71). The analysis illustrated that the Pakeha students were more likely

to be rated at a higher level in mathematical performance in comparison with

students from Maori/Pacific Islander backgrounds.

 32

Reston (2008) in examining the results of the 2007 TIMSS identified that

race and ethnicities continued to play a role in students’ scores in mathematics.

This trend persisted although the average scores of students of all races had

improved since 1995, and the gap was closing for both black and Hispanic

students in contrast to their white and Asian peers in the USA. On average, US

black and Hispanic students continued to improve their mathematics scores in

both fourth and eighth grades but the disparity remains as other races continue to

improve as well. The reverse has occurred since 1995 between Asian and white

students, with fourth-grade Asian students outperforming whites in 2007 by 32

points. In eighth grade, Asian students outscored whites by 16 points. TIMSS

2007 test results showed that US white and Asian fourth graders scored above the

international average, while Hispanics’ scores were average, and black students

scores were below the international average. Reston concludes that much remains

to be done to eliminate the disparity and the US students’ performance continues

to be hinged on their socioeconomic background, with the affluent students

scoring higher.

Academic self-efficacy and mathematics performance

Academic self-efficacy refers to students’ judgments of their capabilities

to successfully perform school-related works (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996; Schunk,

1991). It adds to the belief or perception that one is capable of organising and

executing the actions necessary to succeed at a given task (Bandura, 1997).

Bandura (1993) postulated that student’s beliefs about their efficacy to manage

academic tasks influence their level of motivation and affective reactions.

 33

According to Bandura’s (1977, 1982) theoretical perspective, students tend to

avoid situations they believe exceed their capabilities, whereas they approach

other situations they believe that they are capable of handling. From the

perspective of Bandura’s (1986) social-cognitive theory and Elliot’s (1999)

review of achievement goal theory, self-efficacy is assumed to be a precursor to

the adoption of an approach achievement goal.

Stevens, Olivarez and Hamman (2006) reported that self-efficacy and the

sources of self-efficacy were stronger predictors of students’ mathematics

achievement than general mental ability. Zarch and Kadivar (2006) disclosed that

while students’ mathematics ability had a direct effect on their mathematics

performance, it also had an indirect effect via mathematics self-efficacy

judgments. Self-efficacy judgments are based on four sources of information: an

individual’s own past performance, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion that

one possesses certain capabilities, and physiological states (Bandura, 1986).

These four sources have been revealed to influence both academic and self-

regulation efficacy beliefs (Usher & Pajares, 2006).

The connection between performance accomplishments and self-efficacy

has been repeatedly established in academic settings. A recent study found that

mastery experiences constitute a very large portion of self-efficacy determination

for college students (Betz & Schifano, 2000). Bussey and Bandura (1999)

reviewed the developmental literature surrounding self-efficacy and concluded

that the best way to improve self-efficacy is through graded mastery experiences,
 34

then social persuasion, then social modelling, and finally by stress reduction and

management of depression.

Mathematics self-efficacy has received a great deal of attention from self-

efficacy researchers (Pajares, 1996b), and many researchers have verified the

theorised relationship between students’ academic performance in mathematics

and mathematics self-efficacy (Sinn, 2003). Lopez and Lent (1992) emphasised

that mastery experiences were the primary sources of self-efficacy information for

students in an Algebra II course and that mathematics self-efficacy was strongly

related to the students’ final grade in the course. Stevens, Olivarez, Lan and

Tallent-Runnels (2004) disclosed that the relationship between students’ prior

mathematics achievement and self-efficacy was stronger for Hispanic students

than for Caucasian students.

Modelling was repeatedly studied by Dale Schunk who provided

confirmation of the theory and demonstrated the importance of vicarious

experience as a source of self-efficacy (Schunk, 1981; Schunk & Hanson, 1985;

Schunk, Hanson, & Cox, 1987). Zimmerman (1981), as cited by Sinn (2003),

found that vicarious experience as well as verbal persuasion promotes

mathematics problem-solving self-efficacy. The sources of mastery experiences,

verbal persuasion and vicarious experiences have all been tested repeatedly by

researchers who have found Bandura’s model generally reliable. This reliability

has extended to educational settings despite the fact that Bandura was originally

working in a psychological setting of counselling interventions.

 35

The final source of self-efficacy, physiological states, was initially used in

the psychological counselling setting to refer to phobias. While a tiny minority of

people may actually have a mathematics phobia, most educational researchers

have related this fourth source of self-efficacy information to test anxiety or

academic stress. Mathematics anxiety was identified and researched before the

self-efficacy construct was tested by the research community (Betz, 1978; Betz &

Hackett, 1981). Researchers have repeatedly verified the high, negative

correlation of math anxiety to mathematics self-efficacy (Sinn, 2003), therefore

producing firm evidence that physiological states are a source of self-efficacy

information. In a study analysing the Mathematics Anxiety Scale (MAS),

researchers discovered two components of anxiety both of which correlate with

mathematics self-efficacy (Pajares & Urdan, 1996). Self-efficacy mediates

mathematics anxiety which the study found to correlate with performance

(Pajares, 1996a). Self-efficacy was found to have strong direct effect on anxiety

which, in turn, had a weak direct effect on performance (Pajares & Kranzler,

1995). Researchers have uncovered that females are more susceptible to

mathematics anxiety than males in both high school and college (Hackett, 1985;

Pajares & Kranzler, 1995; Pajares & Urdan, 1996) but not in middle school

(Pajares & Urdan, 1996).

Self-efficacy theory suggests that mastery experiences are the main source

of self-efficacy information and that, once developed, self-efficacy precepts exert

a major influence on future achievement. According to the theory, achievement

and high self-efficacy should be strongly correlated. Much evidence is available

 36

to support this conclusion. Early in the investigations of mathematics self-

efficacy, Schunk (1981) revealed that self-efficacy correlates with effort and

predicts future achievement. To researchers self-efficacy factors played a

significant role in determining a student’s final grade in a college course

(Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994). Bandura et al. (2001) summarised both their

theory and some of the research in this area by stating that “people’s motivation,

future accomplishments, and affective states are governed more by their perceived

self-efficacy than their prior performances” (p. 199). Further research indicates

that “children of high perceived academic self-efficacy achieves good academic

progress and have high educational aspirations and a strong sense of efficacy for

scientific, educational, literary, and medical pursuits” (Bandura et al., 2001, p.

198).

Researchers studying Grade 11 students using a model including variables

for gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic background and career interests discovered

that self-efficacy was predicted by academic performance and ethnic identity

(O'Brien et al., 1999). In a regression study that examined the relationship of

occupational and educational variables using a self-efficacy framework, self-

efficacy for academic milestones entered the prediction equations first ahead of

high school GPA, interests and math SAT scores (Hackett et al., 1992). Evidence

connected both achievement and self-efficacy to future grades in mathematics and

research had shown academic performance was the most efficient predictor of

self-efficacy (Lopez & Lent, 1992). A meta-analysis involving nearly 40 studies

 37

showed that self-efficacy was positively related to both performance and

persistence in accordance with Bandura’s model (Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991).

Other studies as cited in Sinn (2003) demonstrated the correlation between

self-efficacy and achievement (Malpass et al., 1999; Multon et al., 1991; Pajares,

1996a; Randhawa, Beamer, & Lundberg, 1993; Schunk, 1981; Zimmerman &

Bandura, 1994; Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992) and between self-

efficacy and mathematics problem-solving (Pajares & Kranzler, 1995; Pajares &

Miller, 1994, 1997; Schunk, 1981, 1982, 1983a). A study of beliefs and

achievement of two classes of high school students enrolled in an Algebra II

course found that mathematics self-efficacy related significantly both to actual

course grade and to general academic self-concept (Lopez & Lent, 1992). There is

also evidence to support the conclusion that the impact of self-efficacy varies with

achievement. When gifted students were compared with a normative group of

students on problem-solving tasks, it was uncovered that self-efficacy for the

normative group was influenced by prior achievement but not cognitive ability,

but that self-efficacy for the gifted group was directly influenced by cognitive

ability but not by prior achievement (Pajares, 1996a). The author suggested that

self-efficacy beliefs for gifted students may be more stable possibly due to their

identification as gifted. Lower achieving students’ performance was more closely

related to their self-efficacy beliefs than to the performance of their counterparts,

who were achieving at an average level (Multon et al., 1991), demonstrating that

lack of efficacy can prove debilitating for some students.

 38

In predicting future performance in mathematics, there seems to be an

interaction between mathematics self-efficacy and gender. Researchers have often

noted that females typically rate their mathematics self-efficacy lower than males

(Bandura et al., 2001; Betz & Hackett, 1981, 1983; Campbell & Hackett, 1986;

Hackett, 1985; Pajares & Kranzler, 1995). One research team noted that “men

tended to report somewhat higher self-efficacy in relation to mathematics courses

and general academic requirements than did women” (Lent et al., 1997, p. 310).

Women were more likely than men to attribute success to luck thus mitigating the

positive impact of mastery experiences (Campbell & Hackett, 1986). Several

researchers have also found that self-efficacy and prior experience mitigate the

gender differences in performance and interests (Hackett, 1985; Hackett et al.,

1992; Lapan, Boggs, & Morrill, 1989). In a sample of Grade 11 students enrolled

in an Algebra II course, researchers found that girls had slightly higher

mathematics self-efficacy and much higher academic self-concept than the boys.

This may be suggesting that women who do sustain high achievement levels in

mathematics may have “especially strong confidence in their academic abilities”

(Lopez & Lent, 1992, p. 10).

There are researchers who have demonstrated that self-efficacy beliefs

predict students’ mathematics performances, whether these performances are

assessed as criterion- referenced test scores or achievement indexes (Bandura,

1986; Pajares, 1996b; Schunk, 1991). Typically, self-efficacy predicts

mathematics performances to a greater degree than does math anxiety, previous

math experience, or self-efficacy for self-regulatory practices (Zimmerman,

 39

Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992). Pajares and Kranzler (1995) found that the

influence of self-efficacy on math performance was as strong as is the influence

of general mental ability. Across ability levels, students whose self-efficacy is

higher are more accurate in their mathematics computation and show greater

persistence on difficult items than do students whose self-efficacy is low (Collins,

1982).

Classroom assessment environment

Empirical evidence on achievement motivation has shown that situational

demands can affect the salience and adoption of specific achievement goals,

which lead to differential patterns of cognition, affect, and behaviour (Ames &

Archer, 1988). Students are exposed to a variety of instructional activities and

assessment tasks in the classroom. As students process these events, they develop

beliefs about the importance, utility, value, and difficulty of these tasks as well as

their personal chances of success (McMillan & Workman, 1998). Educators have

long recognised that the tasks used in the classroom communicate important

messages to students about what is emphasized there, which in turn may influence

their adoption of achievement goals (Ames, 1992b; Ames & Archer, 1988;

Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2001, 2002). For instance, classroom contexts that are

organised towards challenges are likely to activate the need for achievement,

which in turn may lead to the adoption of mastery and/or performance-approach

goals. On the other hand classroom contexts that are organised towards threats are

likely to activate fear of failure, which in turn may lead to the adoption of

performance-avoidance and/or performance-approach goals (Elliot, 1999). For the

 40

purpose of clarification, the terms need for achievement and fear of failure

represent the primary constructs of Atkinson and McClelland’s achievement

motivation theory (Atkinson, 1957; McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell,

1953) that distinguishes the need for achievement as an approach motive from the

fear of failure as an avoidance.

Ames (1992a) noted that the following classroom practices are likely to

encourage the adoption of mastery goals: (a) designing classroom tasks that

include challenges, varieties, novelties, and active involvement; (b) giving

students opportunities to make choices and decisions regarding their learning; (c)

providing private recognition and rewards that focus on individual student effort

and improvement; (d) creating small groups of heterogeneous abilities that

encourage working effectively with others on learning tasks and developing a

feeling of belongingness; (e) conducting evaluation practices that are private,

assess progress, improvement, and mastery, and avoid social comparisons; and (f)

allowing for time on the assessment task to vary with the nature of the task and

students’ needs. Conversely, performance-oriented classrooms are created when

students are not given varied tasks, the teacher maintains authority, students are

recognised for their ability relative to others, homogeneous ability groups are

engaged, evaluation is based on normative practices, and the time is inflexible to

do the assessment task.

These practices are typically initiated by the classroom teacher. The

overall sense or meaning that students make out of the various classroom

assessment events constitutes the classroom assessment environment (Brookhart

 41

& DeVoge, 1999). Brookhart and her colleagues pointed out that each classroom

has its own “assessment ‘character’ or environment” perceived by the students

and springs from the teacher’s classroom assessment practices (Brookhart, 2004;

Brookhart & Bronowicz, 2003). The concept of classroom assessment

environment was first introduced by Stiggins and Conklin (1992) as a result of

their observations of the assessment practices of four teachers in three sixth grade

classrooms. According to Stiggins and Conklin (1992), the classroom assessment

environment includes eight key elements. These are: assessment purposes,

assessment methods, criteria for selecting these methods, quality of assessment,

feedback on assessment results, teacher’s assessment background and preparation,

teacher’s perception of students, and assessment policy (Stiggins & Conklin,

1992). It should be noted that Stiggins and Conklin’s (1992) conceptualization of

classroom assessment environment centres more on teacher’s practices than on

students’ perception of these practices (Brookhart & Durkin, 2003).

Of increasing interest to the educational assessment community is the

effect of classroom assessment on student motivation, learning and achievement.

To this end, Brookhart (1997) developed a theoretical framework for the role of

classroom assessment in motivating students. This framework was based on a

synthesis of classroom assessment literature and motivation. In this framework,

classroom assessment environment is construed as a classroom context

experienced by students as the teacher establishes assessment purposes, assigns

assessment tasks, sets performance criteria and standards, gives feedback, and

monitors outcomes (Brookhart, 1997). There are four dimensions that underlie the
 42

classroom assessment environment: teacher’s attitudes towards students and

subject matter, teacher’s use of assessments, teacher’s preparation in assessment,

integration of assessment with instruction, and communication of assessment

results (Brookhart, 1997). She further postulated that students’ perceptions of the

classroom assessment activities may influence their motivational beliefs and

achievement, and that these perceptions are formed based in part on students’

experiences as a group in the classroom (Brookhart, 2004). This suggests that

student perceived classroom assessment environment should deserve recognition

and investigation as a valuable instructional outcome to be improved in the

learning process.

Building on Brookhart’s (1997) theoretical model and other motivational

literature, McMillan and Workman (1998) have shown how particular assessment

and grading practices increase or decrease student motivation. Specifically,

McMillan and Workman (1998) explained that the following teacher’s assessment

and grading practices may enhance students’ motivation to learn: (a) being clear

about how learning will be evaluated, (b) providing specific feedback following

an assessment activity, (c) using mistakes to show students how learning can be

improved, (d) using moderately difficult assessments, (e) using many assessments

rather than a few major tests, (f) using authentic assessment tasks, (g) using pre-

established criteria for evaluating students’ work, (h) providing incremental

assessment feedback, and (i) providing scoring criteria prior to administering the

assessment task. Along similar lines, Stiggins (1999) as well as Stiggins and

Chappuis (2005) contend that day-to-day classroom assessment can be used in

 43

more productive ways to motivate students to learn and increase their learning

confidence. Stiggins and Chappuis (2005) described four conditions that together

may foster positive motivational patterns for students. These conditions are that

classroom assessments should focus on clear purposes, provide accurate

reflections of achievement, provide frequent descriptive feedback on work

improvement rather than judgmental feedback, and involve students in the

assessment process (Stiggins & Chappuis, 2005).

In a study investigating part of Brookhart’s (1997) theoretical model,

Brookart and DeVoge (1999) used observation, survey, and interview techniques

to collect data from four classroom assessment events in two third-grade language

arts classes. The results revealed positive relationships among assessment task’s

characteristics as perceived by students, their perceptions of ability to do the task,

effort, and achievement. During the interviews, students expressed the importance

of the assessment task in accordance with their goal orientations. Some students

indicated the importance of the task in terms of its value for learning, which is

consistent with the mastery goal orientation. Other students expressed task

importance in terms of getting good grades, which is consistent with the

performance goal orientation. Consequently, Brookhart and DeVoge (1999)

suggested that students’ goal orientations should be considered when studying the

impact of classroom assessment on student motivation and achievement.

Although the focus was on college level students, Church et al. (2001)

conducted two studies to examine the relationships among opinions of classroom

environment and adoption of achievement goals for undergraduate students

 44

enrolled in chemistry classes. Three dimensions represented the classroom

environment. These were: lecture engagement, defined as “the extent to which

students perceive that the professor makes the lecture material interesting” (p. 44);

evaluation focus, defined as “the degree to which students perceive that the

professor emphasizes the importance of grades and performance evaluation” (p.

44); and harsh evaluation, defined as “the extent to which students view the

grading structure as so difficult that it minimizes the likelihood of successful

performance” (p. 44). Achievement goals were conceptualized in terms of

mastery, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals. When

perceived classroom environment and achievement goal variables were tested

together as predictors of graded performance and intrinsic motivation, results

showed that the perceived classroom environment influenced adoption of

achievement goals, which in turn directly influenced graded performance and

intrinsic motivation after controlling for student’s gender, competence valuation,

and SAT scores. Church et al. (2001) concluded that these findings suggest that

educators need to understand that classroom learning environments featuring

stringent evaluative standards may represent a risk factor in the achievement

domain. They further noted that their analyses were based on the notion that each

student perceives and responds to the classroom events differently.

In a recent relevant study of interrelationships among teacher assessment

practices, feedback, student self-efficacy, effort, and performance on a large scale

assessment, Rodriguez (2004) analysed the data collected from 6963 seventh and

eighth grade students nested within 326 mathematics teachers who participated in
 45

the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) in the United

States. The results indicated that at the classroom-level, teacher’s use of teacher-

made objective tests and his or her use of assessment information for grading and

evaluation rather than for feedback and discussion had significant negative

relationships to classroom performance. Frequent use of teacher-made objective

tests, at the classroom-level, neutralized the positive relationship between self-

efficacy and performance at the student-level. Rodriguez (2004) concluded that

classroom assessment practices might uniquely interact with students’

characteristics in their role of motivating students’ effort and performance.

Conclusions from the literature review

In summation, it is clearly illustrated that a number of studies have been

conducted to determine the relationships between gender, ethnicity, and students’

opinions of their classroom assessment environment, their achievement goals

orientation and academic self-efficacy and their mathematical performance. Some

of these studies supported a positive relationship while others supported a

negative relationship or no relationship. A close examination of the literature

revealed the following findings.

 The relationship between gender and mathematics performance were

conflicting. Additionally, the gender gap with respect to mathematics

performance seems to be decreasing rapidly and in some cases is non-

existent. As cited by Brown-Mothersill (2003) the findings for the

Caribbean were rather different from the international findings. At all levels,

Caribbean female students tended to perform significantly better than their

 46

male counterparts not only in mathematics but also in most other school

subjects. Mathematics performance also gives the impression of being age-

dependent and topic-dependent as well as time-dependent and place-

dependent.

 In numerous countries the dominant ethnic group achieves better in

mathematics than indigenous or minority groups

 Students who display both a strong mastery and a strong performance

orientation are more satisfied with their educational experience and their

overall academic experience. They further achieve higher performance

outcomes, integrate their knowledge gained in different courses more

frequently, examine their own points of view more often, work harder, and

work with classmates to better understand the course materials more often in

comparison with students with a mastery or a work-avoidance/performance

orientation.

 Students with high levels of self-efficacy are motivated and confident in

their skills, use self-regulatory strategies and achieve better than others. It is

further argued that the relation of self-efficacy to motivation and self-

regulated learning can indirectly influence students’ performance in

mathematics (Pintrich, 1999), as students with high level of self-efficacy are

motivated and confident in their skills, use self-regulatory strategies and

achieve better than others. Another finding concerns the reciprocal nature of

the relationship between self-efficacy and performance; past

 47

accomplishments inform currently held self-efficacy expectations, which in

turn influence task initiation and persistence (Bandura, 1997).

It has been suggested that teachers’ classroom assessment practices and

students’ opinions of these practices are critical to the students’ motivation for

learning and achievement.

 48

Chapter 3
Methodology

Addressed in this chapter are: the research design, sampling technique and

pilot and main study samples engaged in this study, the instrumentation, the

procedure for the administration of the instrument, data analyses and the study’s

limitations. This study’s main focus was to determine the relationships among

five student variables: gender, nationality and students’ opinions of their

mathematics classroom assessment environment, academic self-efficacy and

achievement goal orientations and the performance in mathematics of selected

Grade 11 Caymanian secondary school students.

Research design

As this research was aimed at providing a comprehensive insight into an

issue that cannot be controlled by the researcher, it was necessary for the

researcher to employ a flexible, rather than an experimental design. Based on

Robson’s (2002) discussions about flexible research design and because both the

effect and the alleged cause have already occurred and must be studied in

retrospect, an ex post facto research design was employed (Gay, Mills, &

Airasian, 2009). This study was quantitative in nature and a cross-sectional survey

was carried out with students’ performance in their 2009 Xmas-term mathematics

examination as the dependent variable, and gender, nationality, student opinions

of their mathematics classroom assessment environment, academic self-efficacy

and achievement goals as the independent variables.

Black (2005) quoted Kerlinger’s (1973, p.69-70) explanation of ex post

facto research as
 49

“Ex post facto research is … a systematic empirical inquiry in which the

scientist does not have direct control of independent variables because

their manifestations have already occurred or because they are inherently

not manipulable.”

The adoption of this research design, also referred to as causal-

comparative, was especially useful in this instance because it was impossible or

unethical to manipulate the independent variables to determine cause and effect

relationships (Beaumont, Evan & Johnson, 1997). Subsequently, in this particular

study, an analysis was done based on the likelihood of the relationships between

the independent variables and the dependent variable. Furthermore, investigated

in this study were the possible differences in the students’ performance on the

dependent variable (i.e. mathematics performance) based on the differences in

their independent variables (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2009). Correlational research

falls into the ex post facto category (Black, 2005). Thus, specifically, the research

design of this study may be classified as a correlational ex post facto research

design.

Sampling

The population engaged for this study comprised Grade 11 government

secondary school mathematics students in the Cayman Islands. Currently, there

are three government secondary schools within the Cayman Islands. However,

one is a junior secondary school with children from Grades 7 – 9 and as such the

students were not considered. John Gray High and Cayman Brac High Schools

had 343 and 59 grade 11 students respectively for a combined total of 402.
 50

Gay, Mills and Airasian (2009, p. 133), provided an oversimplified

approach to determining sample size. They suggested that if the population size is

around 500 (give or take 100), 50% should be sampled. Accordingly, 55% of the

students in the population were surveyed.

Black (2005, p. 70) opined that random selection is extremely imperative

in ex post facto research designs owing to the utilisation of natural or life

experiences and that the validity of each variable is dependent on how

representative the sample is of the larger populations having the characteristic or

experiences. Justifiably, the stratified random sampling technique was used to

select the sample. Students were grouped according to their educational district

(i.e. Grand Cayman (John Gray High) and Cayman Brac). They were then further

sub-divided into classes (tutorial groups). Classes were then randomly selected

using the table that Gay, Mills, & Airasian, (2009, p.126) provided. The schools

randomly placed the students into their tutorial groups upon entering school in

Grade 7 and they remain in these groupings until graduation. As a result there was

a good deal of variability with regards to the students’ characteristics in each

tutorial group. Approximately 85% of the students comprising the population

were from Grand Cayman. As a consequence the researcher utilised the

proportional stratified sampling approach, randomly selecting tutorial groups to

account for 73% of the sample from John Gray High School (JGHS) and

sampling all students from Cayman Brac (CBHS) for the remaining 27% (Gay,

Mills, & Airasian, 2009, p.133).

 51

The pilot sample

The pilot sample consisted of 51 Grade 11 students (comprising 28 boys

and 23 girls) from both JGHS and CBHS. Of this number, 36 were Caymanians

while 15 were non-Caymanians. This satisfied the requirements of a pilot study in

that it was representative of the main sample. The instrument used for the pilot

study was the same that was used for the main study’s sample and it was

administered under similar conditions.

“Pilot testing the questionnaire provides information about deficiencies

and suggestions for improvement” (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2009, p. 181). Hence,

the pilot study was conducted to determine

(a) whether or not the proposed time (20 minutes) to complete the instrument

was adequate;

(b) whether or not there were any ambiguities in the instrument;

(c) whether or not the language used and instructions given were clear,

appropriate and adequate; and

(d) the reliability of the items used to measure the students’ opinions of their

classroom assessment environment, achievement goals and academic self-

efficacy.

The main study’s sample

The main study sample consisted of 221 Grade 11 students comprising

123 males (56% of the sample) and 98 females (44%) from the two high schools

in the Cayman Islands. Of the 221students, 178 (80.5%) were Caymanians and 43

were non-Caymanians (19.5%).

 52

Students were categorised as “high”, “average” or “low” with respect to

their aggregate opinions for the three other dependent variables in order to

compare their mathematics performance. Those whose scores on the Mathematics

Classroom Assessment Environment (MCAE), Achievement Goals (AG) and

Academic Self-efficacy (ASE) scales were above half of one standard deviation

(SD = 8.13, 7.34 and 4.04 respectively) above the sample mean (68.33, 40.17 and

18.54 respectively) were classified as high in those areas. Their raw scores were

from 72 to 91 for MCAE, 44 to 56 for AG and 21 to 24 for ASE. Similarly,

students with scores between half of one standard deviation below the mean and

half of one standard deviation above the sample mean for each variable were

classified as average. Their raw scores were from 64 to 71 for MCAE, 36 to 43

for AG and 17 to 20 for ASE. Further, students categorised as “low” were those

whose aggregate scores were below half of one standard deviation below the

sample mean. Their raw scores were from 45 to 63 for MCAE, 19 to 35 for AG

and 6 to 16 for ASE.

The sampled students’ mean age was 15 years and 5 months with that of

boys being 15 years and 6 months and that of girls being 15 years and 4 months.

Table 3.1 shows the distribution of the sample with respect to the sub-groups of

the independent variables.

 53

Table 3.1

Distribution of the main study’s sample with respect to the independent

variables

Variables Number of students

Gender

Male 123

Female 98
Race/Nationality

Caymanian 178

Non-Caymanian 43
Math classroom assessment environment

High 76

Average 83

Low 62
Achievement goals

High 73

Average 92

Low 56
Academic self-efficacy

High 78

Average 85

Low 58
Instrumentation

Wellington (2000), who states that questionnaires are considered effective

for eliciting people’s views, opinions or perceptions, provides a justification for

 54

using a questionnaire in this study. Consequently, for data collection purposes, the

researcher constructed an instrument labelled, “Questionnaire for Grade 11

Students 2010” and administered it first to the pilot study students and

subsequently to the main study students. Three colleagues of the researcher - who

were knowledgeable in the area of education and research, as well as the

researcher’s study’s supervisor - reviewed the instrument and gave it both face

and content validity before it was pilot-tested. The instrument was expected to be

completed within 20 minutes and had four sections, namely:

A. Demographic information;

B. Mathematics Classroom Assessment Environment Indicators;

C. Achievement Goal Orientation Indices; and

D. An Academic Self-Efficacy Scale.

Section A: Demographic information

This section of the questionnaire contained six items. These items were

meant to help furnish information on the students’ name, age, gender, nationality,

school and their 2009 Xmas-term mathematics score.

The author of the study constructed the subsequent sections of the

questionnaire based on the literature reviewed, and similar instruments from

AlKharusi (2007) using a 4-point Likert inventory as Assor and Connell (1992)

recommended. They concluded that Likert-type scales of four points provided

more valid information on self-report measures designed for elementary, middle,

and high school students. Therefore, the students in this study were asked to

indicate the degree to which each item is true for them on a 4-point Likert scale
 55

ranging from 1 (completely not true) to 4 (completely true). Popham (2008)

confirmed that the usual options, at least for adults, for Likert inventories are

strongly agree, agree, uncertain, disagree, and strongly disagree. He further

postulated that depending on the age of the students involved, adjustments are to

be made in the statements used and in the number and/ or phrasing of the response

options. Based on this recommendation, the researcher changed the usual options

and eliminated the “uncertain” option thereby forcing the respondents to register

a preference one way or the other (Popham, 2008).

Section B: Mathematics classroom assessment environment

The Classroom Assessment Environment (CAE) indicator was used to

determine students’ opinions of their mathematics classroom assessment

environment. This section of the questionnaire was developed from a similar

instrument used by AlKharusi (2007) and from classroom assessment literature

that addressed certain aspects of the classroom assessment environment (Ames,

1992a, 1992b; Brookhart, 1994, 1997; Church et al., 2001; Crooks, 1988; Greene

et al., 2004; Maslovaty & Kuzi, 2002; McMillan & Workman, 1998; Midgley et

al., 2000; Stiggins & Chappuis, 2005; Stipek, 2002; Wang, 2004).

It consisted of 24 items sectionalised into three areas that were identified

from the literature. The subgroups were assessment tasks (6 items), assessment

feedback (13 items), and assessment standards and criteria (5 items). These areas

were assumed to be more directly related to students’ experiences of their

classroom assessment environment (Crooks, 1988; Wang, 2004). This section

 56

consisted of seven negatively worded statements and had internal consistency

reliability, measured by Cronbach’s alpha, of .73. See Appendix A.

Section C: Achievement goals orientations

The Achievement goal orientations section contained 14 items adapted

from AlKharusi (2007). Originally, in this version, the items assessed students’

adoption of mastery (5 items), performance-approach (5 items), and performance-

avoidance (4 items) goals on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all true)

to 5 (very true). AlKharusi (2007) reported internal consistency reliabilities of .75,

.66, and .54 for mastery, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance

goals as measured by Cronbach’s alpha, respectively. In this study, the items were

phrased in relation to the mathematics class work using a 4-point Likert scale

ranging from 1 (completely not true) to 4 (completely true), adhering to the

recommendation of Assor and Connell (1992).

Based on my knowledge, these items have been validated for use with

middle school science students in Oman (AlKharusi, 2007) and as such, due to

changes in the scales’ anchors, wording and language of the items, and context

where they were used the instrument was subjected to pilot-testing. Students’

responses to these items for the main study were submitted to reliability analysis

which yielded internal consistency reliability (Cronbach alpha) coefficients of .91,

.71, and .77 for mastery, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance

goals, respectively. The overall Achievement Goals Orientations scale had a

Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of .80.

Section D: Academic self-efficacy

 57

The Academic self-efficacy section of the questionnaire was adapted from

Greene et al. (2004). These items have been validated for use with middle and

high school science students in the United States (Greene et al., 2004; Midgley et

al., 2000). Subsequently, changes were made in the wording and language of the

items and context where they were used. It contained six positively worded items

assessing students’ opinions of their competence to do their class work. The items

focused on students’ opinions about their competence to do the work in their

current mathematics class according to Bandura’s (1986) theoretical guidelines.

The Cronbach alpha coefficient for this measure was .91 compared to .74 for

Greene et al.’s (2004) study.

In scoring sections B, C and D of the instrument, for positively worded

items, if students selected “completely not true”, “somewhat not true”, “somewhat

true” or “completely true” they were scored 1, 2, 3 or 4 points respectively. The

reverse was done for negatively worded items. Thus, the least possible score was

zero and the maximum possible score was 96, 56 and 24 respectively for sections

B, C and D.

For the main study, the Cronbach alpha coefficient obtained for the 44

items was .84 which was within the acceptable band (≥ .75) that Bastick and

Matalon (2007) suggested.

Administration of the instrument

Permission was sought to conduct the study from the Chief Education

Officer (CEO) via a letter explaining the nature and purpose of the study and this
 58

was carbon copied to the Learning Community Leaders and the Principals of both

high schools. A copy of this letter is exhibited in Appendix B. Upon the receipt of

a favourable response from the CEO and Principals, the researcher met the Head

of the Mathematics Department of both schools to discuss the administrative

procedure and to arrange an appropriate day and time to administer the

instrument. At this meeting, the cooperating teachers were briefed, and the

researcher requested that the students were made aware of the research’s purpose

and be assured that their identities and school would be kept confidential. It was

also imperative that the students be informed that the results of their 2009 Xmas-

term examination would only be used for the purpose of the study.

According to Stiggins and Conklin (1992), teachers’ assessment practices

tend to be consistent over time and that the classroom assessment environment is

usually established during the first few days of the semester. Subsequently, the

administration of the instrument was done during the last week of January 2010.

On the day of the administration of the instrument, the researcher introduced

himself to the tutorial staff for the groups selected and further briefed them about

the procedure for completing the copies of the questionnaire. The researcher

worked personally with one group. The students were acknowledged for their

participation and reassured that the results would only be used for the purpose of

the study. The students were also encouraged to answer honestly and work

individually. Copies of the instrument were then distributed. Steps were taken to

ensure that there was no communication between students and that they answered

all questions. Prior to collecting the instrument, the cooperating teachers

 59

encouraged the students to review their work to ensure that what they had written

was what they meant to write and that they had answered all the questions. Upon

collecting the completed copies of the questionnaire, sincere gratitude was

extended to all the students. Letters of appreciation were sent to the Principals, the

cooperating teachers and students. Copies of these letters are displayed in

Appendix C.

Pilot study results

The pilot study results confirmed that the language used and the

instructions given were unambiguous, appropriate and adequate. The proposed

time of 20 minutes was also satisfactory as all the students in the pilot sample

completed within the specified time. Seventy seven percent of the students

completed the questionnaire in approximately 15 minutes while six percent

finished within two minutes of the allotted time.

The Cronbach alpha for the questionnaire items seeking students’

opinions was 0.84. This indicated that the instrument was sufficiently reliable as it

was within the acceptable band (≥ .75) that Bastick and Matalon (2007) proposed.

Deleting items number 42, 43, and 44 will not significantly alter the overall

Cronbach alpha coefficient of all 44 items in the instrument. Hence, the scales

were not modified. Table 3.2 shows the results of the internal consistency

(Cronbach alpha) reliability coefficients of the items comprising all three scales of

the questionnaire.

Table 3.2
 60

Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients of the students’ responses to the three

main scales of the questionnaire items

Items deleted Number of items in each scale Cronbach alpha

None 44 0.84

The students’ mean score on the pilot study was 71.57 (or 74.6%) out of a

maximum score of 96 for Mathematics Classroom Assessment Environment (SD

= 8.19), 37.59 (or 67.1%) out of a maximum score of 56 for Achievement Goals

Orientation (SD = 9.15) and 19.67 (or 82%) out of a possible 24 points for

Academic Self –Efficacy (SD = 3.69).

In the main study, the mean score of the students was 68.33 (or 71.20%)

for Classroom Assessment Environment (SD= 8.13), 40.17 (or 71.70%) for

Achievement Goals Orientation (SD = 7.34) and 18.54 (77.30%) for Academic

Self –Efficacy (SD = 4.04). The closeness of the students’ scores in the pilot and

the main studies added credence to the reliability of the instrument. For the 2009

Xmas-term Mathematics test, the mean score for the pilot students was 44.86 (SD

= 18.07) which is slightly below the “traditional pass mark of 50%”.

Data analyses

To adequately answer the research questions the following statistical

analyses were done.

For research question 1

1. Descriptive statistics involving the mean, range, and standard deviation

were computed on the students’ scores on the 2009 Xmas term

mathematics test.
 61

2. The frequency distribution and the histogram for the students’ scores were

constructed.

For research question 2

Frequency distributions for the students’ raw scores on their opinions of

their mathematics classroom assessment environment, their achievement goals

orientation and academic self-efficacy were constructed. Additionally, descriptive

statistics that is the mean and standard deviation were computed to decipher

whether the selected students’ aggregate opinion with respect to the 3 variables

was favourable or not.

For research question 3

Descriptive statistics of the students’ performance on the 2009 Xmas term

mathematics test based on their gender, nationality, opinions of their mathematics

classroom assessment environment, opinions of their achievement goals and

opinions of their academic self-efficacy were computed. Further, a five-way

analysis of variance (ANOVA) in the students’ performance on the mathematics

test based on their gender, nationality, opinions of their mathematics classroom

assessment environment, opinions of their achievement goals and opinions of

their academic self-efficacy was used to determine if there were any significant

differences in the students’ performance on the test.

For research question 4

Pearson Product Moment Correlation (PPMC) coefficients relating the

students’ gender, nationality, opinions of their mathematics classroom assessment

environment, opinions of their achievement goals and opinions of their academic

 62

self-efficacy and their performance in the mathematics test were calculated to

discern whether any significant relationships existed among these variables and

students’ mathematics performance.

The data gathered from the questionnaire were analysed for normality

using the 1-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test. The results showed that the

K-S Z = 0.79 (p> 0.05), with the skewness and kurtosis values being -.296 and .

884 respectively. The null hypothesis stating that the data came from a normal

distribution was accepted. Further, the skewness and kurtosis values for all

variables were within acceptable range of ±2 as George and Mallery’s (2001)

guidelines suggested. This provided further verification that there was no concern

about deviation from normality. As such this evidence suggested that the more

powerful parametric tests as outlined above were applied to draw inferences

(Bastick & Matalon, 2007). When responses to several Likert items are summed,

they may be treated as interval data measuring a latent variable. If the summed

responses are normally distributed, parametric statistical tests such as the analysis

of variance can be applied (McCall, 2001).

Ethical considerations

Ethical considerations according to Churchill (1995) and quoted by White

(2007) are “moral principles and values that govern the way an individual or

group conducts its activities”. Hagan, (2006) postulated that when conducting any

research, clear ethical guidelines must be followed with respect to the steps the

researcher should take to protect the privacy, confidentiality, and personal

security of human subjects. Bordens and Abbott (2002) surmised that, it is the
 63

right of the participants to be educated about the nature, the requirements and

purpose of the research and be given the choice to either decline or become

involved in the process. Consequently, in conducting this research, necessary

steps were taken to ensure that all participants in the research understood the

process in which they were to be engaged. Thus, along with copies of the

questionnaire, letters were sent to the participants informing them about the nature

of the study through the cooperating teachers, including information on what the

study was about; who was conducting it; why their participation was necessary;

how the information would be used; how confidentiality and anonymity would be

kept, and that they were free not to participate. A copy of the letter is shown

together with the questionnaire in Appendix A.

Limitations of the study

1. Even though the sample was randomly selected, the sample size could be

considered small; thus, generalisations could only be made with respect to

the sample engaged in this study. In relation to the population size,

however, this sample is fairly representative, as such, the findings of this

study are likely to ring true for many Caymanian Grade 11Mathematics

students who were not sampled with respect to their performance.

2. The ambit of this study was limited to certain demographic variables

(gender, nationality, and students’ opinions of their mathematics

classroom assessment environment, academic self-efficacy and

achievement goals). Nonetheless, there were other variables, such as the

students’ age, self-esteem, IQ, socio-economic background and future

 64

career choice etc. that could have been related to the students’

performance on the 2009 Xmas term mathematics test but which were not

investigated in this study.

3. Further, this study was also limited in that it only investigated the

performance in mathematics of Grade 11 government students utilising a

solitary measure - their 2009 Xmas term mathematics score. Private

students were not included in the study even though they formed a part of

the Caymanian student population.

4. In the ex post facto research design used, there was no rigorous control of

the independent variables (gender, nationality, and students’ opinions of

their mathematics classroom assessment environment, academic self-

efficacy and achievement goals). Thus, causality could not be confirmed

for the independent variables found to be related to the selected

Caymanian Grade11 students’ performance in mathematics.

Chapter 4
Results and Discussions

Presented in this chapter are the data collected from Chapter 3 which are

discussed with respect to the research questions stated in Chapter 1 and the

literature reviewed in Chapter 2.

Research question 1
 65

Was the level of the selected Grade 11 Caymanian students' performance

in their 2009 Xmas term mathematics test satisfactory or not?

To answer this question, the frequency distribution, mean and the standard

deviation of the selected students on their 2009 Xmas term test were computed

and analysed. Table 4.1 shows the results.

Table 4.1

Frequency distribution, mean and standard deviation of the students’

scores in the 2009 Xmas term mathematics test

Percentag
Raw Score Frequency e Cumulative Percentage

6 1.00 0.50 0.50

13 – 48 115.00 52.00 52.50
50 – 88 104.00 47.05 99.50
91 1.00 0.50 100.00
Total 221.00 100.00
n = 221 Mean = 48.68 SD= 17.30

From Table 4.1, it can be seen that one student scored 6 which is the

lowest; one student scored 91, the highest score; hence, the range 85 is very high

and is consistent with the high standard deviation 17.30(17.50%). Furthermore,

the table shows that the mean score is 48.68% and that only 105 or 47.50% of the

students scored above the mean (i.e. score of 50% or more), while 116 (52.50%)

of the students scored below the mean which is below 50% of the mathematics

score.
 66

Subsequently, evidence presented in Table 4.1 indicates that the

performance of the selected students on the 2009 Xmas term examination was

unsatisfactory. The poor showing of the students in their mathematics test did not

come to the researcher as a surprise. Justification of this is provided in Table 1.1

which shows that for the period 2005 to 2009, the percentage passes for the CXC-

CSEC general proficiency mathematics examinations for Caribbean students and

more specifically Caymanian students was less than 50%. Figure 4.1 gives a

visual representation of the distribution of the students’ 2009 Xmas term

mathematics scores.
 67

Figure 4.1 Histogram with normal curve for the students’ 2009 Xmas term

mathematics score.

From Figure 4.1, it can be interpreted that the distribution of the students’

2009 Xmas term mathematics scores is slightly positively skewed. This

exemplifies the above-mentioned fact that more students obtained grades lower

than the mean than above it supporting the finding that the students’ performance

in the test was unsatisfactory.

Students’ achievement in the outcome of mathematics tests depends on a

multiplicity of factors. Maliki, Ngban and Ibu (2009) opined that achievement

processes are the results of the students’ characteristics, their environments, the

utilisation of teaching-learning models, instructional materials as well as the

students’ structural ability. Consequently, students’ gender, nationality and

opinions pertaining to their achievement goals, classroom assessment

environment and their academic self-efficacy as investigated in this study, are

among the numerous factors which are likely to influence their performance in

mathematics. In answering research questions 2, 3 and 4 the researcher aimed to

find out if there were any statistically significant differences in and/or

relationships among the students’ performance in the Xmas term mathematics test

based on the aforementioned variables and if so, what they were.

Research question 2
 68

Were their opinions about (a) their mathematics classroom assessment

environment, (b) achievement goals, and (c) academic self-efficacy favourable or

not?

In answering this question, the frequency distributions, the means and

standard deviations on the students’ opinions of their mathematics classroom

assessment environment, their achievement goals and their academic self-efficacy

were computed and analysed. Table 4.2 shows the results for the students’

opinions on their mathematics classroom assessment environment.

Table 4.2

Frequency distribution, mean and standard deviation of the students’

opinions of their mathematics classroom assessment environment

Raw Score Frequency Percentage Cumulative Percentage

45 1.00 0.50 0.50

49 – 68 114.00 51.50 52.00
69 – 86 105.00 47.50 99.50
 69

91 1.00 0.50 100.00

Total 221.00 100.00
n = 221 Mean = 68.33 SD = 8.13 Maximum score = 96

From Table 4.2, it’s obvious that the mean score is 68.33 (71.18%) and all

but one student had aggregate opinions above 50% of the maximum mark

possible (48). One hundred and fifteen students (52%) scored below the mean,

while 48% of the students scored above the mean. Also, the standard deviation of

8.13 being fairly large relative to the range of 46, indicates that student scores

were fairly widely spread about the mean. As such it can be interpreted that the

students’ opinions on their mathematics classroom assessment environment were

somewhat heterogeneous. Evidence presented here seems to suggest that the

students’ opinions were not favourable. Table 4.3 shows the results for the

students’ opinions of their achievement goals.

Table 4.3

Frequency distribution, mean and standard deviation of the students’

opinions of their achievement goals

Raw Score Frequency Percentage Cumulative Percentage

19 2.00 0.90 0.90
20 – 40 114.00 51.60 52.50
41 – 55 103.00 46.60 99.10
56 2.00 0.90 100.00
Total 221.00 100.00
n = 221 Mean = 40.17 SD = 7.34 Maximum score = 56
 70

Table 4.3, illustrates that the mean score is 40.17 (71.7%) and one hundred

sixteen students (52.5%) had aggregate opinions of their achievement goals below

the mean. The standard deviation is 7.34. This is somewhat high in comparison to

the range of 37, indicating that the students’ scores were scattered about the mean.

As such it can be interpreted that there was much variability in students’ opinions

on their achievement goals, hence their views were fairly heterogeneous. It can be

concluded from the data presented above that the students’ views with regards

their achievement goals were not favourable. Table 4.4 presents the results for the

students’ opinions about their academic self-efficacy.

Table 4.4

Frequency distribution, mean and standard deviation of the students’

opinions of their academic self-efficacy

Raw Score Frequency Percentage Cumulative Percentage

6 2.00 0.90 0.90
7 - 18 102.00 46.20 47.10
19 - 23 89.00 40.20 87.30
24 28.00 12.70 100.00
Total 221.00 100.00
n = 221 Mean = 18.54 SD = 4.04 Maximum score = 24
 71

Table 4.4, confirms that the mean score is 18.54 (77.25%) and 117

students (52.90%) had aggregate opinions of their academic self-efficacy above

the mean. 28 students (12.70%) had perfect scores on this scale. The standard

deviation is 4.04 which is comparatively small to the range of 18. This indicates

that students’ scores were clustered about the mean. It can therefore be interpreted

that students’ opinions of their academic self-efficacy, were similar. Evidently,

from the data presented above, it can be surmised that the student’s views were

favourable.

Research question 3

Were there any significant differences in the students' performance in

their mathematics test based on their (a) gender, (b) nationality, (c) opinions of

their mathematics classroom assessment environment, (d) opinions of their

achievement goals, and (e) opinions of their academic self-efficacy?

To determine if there were any statistically significant differences in the

students’ performance on the 2009 Xmas term mathematics test based on the

differences in their gender, nationality, opinions of their mathematics classroom

assessment environment, opinions of their achievement goals and opinions of

their academic self-efficacy, the sample was divided into:

1. Gender - male and female;

2. Nationality – Caymanian and Non-Caymanian;

3. Mathematics classroom assessment environment – low average and

high;

4. Achievement Goals - low, average and high; and

 72

5. Academic self-efficacy - low, average and high.

The means and standard deviations of the students on the 2009 Xmas term

test were then examined for each subgroup of the independent variables. Table 4.5

shows the means and standard deviations of the students for each subgroup of the

independent variables.

Table 4.5

Means and standard deviations of the students’ performance in the mathematics

test based on their gender, nationality, opinions of their mathematics classroom

assessment environment (MCAE), opinions of their achievement goals (AG) and

opinions of their academic self-efficacy (ASE).

Variables n Mean Std. Deviation

Gender
Male 123.00 46.77 16.67
Female 98.00 51.08 17.89
Nationality
Caymanian 178.00 46.78 17.16
Non-Caymanian 43.00 56.58 15.75
Maths classroom assessment
 73

environment 76.00 53.28 15.94

High 83.00 46.18 17.80
Average 62.00 46.40 17.36
Low
Achievement goals
High 73.00 49.89 15.37
Average 92.00 49.33 17.86
Low 56.00 46.05 18.73
Academic self-efficacy
High 78.00 56.06 16.28
Average 85.00 49.02 15.54
Low 58.00 38.26 15.99

Table 4.5 shows that the standard deviations of all of the subgroups are

relatively high. These high values indicate that the data for each subgroup were

widely distributed about the mean and were heterogeneous. Additionally, the

range of the scores for each subgroup is relatively large (from 64 to 85 for all

groups) which helps to explain the variability in the scores.

The following observations are evident based on the data in Table 4.5:

(a) the mean score of the female students (51.08) is higher than that of

the male students (46.77);

(b) the mean score of non-Caymanian students (56.58) is higher than the

mean score of Caymanian students (46.78);

(c) the mean score of students with a high aggregate opinion of their

mathematics classroom assessment environment (53.28) is higher

than the mean score of both students with an average (46.18) or a

 74

low (46.40) aggregate opinion; there was a minute difference of

(0.22) between the mean scores of the two latter sub-groups;

(d) the mean score of students with a high aggregate opinion of their

achievement goals (49.89) is slightly higher (by 0.56) than the mean

score of students with an average aggregate opinion (49.33); students

with a low aggregate opinion had the least average (46.05); and

(e) the mean score of students with a high cumulative opinion of their

academic self-efficacy (56.06) is higher than the mean score of

students with an average (49.02) cumulative opinion; students with a

low cumulative opinion had the least average (38.28).

A five-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was computed to determine

whether the differences in the means as evident above were statistically

significant or not. The results are shown in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6

Five-way analysis of variance in the students’ performance on the mathematics

test based on their gender, nationality, opinions of their mathematics classroom

assessment environment (MCAE), opinions of their achievement goals(AG) and

opinions of their academic self-efficacy(ASE)

Type III Sum Mean

Source df F Sig.
of Squares Square
Corrected Model 25494.13 69.00 369.48 1.38 .05
Intercept 179285.88 1.00 179285.88 670.91 .00
Gender 525.56 1.00 525.56 1.97 .16
Nationality 1156.52 1.00 1156.52 4.19 .04
MCAE 1125.16 2.00 562.58 2.11 .13
AG 304.25 2.00 152.12 .57 .57
 75

ASE 2211.99 2.00 1106.00 4.14 .02

Error 40351.70 151.0 267.23
 
0
Total 589629.00 221.0
     
0
Corrected Total 65845.83 220.0
     
0

Table 4.6 indicates that there are no statistically significant differences in

the students’ performance (p >.05) on the 2009 Xmas term test with respect to

their gender, opinions of their mathematics classroom assessment environment

and opinions of their achievement goals. Hence, the slight differences in their

numerical scores as reported in Table 4.5 must have occurred primarily due to

chance. Table 4.6 also indicates that there are significant differences in the

students’ performance on the test based on their nationality and their opinions of

their academic self-efficacy (p<.05). A close examination of Table 4.5’s data

reveals that the significant differences are in favour of the non-Caymanian

students and students with high aggregate opinions of their academic self-efficacy

respectively.

Nationality differences in the students’ performance

This study showed that non-Caymanian students statistically significantly

outperformed their Caymanian counterparts on the 2009 Xmas term mathematics

test (p<.05). This finding was not altogether surprising to the researcher as based

on his three years teaching experience here in the Cayman Islands, he has

observed that foreign students seem to be more motivated, believe more in their
 76

ability to succeed and ultimately set higher achievement goals for themselves than

Caymanian students. Substantiating this generalisation, results from an analysis of

the means showed that of the selected grade 11 students, non-Caymanians have

significantly (p <.001) higher aggregate opinions of their academic self-efficacy

(mean= 20.30) than their Caymanian counterparts (mean= 18.11). With reference

to achievement goals the mean for non-Caymanians (41.00) was higher than that

of Caymanians (39.97) but the difference was not significant (p >.05).

This study’s finding contradicts the finding of Grootenboer and

Hemmings (2007) who found that the Pakeha students (the dominant race) were

more likely to be rated at a higher level in mathematical performance in

comparison with students from Maori/Pacific Islander backgrounds in New

Zealand. On the contrary, Reston (2008) in examining the results of the 2007

TIMSS indirectly corroborated this study’s findings, discovered that in the US,

eighth grade Asian students outscored whites by 16 points and fourth-grade Asian

students outperformed whites in 2007 by 32 points.

Incidentally, the researcher did not find any previous study that had

examined the differences in Grade 11 students’ performance in mathematics

based on the differences in their nationality with which this study’s finding could

have been directly compared.

Absence of gender differences in the students’ performance

The results in Table 4.5 showed that the females’ mean score in the 2009

Xmas term test was slightly higher than that of the male students. The ANOVA

data in Table 4.6, however, revealed that the difference between the means was
 77

not significant. This means that in this study, the males’ and females’

mathematics performances were similar. According to the literature reviewed in

Chapter 2, the trend in contemporary studies (e.g. Kohr, 1987; Maple & Stage,

1991; Alkhateeb, 2001; Reston, 2008) which indicated a narrowing of or a non-

existent gender gap has corroborated the results of this study. As such this result

is not totally surprising to the researcher.

The Kansas State Board of Education (1999), USA, which reported that

for the period 1995 to 1999 there were no significant gender differences for Grade

4 and Grade 7 students’ overall mathematics performance, provided an indirect

support for this study’s finding. Specifically relating to the grade-level of the

respondents of the current study, Kohr (1987) reported no gender differences in

the mathematics performance of Grade 11 students using data derived from the

Pennsylvania Educational Quality Assessment Programme for the years 1981 to

1984. Similarly, no gender difference in the mathematics performance was found

in a sample of 269 Grade 11 students from eight high schools in Shanghai, China

(Zu & Farrell, 1992).

One plausible reason for the absence of significant gender differences in

Caymanian Grade 11 students’ mathematics performance in this study could be

that the female students believed more in their ability to do mathematics and were

more motivated which in turn, had a positive impact on their performance. For the

selected Grade 11 students of this study, the analysis showed that the females’

mean aggregate opinion of their academic self-efficacy (19.53) was significantly

higher (p < .001) than that of their male counterparts (17.75), which confirms
 78

Lopez & Lent’s (1992) study. Also, the results showed that in relation to their

opinions of achievement goals, the mean for the male students (39.93) and female

students (40.48) were relatively the same (p>.05).

Academic self-efficacy differences in the students’ performance

Many researchers have verified the theorised relationship between

students’ academic performance in mathematics and their mathematics self-

efficacy (Sinn, 2003). Lopez and Lent (1992) emphasised that mastery

experiences were the primary sources of self-efficacy information for students in

an Algebra II course and that mathematics self-efficacy was strongly related to the

students’ final grade in the course. It was, therefore, not surprising to the

researcher that the differences in the performance of students from the high,

average and low sub-groups with respect to their self-efficacy on the 2009 Xmas

term test was statistically significant.

This study showed that the students possessing high aggregate opinions of

their academic self-efficacy statistically significantly outperformed their

counterparts from the other two sub-groups (average and low). The students with

average opinions performed better than their peers with low opinions. This seems

to corroborate the findings of Stevens, Olivarez and Hamman (2006) who

reported that students’ self-efficacy and the sources of self-efficacy were stronger

predictors of students’ mathematics achievement than their general mental ability.

Absence of differences in opinions of achievement goals on the students’

performance
 79

The results in Table 4.5 showed that the mean score in the 2009 Xmas

term test for students with high and average aggregate opinions of their

achievement goals was relatively equal but three points higher than that of

students with low opinions. But the ANOVA results in Table 4.6 revealed that the

numerical differences among the means were not statistically significant. As such,

evidence from this study suggests that the students with differing levels of

opinions about their achievement goals orientation performed alike in their 2009

Xmas term math test.

This study’s finding received an indirect support from the findings of

Albaili (1998) of United Arab Emirates in respect of college students in that no

significant differences were observed among the groups with different GPA

results on the achievement goal orientation scale.

But the researcher was unable to access any previous study that had been

conducted on the presence or absence of significant differences in Grade 11

students’ mathematics performance linked to the differences in their opinions of

achievement goals with which this study’s finding could have been compared.

Absence of differences in opinions of their mathematics classroom

assessment environment on students’ performance

This study showed that there were no significant differences in the

students’ performance in the 2009 Xmas term mathematics test based on the

differences in their opinions of their mathematics classroom assessment

environment (Table 4.6). As stated earlier, this finding implies that the differences

in the mean scores of the students based on their opinions of their mathematics
 80

classroom assessment environment shown in Table 4.5 data were likely to be due

to chance. Hence, this means that the performances of the students on the

mathematics test were similar despite the differences in their levels of opinions

about their mathematics classroom assessment environment.

Again, the researcher was unable to find any previous study which had

explored the differences in Grade 11 students’ performance based on the

differences in their opinions of their mathematics classroom assessment

environment with which this study’s finding could have been directly compared.

Research question 4

Were there any significant correlations among the students' (a) gender,

(b) nationality, (c) opinions of their mathematics classroom assessment

environment, (d) opinions of their achievement goals, and (e) opinions of their

academic self-efficacy and their performance in their mathematics test?

In determining if there were any statistically significant relationships

among the students’ gender, nationality, opinions of their mathematics classroom

assessment environment, opinions of their achievement goals, and opinions of

their academic self-efficacy and their performance in their mathematics test,

Pearson Product Moment Correlation (PPMC) coefficients were computed and

analysed. This method of analysis was employed because three of the students’

independent variables (opinions of their mathematics classroom assessment

environment, opinions of their achievement goals, and opinions of their academic

self-efficacy) do not typify genuine dichotomies and are continuous variables

 81

from a normal distribution (Bastick & Matalon, 2007). Point-biserial coefficients

require truly dichotomous data. Table 4.7 shows the results of these analyses.

Table 4.7

Pearson correlation coefficients relating the students’ gender, nationality,

opinions of their mathematics classroom assessment environment, opinions of

their achievement goals and opinions of their academic self-efficacy and their

performance in the mathematics test

Independent variables Math mean score

Gender .12
Nationality .24**
Mathematics classroom assessment environment .23**
Achievement goals .12
Academic self-efficacy .45**
*.Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**.Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

A close examination of Table 4.7 suggests that there are weak, positive

non-significant relationships among the students’ (a) gender, and (b) opinions of

their achievement goals and their performance on the 2009 Xmas term

mathematics test. These results are consistent with the data in Table 4.6 discussed

earlier and Ee’s, Moore’s and Atputhasamy (2003) study of achievement goals of

high-achieving students. They reported that students’ grades were only weakly
 82

correlated with achievement goals and cautioned about the interpretation of the

weak relationships.

Also evident in Table 4.7 is that, a positive, statistically significant

(p<.01) but weak relationship (Cohen, 1988) exists between the students’

nationality (r =.23) and their opinions of their mathematics classroom assessment

environment (r = .23) and their performance on the 2009 Xmas term mathematics

test. The latter finding receives an indirect corroboration from Brookart and

DeVoge’s (1999) finding that positive relationships existed among assessment

tasks’ characteristics as perceived by students, and their perceptions of their

ability to do the task, effort, and achievement.

Further analysis revealed that a moderate (Cohen, 1988) but statistically

significant relationship (p<.01) exists between the selected Grade 11 students’

opinions of their academic self-efficacy and their performance on the 2009 Xmas

term mathematics test (r =.45). This finding affirms Pajares and Kranzler’s (1995)

postulation that the influence of self-efficacy on students’ math performance was

as strong as is the influence of general mental ability. They believe that across

ability levels, students whose self-efficacy is higher are more accurate in their

mathematics computations and show greater persistence on difficult items than do

students whose self-efficacy is low (Collins, 1982). As is evident in this study, as

students’ opinions of their academic self-efficacy increased, so did their

mathematics performance. This exemplifies the positive relationship between the

two variables.
 83

Additional corroboration of this finding is provided by Lopez and Lent’s

(1992) study on students in an Algebra II course. They surmised that mathematics

self-efficacy was strongly related to the students’ final grade in the course.

Moreover, a meta-analysis involving nearly 40 studies showed that self-efficacy

was positively related to both students’ performance and persistence in

accordance with Bandura’s model (Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991). It was

reported in a study of the beliefs and achievement of two classes of high school

students enrolled in an Algebra II course that mathematics self-efficacy related

significantly both to students’ actual course grade and to general academic self-

concept (Lopez & Lent, 1992). As a result, this significant relationship was

expected by the researcher.

The findings in respect of the relationship between students’ gender,

nationality, opinions of their academic self-efficacy and opinions of their

achievement goals and their mathematics performance are consistent with the data

in Table 4.6. However, the finding regarding the relationship between the

students’ opinions of their mathematics classroom assessment environment and

their performance is inconsistent with the results in Table 4.6 discussed earlier.

Serendipitous findings with regards the interrelationships among the

predictor variables of this study added depth to its significance. Further analysis

showed that for the selected grade 11 students in this study, weak positive but

statistically significant relationships (p<.01) were found among the students’

gender and opinions of mathematics classroom assessment environment (r =.13),

gender and academic self-efficacy (r =.22), nationality and opinions of

 84

mathematics classroom assessment environment (r =.25), nationality and

academic self-efficacy (r =.22) and opinions of mathematics classroom

assessment environment and achievement goals (r =.16). In addition, moderately

strong, statistically significant relationships were observed between the students’

opinions of mathematics classroom assessment environment and academic self-

efficacy (r =.43) and their opinions of achievement goals and academic self-

efficacy (r =.48). Researches that Bandura et al., (2001), Betz and Hackett (1983),

Campbell and Hackett (1986), Hackett (1985) and Pajares and Kranzler (1995)

did, corroborated these study’s findings.

 85

Chapter 5
Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations

Conclusions

The following conclusions could be drawn from the main findings of this study.

1. The students’ performance on the 2009 Xmas term math test was

unsatisfactory because their mean score (48.68%) was less than 50%,

which is considered as the “traditional pass mark” accepted as a fairly

satisfactory passing grade at this level. In addition, the standard deviation

(17.30) was fairly high indicating that the students’ scores on the 2009

Xmas term math test were widely distributed about the mean.

2. The students had unfavourable overall opinions of their mathematics

classroom assessment environment (Mean = 68.33, 71.2%, SD = 8.13) and

their achievement goals orientation (Mean = 40.17, 71.7%, SD = 7.34). In

both instances, approximately 53% of the students scored below the mean.

Contrariwise, the students had favourable overall opinions of their

academic self-efficacy (Mean = 18.54, 77.25%, SD = 4.04). The majority

(53%) of the students had cumulative opinions above the mean. The

maximum scores for the three variables were 96, 56 and 24 respectively.

3. There were statistically significant differences in the students’

 86

performance on the 2009 Xmas term math examination based on their

nationality and opinions of their academic self-efficacy, in favour of non-

Caymanians and students with high overall opinions of their academic

self-efficacy respectively. No significant differences were found in the

students’ math performance based on their gender, opinions of their

mathematics classroom assessment environment and opinions of their

achievement goals.

4. Whereas there were positive, statistically significant but weak

relationships among the students’ nationality (r =.23; p<.05) and their

opinions about their mathematics classroom assessment environment (r

=.23; p<.05) and their performance on the 2009 Xmas term mathematics

test, the relationships among their gender (r =.12; p>.05) and their

opinions about their achievement goals (r =.12; p>.05) and their

performance on the math test were positive, but not significant. There was

a moderately statistically strong relationship between the students’

opinions about their academic self-efficacy (r =.45; p<.05) and their

performance on the math test.

Weak, positive but statistically significant relationships (p<.01)

were found among the selected students’ gender and their opinions of their

mathematics classroom assessment environment (r =.13), gender and their

opinions of their academic self-efficacy (r =.22), nationality and their

opinions about their mathematics classroom assessment environment (r

=.25), nationality and academic self-efficacy (r =.22) and their opinions of

 87

their mathematics classroom assessment environment and achievement

goals (r =.16).

Moderately strong and statistically significant relationships were

observed among the students’ opinions about their mathematics classroom

assessment environment and their academic self-efficacy (r =.43) and

opinions about their achievement goals and academic self-efficacy (r

=.48).

Implications

The finding that the mean math performance of the students was

unsatisfactory implies that the students did not thoroughly understand the

mathematics concepts that they were taught leading up to the 2009 Xmas term

math examination. Hence, the teachers of the sampled students need to find

effective and innovative ways of improving their students’ understanding of the

concepts of mathematics that they teach their students in order to make the

learning of these concepts less difficult so as to improve the students’

performance on the subject.

Because the non-Caymanian students significantly outperformed their

Caymanian counterparts, this implies that the non-Caymanians had a better grasp

of the mathematics concepts that the 11th-graders were taught.

Moreover, the findings that there were no statistically significant

differences in the students’ performance on the 2009 Xmas term mathematics test

with regards to their gender, opinions about their mathematics classroom

assessment environment and opinions about their achievement goals imply that
 88

the students in the sample were able to learn the mathematical concepts they were

taught to a certain extent regardless of the differences in their three listed

independent variables.

Further, the findings that there were a positive, statistically significant but

weak relationship between the students' variables (gender and academic self-

efficacy; nationality and academic self-efficacy) and moderately strong

relationships among the students’ (a) mathematics classroom assessment

environment and academic self-efficacy, and (b) achievement goals and

academic self-efficacy, investigated in this study imply that there are other

variables which could have contributed to significant differences in the students’

mathematics performance in this study apart from the differences in their

nationality and opinions of their academic self-efficacy.

Recommendations

1. To improve Caymanian Grade 11 students’ understanding of and

performance on the concepts of mathematics that they were taught

prior to December 2009 (numbers, computation, sets, algebra, and

geometry), their teachers should employ a variety of student-centred,

activity-oriented instructional strategies, instead of the common

practice of their use of the didactic teaching mode. These approaches

are likely to make the Grade 11 students’ learning of the concepts less

difficult to learn and more meaningful for them.

2. Caymanian Grade 11 math teachers need to ensure that their teaching

styles/strategies are geared towards maximising the achievement

 89

outcomes of all students in their classes and should take into

consideration their unique learning styles. Perhaps, this might require

teacher training, which may involve acquainting Cayman secondary

school teachers with the Caymanian culture as there are a

preponderance of foreign teachers in the system, so that they can better

meet the needs of the Caymanian students. This can engender further

research which is likely to assist in ensuring that the difference in

knowledge attainment between the two groups be narrowed.

3. Other variables which could have contributed to significant differences

in the students’ mathematics performance in this study apart from the

differences in their nationality and opinions of their academic

self-efficacy, which were not investigated in this study should be

identified and explored in future studies on this topic. Such variables

include: the differences in the students’ socioeconomic background,

school location, school type, attitudes to mathematics, mathematical

abilities, self-esteem, the differences in the their teachers’ gender,

nationalities, teaching qualifications, teaching experience, age, and

teaching styles.

Suggestions for future research

In conducting future studies on this study’s topic, consideration should be

given to the following issues. Firstly, even though probability sampling was used

for this study the researcher suggests that for future studies, larger and more
 90

culturally diverse samples be engaged; these samples should be selected from

public as well as private institutions within the locale.

Next, the results from the present study suggest a need for more

investigation, concentrating on other affective and background factors and

mathematical performance. These variables include: the differences in the

students’ learning styles, cognitive abilities in mathematics, interest in the topic,

self-esteem, career choice, school location and school type, their teachers’

teaching styles, nationalities, qualifications, and teaching experience.

Further, despite the fact that differences in mathematical performance

were evident between Caymanian and non-Caymanian students, these

differences could not be explored in any meaningful way in this study. A

concentrated focus on the school experience for the latter group of students is

warranted to ascertain how the students’ dispositions towards mathematics are

formed and whether or not certain dispositions can be changed.

Finally, any study which contributes more knowledge about how strong

efficacy for mathematics develops throughout schooling would be a welcome

addition to the research discussion. A longitudinal study would be most

appropriate to discover more about the development of mathematics self-efficacy

and its relation with academic performance. A group of students could be

followed from grades 7 to 11 with annual interviews and measures of self-efficacy

to compare to their mathematics performance in school and on standardized tests.

 91

References

(ESAU), E. S. (2004-2007). Mathematics in government primary and

secondaryschools of the Cayman Islands. Grand Cayman: Cayman Islands
Schools’ Inspectorate Division
Al Kharusi, H. A. (2007, August). Effects of teachers' assessment practices on
ninth grade students' perceptions of classroom assessment environment
and achievement goal orientations in Muscat science classrooms in the
Sultanate of Oman. Retrieved April 30, 2009, from Classroom Assessment
environment:http://www.ohiolink.edu/etd/sendpdf.cgi/Al%20Kharusi%20
Hussain%20A.pdf?kent1184698876
Alkhateeb, H. M. (2001). Gender difference in mathematics achievement among
high school students in the United Arab Emirates 1991 – 2000. School
Science and Mathematics, 101 , 5 – 9.
Alsarimi, A. M. (2000). Classroom assessment and grading practices in the
Sultanate of Oman. Pennsylvania: Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Pittsburgh.
Alton-Lee, A., & Pratt, A. (2003). New Zealand: Curriculum division of the
Ministry of Education. Retrieved January 31, 2010, from Explaining and
addressing gender differences in the New Zealand compulsory school:
http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=61
80&CFID=238
 92

Ames, C. (1992a). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate.

In D. Schunk, & J. Meece, Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327
– 348). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ames, C. (1992b). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 84 , 261 – 271.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’
Learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 80 , 260-267.

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1987). Mothers’ beliefs about the role of ability and effort
in school learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4) , 409 – 414.
Archer, J. (1994). Achievement goals as a measure of motivation in university
students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4) , 430-446.
Assor, A., & Connell, J. P. (1992). The validity of students’ self-reports as
measures of performance affecting self-appraisals. In D. H. Schunk, & J.
L. Meece, Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 25 – 47). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Atkinson, J. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior.
Psychological Review, 64 , 359 – 372.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and
functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28 , 117 – 148.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American
Psychologist, 37 , 122 – 147.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychological Review, 84 , 191 – 215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social
Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self-
efficacy beliefs as shapers of children's aspirations and career trajectories.
Child Development, 72(1) , 187-206.
 93

Barrett, S. (1995). Perceived parental behaviour, academic self-concept and

school performance among boys. Mona, Jamaica: Unpublished BEd
Study, University of the West Indies.
Bastick, T., & Matalon, B. (2007). Research: New & Practical Approaches 2nd
Edition. USA: Chalkboard Press.
Beaumont, H., Evans, H., & Johnson, R. (1997). Introduction to Research
Methods. Kingston, Jamaica: Joint Board of Teacher Education.
Betz, N. E. (1978). Prevalence, distribution, and correlates of math anxiety in
college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 25 , 441-448.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy
expectations to perceived career options in college women and men.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28(5) , 399-410.
Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy
expectations to the selection of science-based college majors. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 23(3) , 329-345.
Betz, N. E., & Schifano, R. S. (2000). Evaluation of an intervention to increase
realistic self-efficacy and interests in college women. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 56(1) , 35-52.
Biggs, J. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne:
ACER.
Black, T. R. (2005). Doing quantitative research in the social sciences: An
integrated approach to research design, measurement and statistics.
California: SAGE Publications Inc.
Block, J. H. (1976). Datable conclusion about sex differences. . Contemporary
Psychology, 21 , 517 – 522.
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 (3) , 317-330.
Brandon, P. R., Newton, B. J., & Hammond, O. (1987). Children’s mathematics
achievement in Hawaii: Sex differences favouring girls. American
Educational Research Journal, 24 , 437 – 461.
 94

Brookhart, S. M. (1997). A theoretical framework for the role of classroom

assessment in motivating student effort and achievement. Applied
Measurement in Education, 10 , 161 – 180.
Brookhart, S. M. (2004). Classroom assessment: Tensions and intersections in
theory and practice. Teachers College Record, 106 , 429 – 458.
Brookhart, S. M. (1994). Teachers’ Grading: Practice and Theory. Applied
Measurement in Education, 7 , 279 – 301.
Brookhart, S. M. (1993). Teachers’ grading practices: Meaning and values .
Journal of Educational Measurement 30, no. 2 , 123-142.
Brookhart, S. M., & Bronowicz, D. L. (2003). ‘I don’t like writing. It makes my
fingers hurt’: Students talk about their classroom assessment. Assessment
in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10 , 221 – 242.
Brookhart, S. M., & DeVoge, J. G. (1999). Testing a theory about the role of
classroom assessment in student motivation and achievement. Applied
Measurement in Education, 12 , 409 – 425.
Brookhart, S. M., & Durkin, D. T. (2003). Classroom assessment, student
motivation, and achievement in high school social studies classes. Applied
Measurement in Education, 16 , 27 – 54.
Brookhart, S. (1999). The art and Science of Classroom Assessment: The missing
part of pedagogy. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from Washington, DC: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Higher Education. ED432938:
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/files/artsciassess.html
Brooks-Corliss, S. (2005). The Effects of Reflective Prompts and Collaborative
Learning in Hypermedia Problem-based Learning Environments on
Problem Solving and Metacognitive Skills. Austin: The University of
Texas.
Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in
education: Developing appreciation for particular learning domains and
activities. Educational Psychologist, 34 , 75 – 85.
Brown-Mothersill, A. (2003). Relationships among selected students' variables
and the performance of some Kingston and St Andrew eleventh-graders in
 95

statistics and probability. Mona, Jamaica: Unpublished MEd Study,

University of the West Indies.
Burton, G. M. (1979). Regardless of sex. . Mathematics Teacher, 72 , 261-270.
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development
and differentiation. . Psychological Review, 106 , 676-713.
Campbell, N. K., & Hackett, G. (1986). The effects of mathematics task
performance on math self-efficacy and task interest. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 28(2) , 149-162.
Church, M. A., Elliot, A. J., & Gable, S. L. (2001). Perceptions of classroom
environment, achievement goals, and achievement outcomes. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 93 , 43 – 54.
Cockle, S., & Moore, P. (1999). Predictors of pilot learning: Control beliefs and
achievement goal orientations. In D. (Ed.), Engineering Psychology and
Cognitive Ergonomics. Volume Three (pp. 241-248). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences (2nd
Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Associates.
Collins, J. L. (1982, March). Self-efficacy and ability in achievement behavior.
Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research
Association. New York.
Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students.
Review of Educational Research, 58, , 438 – 481.
CXC. (2010). Examinations - CSEC - Overview. Retrieved January 12, 2010,
from Caribbean Examinations Council: http://cxc.org/section.asp?
Sec=2&SSec=2&Info=17
Ding, C., Song, K., & Richardson, L. I. (2007). Do mathematical gender
differences continue? Educational study , 279 – 295.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American
Psychologist, 41, , 1040 – 1048.
Dweck, C., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation
and personality. Psychological Review, 95 , 256 – 273.
 96

Education, K. S. (1999). Kansas State Board of Education. Retrieved February 2,

2010, from Results of 1999 mathematics and reading assessments, U.S.A.:
http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/assessment/mathread99b.html
Ee, J. (1998). Relationships among teachers’ classroom orientations, strategy
based instruction, and students’ goal orientations, self-regulated learning
and achievement. Australia: Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The
University of Newcastle.
Ee, J., Moore, P., & Atputhasamy, L. (2003). High-achieving students: Their
motivational goals, self-regulation and achievement and relationships to
their teachers’ goals and strategy-based instruction. High Ability Studies,
14(1) , 23-39.
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals.
Educational Psychologist, 34 , 169-189.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and
avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 72 , 218-232.
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement
goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70 , 968 – 980.
Elliott, E., & Dweck, C. (1988). An approach to motivation and achievement.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1) , 5-12.
Fennema, E., & Carpenter, T. (1981). The second national assessment and sex
related differences in mathematics. . Mathematics Teacher, 74 , 554-559.
Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. (1977). Sex-related differences in mathematics
achievement, spatial visualization and affective factors. American
Educational Research Journal, 14 , 51-71.
Fierros, E. G. (1999). Examining gender difference in mathematics achievement
in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study. (TIMSS).
Retrieved January 10, 2010, from Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association. Montreal, Quebec,
 97

Canada: http://www.eduref.org/plwebcgi/fastweb?
get.doc+eduref+ericdb+106583+ 13+AAA
Gallagher, A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2006). Gender differences in mathematics: an
integrative psychological approach. . 54(2) , 245- 247.
Gallagher, D. (1998). Classroom assessment for teachers. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Merrill.
Gay, L., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2009). Educational Research Competencies
for Analysis and Applications Ninth Edition. New Jersey: Pearson
Education, Inc.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2001). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple
Guide and Reference 10.0 Update (3rd Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, H. M., Duke, B. L., & Akey, K. L. (2004).
Predicting High School Students’ Cognitive Engagement and
Achievement: Contributions of Classroom Perceptions and Motivation.
Educational Psychology, 29 , 462 – 482.
Gronlund, N. E. (1998). Assessment of student achievement (6th ed.). Boston:
Pearson.
Gronlund, N. E. (2006). Assessment of student achievement (8th ed.). Boston:
Pearson.
Grootenboer, P., & Hemmings, B. (2007). Mathematics performance and the role
played by affective and background factors. Mathematics Education
Research Journal, Vol. 19, No. 3, , 3–20.
Hackett, G. (1985). Role of mathematics self-efficacy in the choice of math-
related majors of college women and men: A path analysis. Journal of
Counseling Psychology,32(1) , 47-56.
Hackett, G., Betz, N. E., & Casas, J. M. (1992). Gender, ethnicity, and social
cognitive factors predicting the academic achievement of students in
engineering. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39(4) , 527-538.
Hagan, F. (2006). Research Methods in Criminal Justice and Criminology.
London: Pearson Publishers.
 98

Harackiewicz, J., & Elliot, A. (1993). Achievement goals and intrinsic

motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 , 904 – 915.
Harackiewicz, J., Barron, K., & Elliott, A. (1998). Rethinking achievement goals:
When are they adaptive for college students and why? Educational
Psychologist, 33(1) , 1-21.
Harackiewicz, J., Barron, K., Carter, S., Lehto, A., & Elliott, A. (1997). Predictors
and consequences of achievement goals in the college classroom:
Maintaining interest and making the grade. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 73(6) , 1284-1295.
Hilton, T. L., & Berglund, G. W. (1974). Sex difference in mathematics
achievement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Research, 67 ,
231-237.
Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., Ryan, M. F., A., L., & Hopp, C. (1990). Gender
comparisons of mathematics attitudes and affect. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 14(3) , 299-324.
Janson, S. (1996). The contribution of large- scale assessment program to research
on gender differences. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2 , 25-49.
Kiamanesh, A. R., & Mahdavi-Hezaveh, M. (2006). Influential factors causing
the gender differences in mathematics’ achievement scores among Iranian
Eight graders based on TIMSS 2003 data. Retrieved January 2010, from
Teacher Training University,Ministry of Education, Tehran:
http://www.iea.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/IRC2008/Papers/TIMSS_Mathe
matics/Kiamanesh_Mahdavi_Hezaveh.pdf
Kohr, R. L. (1987). Peabody Journal of Education, 66(2), 147-171. Retrieved
February 4, 2010, from The relationship of race, class, and gender, on
mathematics achievement and self-esteem for fifth, eighth and eleventh
grade students in Pennsylvania schools:
http://www.eduref.org/plwebcgi/fastweb?getdoc+eduref+ericdb+487672+
24+WAAA
Lapan, R. T., Boggs, K. R., & Morrill, W. H. (1989). Self-efficacy as a mediator
of investigative and realistic general occupational themes on the strong-
 99

campbell interest inventory . Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36(2) ,

176-182.
Leder, G. C. (1992). Mathematics and gender: Changing perspectives. In D.
Grouws, Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning
(pp. 597-622). New York: Macmillan.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Gore, P. A. (1997). Discriminant and predictive
validity of academic self-concept academic self-efficacy, and
mathematics-specific self-efficacy. Journal of Counselling Psychology,
44(3) , 307-315.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for
academic success. School Psychology Review, 31 , 313 – 327.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2001). Multiple goals, multiple contexts:
The dynamic interplay between personal goals and contextual goal
stresses. In S. Volet, & S. Jarvela, Motivation in learning contexts (pp. 251
– 270). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Lokan, J., Greenwood, L., & Cresswell, J. (2001). 15-up and
counting,reading,writing,reasoning ...How literate are Australia’s
students? The PISA 2000 survey of students’ reading, mathematical and
scientific literacy skills. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational
Research.
Lopez, F. G., & Lent, R. W. (1992). Sources of mathematics self-efficacy in high
school students. Career Development Quarterly, 41(1) , 3-12.
Maehr, M. L. (1984). Meaning and motivation: Toward a theory of personal
investment. R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on Motivation in
Education: Student Motivation, Vol. 1 , 115 – 144.
Maehr, M. L. (1983). On doing well in science: Why Johnny no longer excels;
why Sarah never did. S. G. Paris, G. M. Olson, & H. W. Stevenson (Eds.),
Learning and Motivation in the Classroom , 179 – 210.
Maehr, M. L. (1989). Thoughts about motivation. In C. Ames, & R. Ames,
Research on motivation in education: Goals and cognition, Vol. 3 (pp. 299
– 315). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
 100

Maliki, A. E., Ngban, A. N., & Ibu, J. E. (2009). Analysis of students’

performance in junior secondary school mathematics examination in
Bayelsa State of Nigeria. Stud Home Comm Sci, 3(2) , 131-134.
Maple, S. A., & Stage, F. K. (1991). Influence on the choice of mathematics/
science major by gender and ethnicity. American Educational Research
Journal, 28 , 37 -60.
Maslovaty, N., & Kuzi, E. (2002). Promoting motivational goals through
alternative or traditional assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation,
28 , 199 – 222.
McCall, C. H. (2001, November 15-16). An empirical examination of the Likert
scale: Some assumptions, development and cautions. Retrieved May 13,
2009, from Graduate School of Psychology, Pepperdine University,
Culver City, CA: http://faculty.pepperdine.edu/cmccall/CERAFinal.pdf
McClelland, D., Atkinson, J., Clark, R., & Lowell, E. (1953). The achievement
motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
McCombs, B. L. (1984). Process and skills underlying continuing intrinsic
motivation to learn: Toward a definition of motivational skills training
interventions. Educational Psychologist, 19 (4) , 199-218.
McMillan, J. H., & Workman, D. J. (1998). Classroom assessment and grading
practices: A review of the literature. ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No.ED453263 .
Mertler, C. A. (2003, October). Preservice versus inservice teachers’ assessment
literacy: Does classroom experience make a difference? Paper presented
at the meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association.
Columbus, OH.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., &
Freeman, K. E. (2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning
scales. Retrieved February 18, 2010, from
http://www.umich.edu/~pals/PALS%202000_%20V13Word97.pdf
Mullis, I., Martin, M., Beaton, A., Gonzalez, E., Gregory, K., Garden, R., et al.
(2000). TIMSS 1999: International mathematics report, finding from
 101

IEA's report of the third international mathematics and science study at the
eight grade. MA, Boston: TIMSS International Study Center: Boston
College.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy
beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation . Journal of
Counselling Psychology, 38(1) , 30-38.
NAEP. (1997). Office of the assistant secretary for planning and evaluation,
USA. Retrieved February 18, 2010, from Trends in the well being of American’s
childern and youths, U.S.A.: http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/hsp/97trends/ea2-
2.htm
Ng, C. (2000). A path analysis of self-schema, goal orientations, learning
approaches and performance. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies,
1(2) , 93-122.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability,
subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological
Review, 91 , 328 – 346.
O’Connor-Petruso, S., Schiering, M., Hayes, B., & Serrano, B. (2004).
Pedagogical and parental influences in mathematics achievement by
gender among selected European countries from the TIMSS-R study. In C.
Papanastasiou, Proceedings of the IRC-2004 TIMSS Vol. II (pp. 69-84).
Nicosia: Cyprus University.
O'Brien, V., Martinez-Pons, M., & Kopala, M. (1999). Mathematics self-efficacy,
ethnic identity, gender, and career interests related to mathematics and
science. Journal of Educational Research, 92(4) , 231-235.
Pajares, F. (1996a). Self-efficacy beliefs and mathematical problem-solving of
gifted students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21 , 325-344.
Pajares, F. (1996b). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of
Educational Research, 66(4) , 543-578.
Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995, April). Role of self-efficacy and general mental
ability in mathematical problem-solving: A path analysis. Annual Meeting
of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA.
 102

Pajares, F., & Urdan, T. (1996). Exploratory factor analysis of the mathematics
anxiety scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 29(1) , 35-47.
Pattison, P., & Grieve, N. (1984). Do spatial skills contribute to sex difference in
different type of mathematical problems? . Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76 , 678 – 689.
Peterson, P., & Fennema, E. (1985). Effective teaching, students’ encouragement
in classroom activities and sex-related difference in learning mathematics.
American Educational Research Journal, 22 , 309 - 335.
Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-
regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31 ,
459-470.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research,
and applications. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pintrich, P., & Schunk, D. (2000). Motivation in education. Theory, research, and
applications, (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Pintrich, P., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research,
and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.
Popham, W. (2008). Classroom Assessment - What Teachers Need to Know Fifth
Edition. United States of America: Pearson Education, Inc.
Reston, V. (2008, December 9). 2007 TIMSS shows continued improvement in
math. Retrieved February 3, 2010, from National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics (NCTM): http://www.nctm.org/news/content.aspx?id=17021
Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research, A Resource for Social Scientists and
Practitioner-Researcher. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Rodriguez, M. C. (2004). The role of classroom assessment in student
performance on TIMSS. Applied Measurement in Education, 17 , 1 – 24.
Roebken, H. (2007, August 02). Multiple goals, satisfaction, and achievement in
university undergraduate education: A student experience in the research
university (SERU) project research paper. Retrieved January 20, 2010,
 103

from UC Berkeley, center for studies in higher education:

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6k54d73t
Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1996). Perceptions of school
psychological environment and early adolescents’ self-appraisals and
academic engagement: The mediating role of goals and belonging.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 88 , 408 - 422.
Rothman, S., & McMillan, J. (2003). Influences on achievement in literacy and
numeracy. LSAY Research Report Number 36. Melbourne: Australian
Council for Educational Research.
Ryan, A. M., Gheen, M. H., & Midgley, C. (1998). Why do some students avoid
asking for help? An examination of the role, and the classroom goal
structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 , 528 – 535.
Schunk, D. H. (1996). Goal and self-evaluative influences during children’s
cognitive skill learning. American Educational Research Journal, 33 , 359
– 382.
Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children’s
achievement: A self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 73 , 93–105.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational
Psychologist, 26 , 207 – 231.
Schunk, D. H., & Hanson, A. R. (1985). Peer models: Influence on children’s
self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77 ,
313–322.
Schunk, D. H., Hanson, A. R., & Cox, P. D. (1987). Peer-model attributes and
children's achievement behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology,
79(1) , 54-61.
Sherman, J. (1982). Mathematics the critical filter: A look at some residues.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 6 , 428-444.
Sherman, J. (1980). Mathematics, spatial visualization, and related factors:
Changes in girls and boys grades 8 – 11 . Journal of Educational
Psychology, 72 , 476 - 480.
 104

Sinn, R. (2003). Critical filters of the adolescent mathematics experience: A self-

efficacy analysis. USA: University of Cincinnati.
Sprigler, D. M., & Alsup, J. K. (2003). An analysis of gender and the
mathematical reasoning ability sub-skill of analysis-synthesis. Education.
vol. 123 no.4.
Stefanou, C., & Parkes, J. (2003). Effects of classroom assessment on student
motivation in fifth-grade science. The Journal of Educational Research,
96 , 152 – 162.
STEM. (2007). Building a Science, Technology and Math Agenda National
Governors Association; p.1. US: The Future of High School Mathematics.
Stevens, T., Olivárez, A. J., & Hamman, D. (2006). The role of cognition,
motivation, and emotion in explaining the mathematics achievement gap
between Hispanic and White students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 28 , 161–186.
Stevens, T., Olivárez, A. J., Lan, W. Y., & Tallent-Runnels, M. K. (2004). Role of
mathematics self-efficacy and motivation in mathematics performance
across ethnicity. Journal of Educational Research, 97 , 208–221.
Stiggins, R. (1992). High quality classroom assessment: What does it really
mean? NCME Instructional Topics in Educational Measurement Series,
Module 12 , 3 - 10.
Stiggins, R. J. (1999). Assessment, student confidence, and school success. . Phi
Delta Kappan, 81 , 191 – 198.
Stiggins, R. J., & Conklin, N. F. (1992). In teachers’ hands: Investigating the
practices of classroom assessment. Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.
Stiggins, R., & Chappuis, J. (2005). Using student-involved classroom assessment
to close achievement gaps. Theory Into Practice, 44, , 11 – 18.
Stipek, D. (2002). Motivation to learn: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
 105

Tao, V., & Hong, Y. (2000). A meaning system approach to Chinese students’
achievement goals. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 1(2) , 13-
38.
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of academic and selfregulatory
efficacy beliefs of entering middle school students. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 31 , 125–141.
Wang, X. (2004). Chinese EFL students’ perceptions of classroom assessment
environment and their goal orientations in the college english course.
Kingston, Ontario, Canada: Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Queen’s
University.
Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivational research in education. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82 , 616 – 622.
Weiner, B. (1994). Integrating social and personal theories of achievement
striving. Review of Educational Research, 64 , 557 – 573.
Weiner, B. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation from an
attributional perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12 , 1 - 14.
Wellington, J. ( 2000 ). Educational Research. London: Continuum.
Zarch, M. K., & Kadivar, P. (2006). The role of mathematics self-efficacy and
mathematics ability in the structural model of mathematics performance .
WSEAS Transactions on Mathematics, 6, , 713-720.
Zhang, Z., & Burry-Stock, J. A. (2003). Classroom assessment practices and
teachers’ self-perceived assessment skills. Applied Measurement in
Education, 16 , 323 - 342.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on
writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4)
, 845-862.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for
academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal
setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29(3) , 663-676.
 106

Zu, J., & Farrell, E. (1992). Mathematics performance of Shanghai high school
students: A preliminary look at gender difference in another culture.
School Science and Mathematics, 92 , 442 – 445.

Appendix A
Cover Letter and Questionnaire for Grade 11 Students 2010

Dear Student

The attached questionnaire is designed to identify your opinions of the

classroom assessment environment, achievement goal orientations, and academic
self-efficacy in your eleventh grade math class. It also seeks to obtain your Xmas
term math score together with some other demographic data.
The questionnaire is part of my research project in Educational
Measurement at the University of the West Indies. I would like you to participate
in this study by completing the questionnaire. The time required to complete the
questionnaire will take no more than 20 minutes.
There are no risks involved with the participation in this study beyond the
risks normally encountered in everyday life. You are not obligated to participate
in the study. If you do, you are free to stop at anytime. Participation in the study
will not influence your math grade and your relation with the teacher.
Kindly, read each item of the questionnaire carefully and circle the number
that best describes what you think about your math class or yourself as a student
in this math class as follows:
 Circle “1” if you think that the item is “Completely not true” for your class
or yourself;
 Circle “2” if you think that the item is “Somewhat not true” for your class
or yourself;
 Circle “3” if you think that the item is “Somewhat true” for your class or
yourself; and
 Circle “4” if you think that the item is “Completely true” for your class or
yourself.
Your responses to the questionnaire will remain anonymous and
confidential. No one at home or at school will ever see your responses. Also, there
is no right or wrong answer. Your responses will only be used for statistical
analyses of the study with no connection made to you. Information gathered from
 107

this study are hoped to improve instruction, assessment, and learning in the
eleventh grade math class.
Any further clarification can be sought from your form tutor or from the
researcher through your form tutor.
Thank you in anticipation of your cooperation.

Yours truly

Shawn A. McBean

Section A

Instruction: Please provide the appropriate information for each of the items 1-7.
1. Your name_______________________________________________________
2. What was your age on your last birthday? _________________ years.
3. Gender (Male or Female): ____________________________.
4. Nationality (Caymanian or Non-Caymanian) ___________________________.
5. Name of School: ____________________________________________
6. Grade Level: ________.
7. Mathematics score (2009 Xmas Term): ________________________
Section B
To what extent each of the following items is true or not true for your
mathematics class?
Instructions - Please indicate your reaction to each statement
True
Completely Not

Somewhat True

Completely True
Somewhat Not True

by circling the response which best represents your level of

agreement or disagreement. Please ensure that you respond to
every statement.

Assessment Tasks

1. The math tests in this class are difficult to students. 1 2 3 4

2. In this class, teacher’s oral questions encourage 1 2 3 4
thinking.
3. In this class, the homework is boring. 1 2 3 4
4. In this class, the assignments and activities are related to 1 2 3 4
students’ everyday lives.
5. The tests match what we learn in class. 1 2 3 4
6. In this class, the teacher uses more than one way to 1 2 3 4
 108

determine grades such as tests, projects…etc

Assessment Feedback
In this class:
1. I can find out my strengths in math. 1 2 3 4

2. I can find out my weaknesses in math. 1 2 3 4

3. My teacher helps me identify the places where I need 1 2 3 4
more effort in the future.
4. My teacher encourages viewing mistakes as learning 1 2 3 4
opportunities.
5. Students are given a chance to correct their mistakes. 1 2 3 4
6. I receive continuous feedback about my performance 1 2 3 4
from the teacher.
7. The teacher wants us to take responsibility for our 1 2 3 4
learning.
8. Assessment results are a fair representation of student 1 2 3 4
learning.
9. Assessment results fairly reflect the effort I have put in 1 2 3 4
studying math.
10. My teacher compares my performance with the 1 2 3 4
performance of other students.
11. Assignments and tests are returned in a way that keeps 1 2 3 4
individual student scores private.
12. Students who do well are praised in front of the whole 1 2 3 4
class.
13. Students who do poorly are criticized in front of the 1 2 3 4
whole class.
Assessment standards and criteria
1. It is difficult to achieve high grades in this class. 1 2 3 4

2. In this class, only a few students can get high grades. 1 2 3 4

3. In this class, my teacher’s grading is clear. 1 2 3 4
4. Grades are used to penalize students who disturb the 1 2 3 4
class.
5. The tests and assignments are used to control students’ 1 2 3 4
behaviour.

Section C
To what extent each of the following items is true or not true for you in your math
class?
Achievement Goal Orientations
Completely Not True

Somewhat Not True

Somewhat True

Completely True

Instructions - Please indicate your reaction to each statement

by circling the response which best represents your level of
agreement or disagreement. Please ensure that you respond to
every statement.

Mastery-goal orientation

1. It is important to me that I learn a lot of new math 1 2 3 4

 109

concepts this term.

2. One of my goals in math class is to learn as much as I 1 2 3 4
can.
3. One of my goals is to master a lot of new math skills 1 2 3 4
this term.
4. It is important to me that I thoroughly understand my 1 2 3 4
math class work.
5. It is important to me that I improve my math skills this 1 2 3 4
school term.
Performance-approach goal orientation
1. It is important to me that other students in my class 1 2 3 4
think I am good at my math class work.
2. One of my goals is to show others that I’m good at math 1 2 3 4
class work.
3. One of my goals is to show others that my math class 1 2 3 4
work is easy for me.
4. One of my goals is to look smart in comparison to the 1 2 3 4
other students in my class.
5. It is important to me that I look smart compared to 1 2 3 4
others in my class.
Performance-avoidance goal orientation
1. It is important to me that I don’t look stupid in my math 1 2 3 4
class.
2. One of my goals is to keep others from thinking I’m not 1 2 3 4
smart in my math class.
3. It is important to me that my teacher doesn’t think that I 1 2 3 4
know less than others in math.
4. One of my goals in my math class is to avoid looking 1 2 3 4
like I have trouble doing the work.

Section D
To what extent each of the following items is true or not true for you in your math
class?
Academic self-efficacy
Completely Not True

Somewhat Not True

Somewhat True

Completely True

Instructions - Please indicate your reaction to each statement

by circling the response which best represents your level of
agreement or disagreement. Please ensure that you respond to
every statement.

1. I’m certain I can master the skills taught in math class 1 2 3 4

this term.
2. I’m certain I can figure out how to do the most difficult 1 2 3 4
class work in math.
3. Even if the work is hard, I can learn it. 1 2 3 4
4. I am sure about my ability to do the assignments in this 1 2 3 4
 110

class.
5. I am sure I have the ability to understand the ideas and 1 2 3 4
skills taught in this class.
6. I am certain I can understand the material presented in 1 2 3 4
this class.

Thank you for your participation.

Appendix B

Letter Seeking Permission to Conduct Research

Shawn A. McBean
P.O.Box 251 Stake Bay
Cayman Brac, KY2-2101
Cayman Islands

January 18, 2010

The Chief Education Officer

Department of Education Services
130 Thomas Russell Avenue
P.O.Box 910, Grand Cayman
KY1-1103, Cayman Islands.

Thru the Learning Community Leader

Cayman Brac and Little Cayman

Dear Mrs. Wahler:

As a requirement for the award of the Masters of Education in Educational

Measurement from the University of the West Indies, I am required to conduct a
research in the area of measurement.

The topic being investigated in this study is “Correlations among five

variables and the mathematics performance of Caymanian eleventh graders.” The
specific variables to be studied are gender, age, student opinions of their
classroom assessment environment, achievement goals orientation and academic
self efficacy. Grade ten students will be surveyed and it is anticipated that this
 111

will be done within a 2-3 week period. The administration process should take a
maximum of 20 minutes.

Permission is hereby sought to conduct this survey with the grade eleven
students at the John Gray High and Cayman Brac High schools. With your
support, contact will be made with the principals of these schools with regards to
this undertaking.

If you consent to facilitate this research or have any queries I may be

contacted for further information at 948-2226 (work – Cayman Brac High), 924-
4201 (cell) or at home, 948-8090. I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you.
Sincerely,

Shawn A. McBean
Teacher of Mathematics – Cayman Brac High

Cc: Ms. Francine Gardner – Deputy Chief Education Officer

Mr. Adrian Jones – Principal, CBHS
 112

Appendix C
Letter of Appreciation to Principals, Cooperating Teachers and Students

Shawn A. McBean
P.O.Box 251 Stake Bay
Cayman Brac, KY2-2101
Cayman Islands

April 28, 2010

To the Principal and the Cooperating teachers

«School Name»
«Address1»
«Address2»

Dear Sir/Madam,
I extend my gratitude to you for allowing the grade 11 students of your
school to participate in the survey which collected information to facilitate the
completion of my study. This deed will be eternally cherished as I am now poised
to achieve the award of Master of Education in Educational Measurement from
the University of the West Indies, Mona.
I would also like to say thank you to the teachers who willingly assisted in
administering the questionnaires and to the students for facilitating the data
collection process. It was truly appreciated.
 113

Please do not hesitate to contact me if at any time you may require my

assistance.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Shawn A. McBean
Teacher of Mathematics – Cayman Brac High