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
.10
1.04
n.s.
.17
2.10
<.05
.23
2.50
<.05
Peer PR
.00
-.01
n.s.
Teacher PR
.41
4.89
<.001
Adult
Involvement
Peer
Involvement
Parent PR
F (5,107)= 19.54, p<.05
Results, cont.
Grade Point Average (GPA)
Motivation
Adult Inv
Beta
.21
-.06
t
1.86
-.50
p
n.s.
n.s.
Peer Inv
Parent PR
.08
.28
.81
2.35
n.s.
<.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 PR
Parent PR
Teacher
PR
---
Parent
PR
.40**
Peer
PR
.34**
---
n.s.
.59**
.33**
.51***
-.43***
.38***
---
.20*
.36**
.23*
-.10*
n.s.
---
.36*
.44**
-.37**
.22*
---
.45**
-.42***
.24*
---
-.53**
.36***
---
-.41***
Peer PR
Adult
Involvement
Peer
Involvement
Motivation
Amotivation
GPA
*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
Adult
Peer
Motivation Amotivation
Involvement Involvement
.35**
.40**
.61***
-.25*
GPA
n.s.
---
Results, cont.
Involvement
•Adult
•Peer
Motivation
•Intrinsic
•Extrinsic
Relatedness
•Teacher
•Parent
•Peer
GPA