Perceived Relatedness as a Predictor of
Academic Motivation and Performance after
the Transition into Junior High School
Jonathan D. Temple
Hanover College
Introduction
How do students’ relationships affect their
adjustment after the transition to junior high?
Possible decline in academic motivation and
performance (Eccles et al., 1993)
Relationships may be important (Lynch & Cicchetti, 1997)
Self-Determination Theory
(Deci & Ryan, 1985; 1994; Deci et al., 1991)
Motivational theory—experience of choice
drives motivation
– 3 types of motivation:
Intrinsic
Extrinsic
Amotivation
– 3 basic needs:
Autonomy
Competence
Relatedness
Introduction, cont.
Focus on relatedness within academic
environment (Stults, 2001)
Relationships, academic motivation, and
performance in general
– Teacher (Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989)
– Parent (Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994; Wentzel, 1998)
– Peer (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992)
Hypotheses
Involvement
•Adult
•Peer
Motivation
•Intrinsic GPA
•Extrinsic
Relatedness
•Teacher
•Parent
•Peer Adapted from Vallerand & Losier (1999)
Method
121 Participants (116 used)
– 7th grade junior high school students
– 2 public and 1 parochial school
– 66 females, 50 males; ages 12-15
– Primarily Caucasian
Materials
– Adapted Academic Motivation Scale (Vallerand et al., 1992)
– Adapted Perceived Relatedness Scales (Richer & Vallerand,
1999)
– Parental and Peer Academic Involvement Scale
Method, cont.
Procedure
– Contacted schools
– Parental consent letters
– Collected data over 2 week period
– 1st semester grade point averages (4=A, 1=D)
obtained from schools
Results
Motivation GPA
Adult Involvement .44** .22*
Peer Involvement .45** .24**
Teacher PR .61*** n.s.
Parent PR .51*** .38***
Peer PR .23* n.s.
*p< .05; **p< .01; ***p< .001
Results, cont.
Motivation
Beta t p
Adult
.10 1.04 n.s.
Involvement
Peer
.17 2.10 <.05
Involvement
Parent PR .23 2.50 <.05
Peer PR .00 -.01 n.s.
Teacher PR .41 4.89 <.001
F (5,107)= 19.54, p<.05
Results, cont.
Grade Point Average (GPA)
Beta t p
Motivation .21 1.86 n.s.
Adult Inv -.06 -.50 n.s.
Peer Inv .08 .81 n.s.
Parent PR .28 2.35 <.05
F (4,107)= 5.84, p< .05
Discussion
Importance of relationships after the
transition
– Teacher relatedness and motivation
– Parent relatedness, motivation, & GPA
– Peer involvement and motivation
Limitations
– Homogenous sample
– Teachers assessed ―on average‖
Future research
THANK YOU!
Correlation Matrix
Teacher Parent Peer Adult Peer
Motivation Amotivation GPA
PR PR PR Involvement Involvement
Teacher PR --- .40** .34** .35** .40** .61*** -.25* n.s.
Parent PR --- n.s. .59** .33** .51*** -.43*** .38***
Peer PR --- .20* .36** .23* -.10* n.s.
Adult
--- .36* .44** -.37** .22*
Involvement
Peer
--- .45** -.42*** .24*
Involvement
Motivation --- -.53** .36***
Amotivation --- -.41***
GPA ---
*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
Results, cont.
Involvement
•Adult
•Peer
Motivation
•Intrinsic GPA
•Extrinsic
Relatedness
•Teacher
•Parent
•Peer