You are on page 1of 16

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236233194

Multiple Goals Perspective in Adolescent


Students With Learning Difficulties
ARTICLE in LEARNING DISABILITY QUARTERLY NOVEMBER 2011
Impact Factor: 0.77 DOI: 10.1177/0731948711421763

CITATIONS

READS

30

6 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Jos Carlos Nez

Julio Antonio Gonzlez-Pienda

University of Oviedo

University of Oviedo

210 PUBLICATIONS 1,194 CITATIONS

90 PUBLICATIONS 780 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Antonio Valle

Pedro Rosrio

University of A Corua

University of Minho

147 PUBLICATIONS 1,122 CITATIONS

148 PUBLICATIONS 730 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,


letting you access and read them immediately.

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Antonio Valle


Retrieved on: 28 March 2016


Multiple Goals Perspective in Adolescent
Students With Learning Difficulties

HAMMILL INSTITUTE
ON DrSABILITIES

Learning Disability Quarterly


34(4) 273-286
Hammiil Institute on Disabilities 2011
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/iournalsPermissions.nav
DOI: I O.I 177/07319487 M 421763
http://idq.sagepub.com

Jos Carlos Nunez', Julio Antonio Gonzlez-Pienda',


Celestino Rodrguez',Antonio Valle', Ramon Gonzalez-Cabanach',
and Pedro Rosario'

Abstract
In the present work, the hypothesis of the existence of diverse motivational profiles in students with learning difficulties
(LD) and the differential implications for intervention in the classroom are analyzed.Various assessment scales (academic
goals, self-concept, and causal attributions) were administered to a sample of 259 students with LD, ages 8 to 15 years,
in Spain. The data obtained were analyzed through (a) cluster analysis to study this hypothesis and (b) MANOVAs to
determine the extent to which such profiles were accompanied by significant differences in self-esteem and causal
attribution patterns.The results revealed four different motivational profiles and significantly different levels of self-esteem
and causal attribution process.
Keywords
motivation, goals, learning difTiculties, self-esteem, causal attribution

Personal goals are a very important framework from which


to explain motivational orientations and behavior patterns
in the school setting. The results of past research on the role
of motivational academic orientations have agreed that
leaming goals are beneficial for most learning-related
results, including motivational results such as self-efficacy,
interest, and value (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001, 2003;
Valle et al., 2008; Wolters, Yu, & Pintrich, 1996), emotional
well-being (Middleton & Midgley, 1997), help seeking, and
cognitive commitment (Pintrich, 2000a). In the area of
leaming difficulties (LD), although motivational and emotional variables are relevant (Sideridis, 2005c), only a few
empirical studies have examined the topic of motivation in
students with LD from the perspective of academic goals
and, more specifically, from the perspective of multiple
goals.
Taking into consideration the research to date, two general
lines of work were observed: (a) studies that compared
diverse academic goals (leaming goals, performance goals,
performance-avoidance goals), one by one, among students
with and without LD and (b) investigations that attempted to
detemiine the relationship between such goals and important criteria such as achievement in various curricular areas,
affective variables, or even psychopathological variables. In
addition, some current works have examined these children's
motivational environment from the perspective of multiple
goals in comparative and explanatory studies.

Academic Goals
Although the study of personal goals has been addressed from
different perspectives, they all share the idea that people
establish goals for themselves, in such a way that cognitive
representations of future events become potential motivators
of behavior in any setting. From such proposals, and within
the academic sphere, there has been increasing interest in
the idea that the academic goals pursued by students organize and regulate their behavior. Certain goals are closely
related to the type of motivation, which is defined by the
kind of goal they hope to achieve.
Elliot and collaborators (Elliot, 1997, 1999; Elliot &
Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996) proposed a tridimensional comprehensive framework of academic goals.
In their proposal, they differentiated two tendencies within
perfonnance goals, an approach tendency and an avoidance
tendency, and as a result defined three independent academic goals:

'University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain

Corresponding Author:
Celestino Rodriguez, University of Oviedo, Department of Psychology.
Plaza Feijoo s/n, 33003, Oviedo, Spain
Email: rodriguezcelestino@unioyi.es

274
1. Performance approach, focused on achieving
competence in comparison to others
2. Performance avoidance, focused on avoiding
incompetence in comparison to others
3. Learning approach, focused on the development
of competence and mastery of the task
Subsequently, a new construct, learning-avoidance goals,
was proposed. This is the result of applying the differentiation of the tendencies of approach and avoidance toward
leaming goals (Pintrich, 2000a, 2000b). Students who have
learning-approach goals are oriented to achieving the goal
of leaming and understanding, whereas those with learningavoidance goals are concemed with not being perfect, not
understanding the material completely, or failing to meet
their self-referred mastery standards (Linnenbrink &
Pintrich, 2002). Nevertheless, such general considerations
should be taken with precaution because the results of a
recent meta-analysis (Hulleman, Schrger, Bodmann, &
Harackiewicz, 2010) appeared to indicate diverse dimensions within each one of these four types of goals, suggesting that the goals maintain different relations with other
motivational, cognitive, behavioral, and performance
variables.

Academic Goals in
Students With LD
From an explanatory perspective, some investigators have
attempted to find possible links between motivational, cognitive, and psychopathological variables and the academic
achievement of students with LD. For example, the works
of Georgios Sideridis have contributed interesting data that
confirmed the significant connection between academic goals
and achievement, and affect, self-esteem, anxiety, and depression (Sideridis, 2003, 2006, 2007).
Although they do not coincide, the studies that have
addressed this topic from a comparative perspective have
indicated that students with LD display less motivation toward
leaming and more fear of failure (Botsas & Padeliadu, 2003;
Gonzlez-Pienda et al., 2(X)0; Pintrich, Anderman, & K lobucar,
1994; Sideridis, 2003; Sideridis & Tsorbatzoudis, 2003),
and this tendency is more pronounced in boys than in girls
(Gonzlez-Pienda, Nez, & Gonzlez-Pumariega, 1996).
In terms of academic goals, without considering possible
sex differences, students with LD present lower leaming
goals and higher performance-avoidance goals with no differences in performance-approach goals. In other studies
in which social reinforcement- or approval-seeking goals
were evaluated, it was found that students with LD tend to
be less motivated in this sense than do their classmates
(Gonzlez-Pienda et al., 1996; Gonzlez-Pienda et al., 2000).
For example, in a study of 496 children (253 with LD, 243
without LD; mean age = 11 years), Gonzlez-Pienda et al.

Learning Disability Quarterly 34(4)

(2000) reported the existence of very significant differences


between students with and without LD, finding that compared to their counterparts without LD, students with LD
were significantly less motivated toward leaming (leaming
goals), less motivated toward achieving others' approval
(social goals), but equally motivated toward a certain level
of performance (performance goals). These authors noted
that these results could indicate that students' motivation
toward academic tasks is closely related to the beliefs they
hold about their competence and their expectations of selfefficacy, and they interpreted the results in the sense that,
because of their repeated failure experiences, children with
LD tend to distrust their ability and to develop low selfefficacy expectations, so that rather than being motivationally oriented toward leaming (leaming goals), they are
motivated toward a certain level of academic performance
(perfonnance goals). This is noted in the fact that students
with and without LD do not display significant differences
in their interest in attaining a certain level of performance
(performance goals).
As in other later studies (e.g., Botsas & Padeliadu, 2003;
Sideridis, 2003), no differences in performance-approach
goals were found because the groups of students may have
attributed both their successes and their failures mainly to
effort or lack of effort; this allowed students with LD to maintain a minimum motivational level. At the level of metacognitive system functioning, because of their negative academic
self-efficacy perceptions and low motivation to gain meaningful knowledge, students with LDparticularly those with
a tendency to develop maladaptive attributional pattems
(Nez et al, 2005)will probably engage only superficially in tasks and resort to using repetitive, primitive cognitive and self-regulatory strategies, thereby minimizing their
efforts to leam. This leads to new failures; consequently, their
interest in leaming will progressively decrease. Last, according to these investigators, students with LD who have a
reduced interest in achieving social acknowledgment can be
explained by their perception of others' negative expectations about their leaming possibilities, especially those of
their parents and teachers (Meltzer et al., 1998). Moreover,
this decreased interest in approval seeking or even in
defending their self-esteem may be the result of the maladaptive attributional pattem that is so typical in many of
these children (Settle & Milich, 1999).

Multiple Goals Perspective


The strategy of considering the consequences of each one
of the academic goals individually presents some drawbacks when educational reality indicates that students rarely
adopt a single goal exclusively but instead, in most cases,
choose various goals simultaneously or, depending on the
circumstances, give priority to some goals over others. Almost
all school situations present the opportunity to pursue diverse

275

Nez et al.

goals simultaneously, and many situations may require


students to strive for even various goals at the same time.
Therefore, when considering this diversity of goalsmany
of them important for studentsit is impossible to assert that
they can be pursued one by one, in an isolated manner.
Taking this into account, in general, the research carded
out from this perspective has focused on the analysis of the
combination of different academic goals and their effects on
learning and on academic performance. For example, Barron
and Harackiewicz (2001) suggested four ways by means of
which learning goals and perfomiance-approach goals
could be combined;
1. Both types of goals are combined, but each one
has beneficial effects on certain results, that is,
their effects are additive
2. Interactive effects result from both types of goals,
so that adopting both at the same time will be more
adaptive for a certain outcome than only adopting
a single type of goal
3. Possibility of occurrence of specialized effects,
that is, unique effects for both types of goals over
multiple results; for example, mastery goals could
be beneficial in terms of interest or emotional wellbeing, whereas perfonnance-approach goals may be
more adaptive in terms of achievement outcomes
4. Possibility of occurrence of selective effects, so that
the consequences or effects of the goals depend on
whether they coincide with the goals of the context
With regard to the consequences of these diverse combinations of learning and performance goals, according to
Bouffard, Boisvert, Vezeau, and Larouche (1995), the highest levels of motivation, cognitive strategies, self-regulation,
and performance strategies are found in the group that
combines high learning goals and high performance goals.
Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter, and Elliot (2000) found
that learning goals positively predict interest but not grades,
whereas perfonnance-approach goals positively predict grades
but not interest. These complementary results of learning
goals and perfonnance goals led the authors to conclude that
the best strategy is for the students to adopt both types of
goals concurrently. In a longitudinal study carried out with
secondary students, Pintrich (2000a) concluded that students
who are concerned with their performance and with being
better than their classmates but, at the same time, are oriented
toward learning follow a parallel trajectory to students who
are oriented only toward learning. However, Pintrich also
noted that this trajectory is not equally adaptive in the case
of students concerned only with perfomiance.
Currently, data are emerging that indicate that, as in samples of typical students, the combination of goals predicts the
academic achievement of students with LD more effectively
than if each one of the academic goals is taken individually

(Sideridis, 2003, 2005b, 2006, 2007), although results in


the opposite direction have also been found (Sideridis &
Tsorbatzoudis, 2003). In general, Sideridis has found that
being oriented toward multiple goals is less adaptive than
being oriented mainly toward learning goals.
These flndings thus have led important investigators to
urge the development of research of individual differences in
students with LD, relative to diverse domains (social, motivational, emotional, cognitive) and how they are related to various intrinsic and extrinsic factors (Margalit & Idan, 2004;
Meltzer, 2004). In this sense, for example, Margalit (2004)
noted that instead of other extensively studied aspects, we
need to develop investigations to identify subgroups of students with LD who are capable of improvement and who
still perceive themselves positively (resilient children)
like their peers without LD, despite their deficient cognitive processing.
In this vein, in the present investigation, we studied the
motivational profile (combination of goals) of students
with LD and how it is associated with significant differences in cognitive-affective variables such as causal attributions and self-concept. We attempt to answer the following
questions:
Are there subgroups of students with LD with signiflcantly different motivational proflles and similar
to those obtained in populations of students without LD?
Do LD students who have a multiple goal profile display a more adaptive pattern than students who
have a profile with just one predominant goal
(learning or performance)?

Predictions
In view of the lack of data on the different combinations of
types of goals in students with LD. and taking as a reference
the results of the studies carried out with populations without LD (i,e,, Daniels et al,, 2008; Valle, Nez, Cabanach,
Rodriguez, Gonzlez-Pienda, & Rosario, 2009), the data
from the works of Sideridis (2003, 2006, 2007), and those
contributed by our own work with students with LD
(i.e., Gonzlez-Pienda et al., 2000; Nez et al., 2005), we
made the following predictions:
1. The three types of goals considered in this study
(learning goals, performance goals, and socialreinforcement-seeking goals) will be associated
with each other, leading to different motivational
proflles (homogeneous groups of participants
with a similar combination of academic goals).
2. Empirical evidence for the existence of four different motivational profiles will be obtained: (a) a
multiple goal profile (students oriented both toward

276
leaming and perfomiance or social reinforcement
seeking), (b) a low motivational level profile (students with a low or very low level in all three types
of goals), (c) a profile with predominance of leaming goals (students oriented mainly toward mastery,
personal progress, and leaming), and (d) a profile
with a predominance of extrinsic goals (students
oriented mainly toward attaining better performance
than their peers or toward seeking significant others'
acknowledgment).
3. These four motivational profiles will be associated
with significantly different levels of self-concept
and causal attributions. Specifically, on one hand,
students with a multiple goal profile will obtain
the highest levels in self-esteem, followed by
the profile with predominance of leaming goals,
predominance of performance goals, and, last, a
low motivation profile. However, students with a
multiple goal profile will attribute their successes
to a greater extentand their failures to a lesser
extentto intemal causes (capacity and effort)
than will students with a profile with predominance of leaming goals and/or performance goals
and, particularly, students with a low motivation
profile.
Method
Participants
Initially, we contacted representatives from the 36 educational
centers of primary schools (second to sixth grade levels) and
secondary schools (seventh and eighth grade levels) in two
northem regions of Spain to obtain their participation in the
investigation, requesting them to (a) provide data about the
diagnosis of students with LD (screening to determine which
children were diagnosed with LD), (b) request parents' permission for their children's participation in the investigation,
and (c) inform the teachers and request their collaboration in
providing various data. The tests were administered by postgraduates with scholarships who were collaborating with the
team. The participants filled in the three questionnaires individually and without any time limit. Any doubts expressed
by students about terms were cleared up.
Participants were 257 students with LD, ages 8 to 15 years
{M= 11.90, SD = 1.703), distributed as follows: 6 eight-yearolds (5 boys and 1 girl), 17 nine-year-olds (12 boys and
5 girls), 36 ten-year-olds (14 boys and 22 girls), 42 elevenyear-olds (25 boys and 17 girls), 58 twelve-year-olds
(44 boys and 14 girls), 37 thirteen-year-olds (25 boys and
12 girls), 55 fourteen-year-olds (37 boys and 18 girls),
and 6 fifteen-year-olds (5 boys and 1 girl). The total sample
comprised 167 boys (65%) and 90 girls (35%; see Table 1 ).
None of the study participants had an IQ lower than 79

Learning Disability Quarterly 34(4)

(minimum = 79, maximum = 121, iV/ = 92.02, SD = 6.27),


nor did they present with sensory disabilities, severe emotional
problems (e.g., autism), or attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder. Practically all of the students attended public schools
in two northem regions of Spain.
In the United States, use of the discrepancy model as a
method of diagnosis of LD is currently being questioned, particularly since 2004, when the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act oificially introduced the model
of response to intervention (RTI) as an altemative to the discrepancy model (Jimnez et al., 2010). Nevertheless, although
some authors believe that the RTI model is the most promising method for identifying individuals with LD (Haager,
Klingener, & Vaughn, 2007), other researchers have stated
that the effectiveness of RTI is significantly mediated by the
child's age (Vellutino, Scanlon, Zhang, & Schatschneider,
2008) and may not be sufficient to identify people with LD
(Al Otaiba et al., 2009), or they even doubt that it can
be considered a diagnostic method (Kavale, Kauffman,
Bachmeier, & LeFevers, 2008).
In Spain, as in other countries (McLaughlin et al., 2006),
use of the RTI model has scarce tradition because there is no
clear definition of LD. Specifically, the diagnosis perfonned
by the school district specialists, integrated in psychopedagogical teams (see Ntiez & Gonzlez-Pienda, 2007), was
used to select the students with LD. The diagnostic process
used at the public educational centers in Spain is described
below. Once the general education classroom teacher detects
a student with poor performance with no apparent justification (motivational problems, discipline, etc.), the specialist
of the psychopedagogical team addresses the analysis of the
real magnitude of the leaming delay, determining whether
the student's academic performance is significantly lower
than his or her intellectual ability. The discrepancy is considered significant when performance is 2 or more years lower
than the general intellectual ability. Second, in the absence
of some general intellectual deficit and in the presence of a
significant discrepancy between intellectual abilities and
performance, the specialist continues to look for a deficit in
basic cognitive processes that would justify the discrepancy.
Third, the specialist attempts to rule out the possibility that
the existing learning problems are the result of disabilities
other than LD (visual, auditory, motor, emotional, etc.).
Finally, once the first three steps have been completed and
the student is considered as having "potential LD," taking
into account the student's characteristics (deficiencies and
abilities), the specialist carries out modifications in the conditions of access to the general education curriculum that
seem to be preventing the student from leaming. If the student
does not respond to the access adaptation, the specialist, in collaboration with tutors, proceeds to carry out an "individual
curricular adaptation," which means that the student is
assumed to be incapable of following the curriculum^at
least, at the established requirement leveland, as a result, it

Nez et al.

277

Table I. Participant Demographic Characteristic Across


Gender
Boys'
Characteristic

Girls'"

Total'

3.0
7.2
8.4

1
5
22
17
14
12
18
1

I.I
5.6

Age (years)

8
9
10
II
12
13

H
15
Grade level
Second
Third
Fourth
rittn
Sixth
Seventh
Eighth
Ethnicity
White
Gypsy
African
(Moroccan)
Asian

IQ
M
SD
Min
Max
Diagnosis time"*

M
SD
Hht
Max

5
12
14
25
44
25
37
5
3
9
17
30
62
25
21

15.0
26.3
15.0
22.2

3.0
1.8
5.4
10.2
18.0
37.1
15.0
12.6

0
2
19
24
24
9
12

24.4
18.9
15.6
13.3
20.0

6
17
36
42
58
37
55

21.1
26.7
26.7
10.0
13.3

14.0
16.3
22.6
14.4
21.4

2.3

I.I
0.0
2.2

2.3
6.6

3
II
36
54
86
34
33

1.2
4.3
14.0
21.0
33.5
13.2
12.8

157
7
2

94.0

86
3
1

95.6

3.3
I.I

243
10
3

94.6

4.2
1.2

0.6

0.0

0.4

91.74
6.26

79
113

92.50
6.32

80
121

3.9
1.2

92.02
6.27

79
121

23.34
21.71

25.18
22.24

24

1
96

1
90

1
96

21.87

a.n= 167(65%).
b. n = 90 (35%).
c. N = 257.
d. Months students had been diagnosed with learning difficulties at the
time of participation in this research.

must be significantly modified. The adaptation is generally


carried out over 2 years. Except for severe cases, the students receive instmction in the curriculum adapted to the
ordinary classroom, and they also participate in supplemental instruction specific to tlieir deficit or deficits, outside of
the normal classroom.
Measures
Academic Goals Questionnaire (AGQ). This instrument was

based on an experimental questionnaire used by Hayamizu

and Weiner (1991). It is composed of 20 items: 8 conceming


learning goals (evaluation of students' interest in leaming as
a priority goal), 6 concerning performatice goals (students'
interest in obtaining a certain goal as a priority aim), and
6 referring to motivational orientation toward obtaining
social reinforcement and acknowledgment. The student rates
each item on a 5-point scale {never to always). Examples of
the three types of goals assessed by the AGQ are the following: leaming goals ("I study because, for me, it is interesting
to solve problems or tasks"), performance goals ("1 study
chiefly because I want to get good grades"), and social reinforcement goals ("I study because I want my parents and
teacher to appreciate me"). The Spanish adaptation of the
AGQ shows high reliability coefficients for students with
LD, leaming goals (a = .85), performance goals (a = .86),
social reinforcement goals (a = .83), total AGQ (a = .87), and
excellent structural validity and predictive validity for various types of leaming strategies and for academic achievement (Gonzlez-Pienda et al., 2000; Ingls et al., 2009; Valle
et al., 2003). In this study, the reliability of the global AGQ
was also high (a = .919).
Self-Description Questionnaire (SDQ-I). This multidimensional

instrument (Marsh, 1988) consists of 76 items organized into


eight self-concept dimensions: general, academic (general,
mathematic, verbal), social (relationships with parents and
peers), and physical (physical appearance, physical capacity),
to which participants respond on a 5-point scale. The SDQ-I is
a reliable instrument with demonstrated validity (see Byme,
1996). In the Spanish population with LD, reliability is high
(Nez, Gonzlez-Pumariega, & Gonzlez-Pienda, 1995):
general (a = .74), general academic (a = .84), reading (a =
.92), mathematics (a = .92), physical appearance (a = .84),
physical capacity (a = .81), relations with parent (a = .81),
peer relations (a = .73), and total SDQ (a = .92). In this
sample of students with LD, reliability of the global SDQ
was high (a = .916). In addition, the Spanish version has
construct validity and predictive validity for academic
achievement (Nez et al., 1995).
Sydney Attribution Scale (SAS). Developed by Relich et al.

(Marsh, Cairns, Relich, Bames, & Debus, 1984), the SAS is


a multidimensional scale that assesses individuals' perceptions of the causes of their academic successes and failures,
adopting a dispositional viewpoint. It is made up of 24 hypothetical situations, with responses on a 5-point scale. These
24 situations involve combinations of two academic areas
(mathematics, verbal), three types of causes (ability, effort,
extemal causes), and two opposite-hypothetical outcomes
(success situations and failure situations). In this study, however, the academic area was not taken into account, so that
six scores were obtained: Attribution of Success to Ability
(ASAB), Attribution of Success to Effort (ASEF), Attribution of Success to Extemal Causes (ASEC), Attribution of
Failure to Ability (AFAB), Attribution of Failure to Effort
(AFEF), Attribution of Failure to Extemal Causes (AFEC;

278
3 types of causes ^ 2 opposite-hypothetical outcomes). The
SAS adaptation for Spanish-speaking populations has been
shown to have acceptable reliability (in Spain, a = .81; see
Gonzlez-Pienda et al., 2002; and a = .82 in Chile; see
Villalobos, Gonzlez-Pienda, Nez, & Mjica, 1997) and
constmct validity and predictive validity for academic achievement (Nez et al., 1995). The reliability of this scale in the
present investigation was somewhat lower (a = ,768).
Statistical Analyses
To contrast the first and second hypotheses, we performed
several cluster analyses. Cluster analysis is not only the
most appropriate procedure to establish profiles in an ample
sample of study participants (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, &
Black, 1998) but also one of the most recommended solutions to identify multiple goals (Pastor, Barron, Davis, &
Miller, 2004). As in the predictions, we had established that
four clusters or groups of students with certain levels in the
three kinds of goals should be obtained; we used the K-mean
method as the procedure to group the participants. The motivational profiles were defined from the different combinations of the three types of goals assessed by the AGQ scale.
To eliminate the effect resulting from differences in the
measurement of the goals (given that the number of items of
each goal subscale is different), we carried out cluster analysis
after transfomiing the raw scores into standardized scores
(z scores).
Once the subgroups of students with LD were identified,
MANOVAs were conducted in which the dependent variables were the dimensions of self-concept and attributional
processes, and the independent variable was the subgroups
of students established on the basis of their typical motivational profile. When the analysis involved more than two
groups, post hoc Bonferroni tests were used to identify
pairwise differences among the groups. Similarly, we performed various ANOVAs to verify differences among
the motivational profiles on the three academic goals. The
effect sizes were also calculated to determine the portion of
variance of the dependent variable that was attributable to
the independent variable. Following the recommendations
of authors such as Tabachnick and Fidell (1989), we report
the partial squared eta (r| '). According to Aron and Aron
(1999), the following criteria should be used: .10 = small
effect size, .25 = medium effect size, and .40 = large effect
size.

Results
Motivational Profiles in Students With DA
As initially predicted, when carrying out the cluster analysis, we indicated that four groups of participants should
be extracted (and they should coincide with those obtained

Learning Disability Quarterly 34(4)

1.0000 -

0.5000

S ^.5000

-2.0000

H Leaming goais
Q Performance goais
I I Soctai Reinforcement

PSG

LowM

MG

Group Profile

Figure I . Results of cluster analysis corresponding to the three


subscales from the Academic Goals Questionnaire
PSG = profile vsiith prevalence of performance and social-reinforcementseeking goals; Lov^M = profile of low motivation; MG = profile of multiple
goals; LG = profile with prevalence of learning goals.

Table 2. Final Cluster Centers Corresponding to the Groups of


Students With Learning Difficulties With PSG, LowM, MG, and
LG Motivational Profiles
z Score
Cluster
Learning goals
Performance goals
Social reinforcement goals

PSG

LowM

MG

LG

-.9628
-.0811
.0476

-1.3927
-1.3560
-1.8528

.8022
.8567
.6847

.1652
-.5359
-.1193

PSG = profile with prevalence of performance and social-reinforcementseeking goals; LowM = profile of low motivation; MG = profile of
multiple goals; LG = profile with prevalence of learning goals.

in previous investigations): a multiple goal profile, a low


motivational level profile, a profile with a predominance of
leaming goals, and a profile with a predominance of extrinsic goals.
After the analyses were performed, the four-cluster solution (see Figure 1 ) converged in five iterations and optimally
fit the predictions of this study, based on studies of students
without LD. Table 2 shows the centers of the final clusters,
and Figure 1 presents their graphic representations.
Cluster analysis thus allowed us to identify four groups
characterized by significantly different motivational profiles.

279

Nez et al.

which are the result of different combinations of the four


types of academic goals. The first group was made up of
47 students ( 18.3%; 35 boys and 12 girls) with a motivational
profile with predominance of social-reinforcement-seeking
and performance-approach goals (extemal orientation with a
social comparison referent) and with low levels of leaming
goals (scarcely interested in the acquisition of competence
and learning). This group is thus defined by a motivational
profile with predominance of performance and socialreinforcement-seeking goals (PSG group).
The second group consisted of 36 students (14%; 27 boys
and 9 girls) and was characterized by low scores in each one
of the goals assessed. This group was defined by a.profile with
generalized low motivation (LowM group). If their behavior
is ever motivated, they will probably engage in tasks for reasons other than those presented in the questionnaire to assess
academic goals.
The third group, composed of 106 students (41.2%;
59 boys and 47 girls), was the largest and was characterized
by high scores in all three types of academic goals, which
indicates this is a multiple goal profile (MG group).
Last, the fourth group was made up of 68 students (26.5%;
46 boys and 22 girls); they displayed a clear predominance of
leaming goals (interest in improving as they leam) and a low
level of perfonnance and social-reinforcement-seeking goals
(LG group). Therefore, this group of students is defined by a
motivational profile with predominance of learning goals.
We carried out a MANOVA that yielded statistically significant differences among the four groups in the three types
of goals that make up the profiles, I = .093, F(9, 611) =
112.586, ;? < .001, r)^ = .548. These general level differences
are even higher if we compare the levels of each one of the
three goals in the four groups of subjects: leaming goals,
F(3, 253) = 212.658, p < .001, TI^ = .716; perfonnanceapproach goals, F(3,253) = 153.318,p < .001, r)^ = .645; and
social-reinforcement-seeking goals, F(3,253)=180.122,/?<
.001, r]^ = .681. Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations of the three types of goals for the four motivational
profiles. The multiple comparisons were statistically significant in all cases, except for the comparison of the levels
of social-reinforcement-seeking goals corresponding to the
PSG and LG profiles.
Motivational Profiles, Self-Concept,
and Causal Attributions
In the third working hypothesis, we proposed that the four
motivational profiles would be significantly associated
with the dimensions of self-concept and causal attributions.
Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations for the
variables of self-concept and causal attributions of the four
groups of students.
We performed a MANOVA that yielded statistically significant differences among the four groups of students in the

eight measures of self-concept, ^ = .691, F(24, 714) = 4.051,


p < .001, T]^ =. 116. Considering the results of each one of the
dimensions separately, the data contributed by the multivariate analysis indicate that the differences are statistically significant in all the subscales (except for the two physical
subscales): general self-concept, F(3, 253) = 6.128, /?<
.001, r|" = .068; general academic self-concept, F(3, 253) =
14.694, p < .001, ri" = .148; mathematical self-concept,
F(3, 253) = 6.062, p=.OQ\,^^ = .067; verbal self-concept,
F(3, 253) = 8.276, p < .001, n' = .089; relationship with
parents, F(3,253) = 10.466,p < .001, V = .110; peer relationships, F(3,253) = 2.822,/? = .039, n' = .032; physical appearance, F(3, 253) = 1.721, ;? = .163, If = .020; and physical
capacity, F(3, 253) = 1.280,p = .282, T]" = .015. The multiple
comparisons were not statistically significant in all possible
cases, except for the general dimensions and the general academic dimension, in which most of the possible comparisons
were significant.
With regard to causal attributions, the results are fairly
similar to those obtained for self-concept: statistically significant differences both at the multivariate level, X = .737,
F(18, 701) = 4.446, p < .001, ri' = .097, and in each of the
specific dimensions measured by the SAS: attribution of
success to capacity, F(3, 253) = 4.685, p = .003, TI' = .053;
attribution of success to effort, F(3,253) = 53.586,/J < .001,
ri' = .219; attribution of success to extemal cause, F(3, 253)
= 2.912, p = .032,11^ = .034; attribution of failure to lack of
capacity, F(3, 253) = 3.163, p = .025, x\- = .036; and attribution of failure to lack of effort, F(3, 253) = 3.656,/; = .013,
r^ = .042, except for the attribution of failure to extemal
causes, for which the differences did not reach statistical
significance, F(3, 253) = 0.521, /? = .668, r( = .006. Last,
the multiple comparisons showed that the differences were
statistically significant when comparing the multiple
goal group with the group with predominance of socialreinforcement-seeking or perfonnance goals and low leaming goals, except for ASEF, where all the comparisons were
significant.

Discussion
In accordance with our first and second hypotheses, we
found empirical evidence of the existence of consistent
combinations of diverse types of goals or motivational
orientations. As predicted, the results of this work clearly
support the existence of four motivational profiles: a multiple goal profile, a low motivational level profile, a profile
with predominance of leaming goals, and a profile with a
predominance of extrinsic goals. Therefore, it can be concluded that students with LD behave like students without
LD, insofar as regards motivational profiles. In fact, these
results may not be at all random because the same four
motivational profiles were found in independent investigations with populations witli and without LD, from different

280

Learning Disability Quarterly 34(4)

Table 3, Means and Standard Deviations for the Four Participant Groups on the Eight SDQ-I Scales, Three AGQ Subscales, and Six
SAS Subscales

PSG
Scale and Subscale
Self-concept (SDQ-I Scales)
General'
School"
Reading"
Mathematics"
Physical Appearance"
Physical Abilities"
Parent Relations"
Peer Relations"
Academic goals (AGQ Scale)
Learning goals'^
Performance goals^
Social reinforcement goals'
Causal attributions (SAS Scales)
Attribution of Success to Ability (ASAB)*"
Attribution of Success to Effort (ASEF)"*
Attribution of Success to External Causes (ASEC)**
Attribution of Failure to Ability (AFAB)''
Attribution of Failure to Effort (AFEF)"*
Attribution of Failure to External Causes (AFEC)**

MG

Low M

SD

SD

LG
SD

SD

21.787
20.867
26.141
20.756
28.495
31.125
29.647
30.541

4.318
6.298
8.712
8.432
7.292
6.485
7.345
5.772

18.472
16.441
22.927
18.028
24.951
30.123
27.686
26.889

5.542
5.247
9.443
9.107
6.928
7.531
6.186
5.854

22.268
24.336
29.631
24.893
26.799
28.819
33.585
29.609

4.803
6.513
7.484
9.076
7.474
7.651
5.632
6.276

22.083
21.852
24.729
22.545
26.415
30.154
32.252
29.769

4.547
6.479
8.494
9.159
6.817
6.561

2.423
3.219
4.039

0.4167
0.7307
0.6218

2.031
1.902
2.143

0.5956
0.6491
0.7217

4.031
4.189
4.674

0.5328
0.5082
0.3899

3.451
2.750
3.872

0.3894
0.6664
0.6605

24.142
31.663
31.761
30,177
31,811
26.494

5.718
6.699
6.429

21.811
25.287
29.022
28.801
31.353
25.221

6.294
6.689
7.472
5.908
5.938
6.695

26.901
36.879
28.304
26.784
28.751
25.137

8.213
7.739
6.847
7.157
6.928
6.623

24.741
32.687
29.127
27.829
30.829
25.304

7.879
7.467
5.978
5.549
5.668
6.158

5.813
5.199
6.221

5.882
5.664

SDQ-I - Self-Description Questionnaire-, AGQ = Academic Goals Questionnaire; SAS = Sydney Attribution Scale: PSG = profile with prevalence of performance and social-reinforcement-seeking goals (n = 47); Lov^M = profile of low motivation (n = 36); MG = profile of multiple goals (n = 106); LG =
profile with prevalence of learning goals (n = 68).
a. Minimum = 6, maximum = 30.
b. Minimum = 8, maximum = 40.
c. Minimum = I, maximum = 5.
d. Minimum = 10, maximum = 50.

school levels, and using different instruments to assess academic goals (i.e., Daniels et al, 2008; Valle, Nez, Cabanach,
Rodriguez, Gonzlez-Pienda, & Rosario, 2009).
Besides conflrming the existence of motivational profiles
formed by the combination of various goals, these results
also reveal the possibility of profiles that integrate certain
types of goals that, although theoretically counterpoised, may
be a resource and an adequate complement in some circumstances for students with LD, even though this could lead to
coordination problems or even to incompatible goals. The
combinations of goals mean we must accept that students
have diverse reasons and motives for engaging in learning.
From this perspective, students' motivation is seen as a process of managing multiple goals, which requires coordination and effective matching of one's personal motives to the
speeifle demands of the learning context (Valle, Nez,
Cabanach, Rodriguez, Gonzlez-Pienda, & Rosario, 2009).
Moreover, each one of the combinations of goals identified
represents a certain motivational profile, in the sense that
they lead to a particular and different way of being motivated academically.

Nevertheless, adequate management of a broad spectrum of motives is more complex and involves more difflculties when students face a cluster of goals that can easily
come into conflict under eertain eircumstances because of
their peculiarities. There is usually no problem unless such
circumstances involve some kind of comparison of a student's results with those of his or her classmates. However,
as students who are oriented toward perfonnance goals try
to display competence or to avoid seeming incompetent
to othersclassmates and teachersthey may sometimes
engage in behaviors that are opposed to successful learning
(Gabriele, 2007). Thus, when academic results and the meaning they have for many students interact, in the sense that
they are a good indicator of high or low capacities in comparison to others, the expression of approach and avoidance tendencies (Sideridis, 2003, 2007)to achieve positive
results and avoid negative resultsmay entail obvious risks
that often lead to higher levels of anxiety, more fear of failure,
and, as a result, poorer academic results. In fact, as pointed out
by some authors (e.g., Kaplan & Maehr, 2007; Middleton,
Kaplan, & Midgley, 2004), one of the possible problems of

281

Nez et al.

40.000 n

35.000-

30.000-

25.000-

20.000-

15.000.
ASAB

ASEF

ASEC

AFAB

AFEF

AFEC

Figure 2. Motivational profiles and dimensions of causal


attributions in students with learning difficulties
PSG = profile with prevalence of performance and social-reinforcementseeking goals, n = 47; LowM = profile of low motivation, n = 36;
MG = profile of multiple goals, n = 106; LG = profile with prevalence of
learning goals, n = 68; ASAB = Attribution of Success to Ability;
ASEF = Attribution of Success to Effort; ASEC = Attribution of Success
to External Causes; AFAB = Attribution of Failure to Ability;
AFEF = Attribution of Failure to Effort; AFEC = Attribution of Failure
to External Causes. Pairs with significant differences: ASAB (LMP-MGP),
ASEF (AGPP-LMP, AGPP-MGP, LMP-MGP, LMP-LGPP, MGP-LGPP),
ASEC (AGPP-MGP). AFAB (AGPP-MGP), AFEF (AGPP-MGP). AFEC
was not significant

performance-approach goals occurs when these goals


because of changes in the students' experiences, perceived
competence, or probability of failure^become performanceavoidance goals (Valle, Nez, Cabanach, Rodriguez,
Gonzlez-Pienda, Rosario, et al., 2009).
With regard to the third hypothesis of this investigation,
in which we expected that the four motivational profiles
would be associated with significantly different levels of selfconcept and causal attributions, in general the data obtained
support these predictions.
According to most of the investigation carried out on
multiple goals in students with LD (i.e., Botsas & Padeliadu,
2003; Sideridis, 2003, 2007), and in accordance with the
hypothesis of interactive effects (Barron & Harackiewicz,
2001), the multiple goals profile is the most adaptive motivational profile. Members of this group attribute their successes significantly more to intemal causes (capacity and,
mainly, effort), and they attribute their academic failures, to
a lesser extent, to these same causes (see Figure 2). Following
attributional logic, this is an adaptive attributional pattem
because it protects these students so they will persist when
faced with a possible failure and will be more resilient to the
development of emotional and affective problems (Nez
et al., 2005). The data about self-concept point in this same
direction (see Figure 3): These students display a good general

GSC

RSC

MSC PAPSC PABSC PARSC PERSC

Figure 3. Motivational profiles and self-concept dimensions in


students with learning difficulties
PSG = profile with prevalence of performance and social-reinforcementseeking goals, n = 47; LowM = profile of low motivation, n = 36; MG =
profile of multiple goals, n = 106; LG = profile with prevalence of learning
goals, n = 68; GSC = general self-concept; SSC = general school selfconcept; RSC = reading self-concept; MSC = mathematics self-concept;
PAPSC = physical appearance self-concept; PABSC = physical abilities
self-concept; PARSC = parent relations self-concept; PERSC = peer
relations self-concept. Pairs with significant differences: GSC (AGPPLMP, LMP-MGP, LMP-LGPP), SSC (AGPP-LMP,AGPP-MGR LMP-MGP,
LMP-LGPP), RSC (LMP-MGP. MGP-LGPP), MSC (LMP-MGP), PARSC
(AGPP-MGP, LMP-MGP, LMP-LGPP), PERSC (AGPP-LMP).

self-concept, a higher academic self-concept than any of


the other three motivational groups, a higher family selfconcept (positive relationship with parents), and a high social
self-concept (excellent peer relations). Consequently, we can
conclude that having a multiple goals motivational profile
(MGP group) ensures an attributional pattem and selfdimensions that are highly protective against future motivational and emotional maladaptation.
The exact opposite is observed in students with a low
motivational profile (LowM group), who display a maladaptive pattem because (a) they hardly ever believe that their
successes are the result of intemal or personal causes (capacity
and/or effort), but instead think they are the result of external causes, and (b) they believe their failures are mainly the
result of their lack of capacity and effort. In addition, (c) their
general self-concept is very negative, and their academic
self-concept, family self-concept, and social self-concept are
all low. Our data thus indicate that students with a LowM
profile are in a clear situation of vulnerability, so they are
much more susceptible to future failures and to their cognitive, motivational, and affective consequences.
Between these two groups of students are those individuals with a profile witli predominance of leaming goals and the

282
students with predominance of social-reinforcement-seeking
and perfonnance goals. Although the post hoc analyses did
not reveal statistically significant differences between these
two groups in most of the attributional and self-concept
dimensions assessed, a detailed observation of Figures 2
and 3 suggests that, of the two, the group with a predominance
of leaming goals (LG group) is the most similar to the multiple
goals profile (MG group), although somewhat less adapted.
These results are in accordance with most of those obtained
in past research (e.g., Barron & Harackiewicz, 2003; Pintrich,
2003; Sideridis, 2003,2006; Valle, Nez, Cabanach, Rodriguez,
Gonzlez-Pienda, & Rosario, 2009) because a multiple goals
profile seems more adaptive than a profile with predominance of learning goals, although the opposite pattern
has also been found (Sideridis & Tsorbatzoudis, 2003).
However, as not many differences in causal attribution
processes and self-dimensions were found between students with a predominance of leaming goals and students
with a predominance of social-reinforcement-seeking and
perfonnance goals, this leads us to conclude that although the
former profile is more adaptive, the latter is not clearly vulnerable. Consequently, although some researchers initially advocated planning contexts that favor leaming goals in students
with and without LD (e.g., Sideridis, 2005a), according
to other researchers, learning contexts that favor performance goals (i.e., Sideridis, 2007) or social-reinforcementseeking goals, in addition to these teaching structures, may also
be adaptive. We agree with the latter suggestion. In fact, for
students in general, and in particular for students with LD, it
may be a question of knowing the profile of the student's
needs and his or her level of associated vulnerability and,
accordingly, establishing motivational contexts that allow the
student to engage academically with some chance of success.
Implications for Practice
Research of motivational profiles could have some relevant
implications from the educational viewpoint in general and for
students with LD in particular. The analysis of goals provides
a way to understand the dynamics of behavior as it develops in
a certain situation as well as a framework frotn which to integrate the diverse sociocognitive variables and to understand the
influence of students' cognitions, behavior, and adaptations
to the academic context.
The results of this type of investigation are also an important step forward in the attention to diversity, in this case,
attention to motivational diversity. Just as students are different in their knowledge and competences, they are also
different in their motivational level. To accept these differences means that the teacher should start with students' real
motives. And as we have seen in this investigation, these
motives are multiple and diverse. Such attention to diversity
means that the teacher has to work in that "zone of proximal
development" (Brophy, 1998). Moreover, such diversity of
motives can also mean that from the motivational viewpoint.

Learning Disability Quarterly 34(4)

there are diverse ways to achieve leaming and academic success. Although it is true that some are more desirable than
others, not all students must necessarily follow the same
motivational track, and this is especially tme in the case of
students with LD.
A teacher's capacity to adapt the academic activities and
leaming contexts to the multiple motivational itineraries of
students with LD is one of the key elements to guaranteeing
satisfactory results from the motivational viewpoint. Future
motivational research should study in depth these multiple
itineraries and the ways that teachers can effectively match
them.
Future Research
In recent years, the paradigm of research in the field of LD
has moved away from a model based on deficit toward a
perspective that emphasizes the "capacity to adapt and overcome difficulties"called the "risk and resilience model"
underlining self-esteem, motivation, effort, and persistence
as personal, central variables to explain the success of some
students with LD (Meltzer, Reddy, Pollica, & Roditi, 2004;
Wong, 2003).
Morrison and Cosden (1997) were among the first investigators who applied the terms risk factors and protection
factors to the field of research on LD. They argued that the
presence of a learning disability constitutes a risk factor for
the psychological well-being of the person who has one, but
at the same time, diverse intrinsic and extrinsic factors are set
off to make the person more resilient to the negative effects. In
contrast to the deficit model (which underestimates students'
capacity to grow and feel good because it concentrates on
their deficits instead of their potential), under this new paradigm investigators focus all their energy on identifying
the critical predictors than can tap students' true potential
for leaming and prospering in diverse areas or contexts,
despite their particular leaming difficulties (Damon, 2004;
Murray, 2003).
In recent research based on this new perspective (i.e.,
Cosden, Brown, & Elliot, 2002; Meltzer et al., 2004; Murray,
2003; Nez et al., 2005; Stone, Bradley, & Kleiner, 2002),
various factors have been identified that contribute significantly to the characteristic behavior of a person who can
adapt and overcome adverse conditions, among which are
awareness of difficulties and skills, level of self-concept,
capacity expectations, causal attributions, and degree of
perceived control over their achievements, their teachers'
expectations and attributions, and their trust in the availability of social support (i.e., parents, peers, teachers). Therefore,
first of all, more research is needed to attempt to determine
how these intemal factors (personal goals, self-esteem, causal
attributions, capacity expectations, achievement expectations,
etc.) interact with extemal factors (curricular and instructional
adjustments, family support, etc.) to lead to risk and/or protection contexts for these students.

283

Nez et al.

Second, the results obtained in this study reveal the need


to continue to investigate from the viewpoint of motivational
profiles rather than only goals considered individually. Also,
the students' response to the perceived requirements of the
contexts in interaction with their own needs and interests is
important. Future research needs to take into account variables such as gender, the structure of the academic tasks, or
some aspects of the family context (Meece, Glienke, &
Burg, 2006). Some of the very interesting issues to be investigated within this sphere could be the following: How do
students prioritize their goals within the motivational profile? What is the relationship between inappropriate goal
prioritization and adaptation to the academic context? How
do unexpected events like failure, confiicts, and rejection by
peers or by teachers affect the goal profile? How can different goals be coordinated in different situations? Regarding
the last question, most of the difficulties could arise when
students (a) are not aware of the goal or goals that are most
appropriate to activate in each situation or (b) are incapable
of maintaining the same goal profile in the face of adversity
or confiict.
Third, a new line of investigation with great potential is
the one already initiated by some investigators (e.g., Sideridis,
2003, 2006, 2007), which consists of using structural equation models to obtain information about the link between
variables fi'om different settings (personal, contextual, task).
This methodology may provide enough infonnation to establish intervention models adapted to different groups of students
with LD, depending on their competences and deficits, their
diversity of motivations and affects, andmore important
the relationships among all of them.
Study Limitations
The results obtained and the conclusions derived thereby
should be considered with some caution for several reasons,
among which we emphasize three. First, although the number of participants is large, the results should be interpreted
with caution because there were considerable differences in
the age variable (which ranged between 8 and 15 years).
The data may vary somewhat as a function of this variable.
Second, the data derived from this investigation should be
interpreted prudently because some variables were not controlled (e.g., type of deficit that causes the LDperceptive,
attentional, working memory, linguistic, etc.current academic achievement, family attitude and involvement, school
context), and this could significantly affect the results obtained,
although the size of the sample and the variety of centers and
places where the data were collected may attenuate the effect
of these extraneous variables. Last, as noted by Hulleman
et al. (2010), the conclusions derived from studies of academic goals should be interpreted by taking into account the
type of instrument used to obtain the data. Therefore, we
encourage investigators in the field of LD to replicate this
study with different scales fi-om the one used here to contrast

whether our results are mediated by tlie nature of the items of


the AGQ or whether, as we expect, they may be generalized.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Al Otaiba, S., Petscher, Y., Pappamihiel, N. E., Willians, R. S.,
Dyrlund, A. K., & Connor, C. (2009). Modeling oral reading
fluency development in Latino students: A longitudinal study
across second and third grades. Journal of Educational P.sy-

chology,0,3\5-329.
Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1999). Statistics for psychology. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barron, K. E.,& Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals
and optimal motivation: Testing multiple goals models.
Journal of Personality and Social Psvchology, 80, 706-722.
Barron, K, E,, & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2003). Revisiting the benefits of performance-approach goals in the college classroom:
Exploring the role of goals in advanced college courses. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 357-374.
Botsas, G., & Padeliadu, S. (2003). Goal orientation and reading
comprehension strategy use among students with and without reading difficulties. International Journal of Educational
Research, 39,411-495.
Bouffard, T., Boisvert, J., Vezeau, C , & Larouche, C. (1995). The
impact of goal orientation on self-regulation and perfonnance
among college students. British Journal of Educational P.iychology, 65, 211-329.
Brophy, J. (1998). Motivating students to learn. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Byrne, B.M. (1996). Measuring self-concept across the life span:
Issues and instrumentation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Cosden, M., Brown, C, & Elliot, K. (2002). Development of selfunderstanding and self-esteem in children and adults with leaming disabilities. In B. Wong & M. Donahue (Eds.), The social
dimensions al Learning disabilities (pp. 33-52). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Damon, W. (2004). What is positive youth development? Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591,
13-30.
Daniels, L. M., Haynes, T. L., Stupnisky, R. H., Perry. R. P.,
Newall, N. E., & Peknm, R. (2008). Individual differences in
achievement goals: A longitudinal study of cognitive, emotional, and achievement outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 584-608.
Elliot, A. J. (1997). Integrating the "classic" and "contemporary" approaches to achievement motivation: A hierarchical

284
model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation.
In M. L. Machr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 143-179). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
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, 461^75.
Gabriele, A. J. (2007). The influence of achievement goals on the
constructive activity of low achievers during collaborative
problem solving. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
77,121-141.
Gonzlez-Pienda, J. A., Nez, J. C , & Gonzlez-Pumariega, S.
(1996). Motivacin intrnseca versus extrnseca en nios con y
sin dificultades de aprendizaje escolar [Intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation in children with and without academic leaming
difficulties]. Magister, 4, 245-261.
Gonzlez-Pienda, J. A., Nez, J. C , Gonzlez-Pumariega, S.,
Alvarez, L., Roces, C , & Garcia, M. (2002). A structural equation model of parental involvement, motivational and attitudinal characteristics and academic achievement. Journal of
Experimental Education, 70, 257-287.
Gonzlez-Pienda, J. A., Nez, J. C , Gonzlez-Pumariega, S.,
Alvarez, L., Roces, C , Garcia, M
Valle, A. (2000). Selfconcept, causal attribution process and academic goals in children with and without learning disabilities. Psicothema, 12,
548-556.
Haager, D., Klingener, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Evidence-based
reading practices for response to intervention. Baltimore, MD:
Brookes.
Hair, J. F, Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998).
Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., &
Elliot, A. J. (2000). Short-term and long-term consequences of
achievement goals: Predicting interest and perfonnance over
time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 316-330.
Hayamizu, T., & Weiner, B. (1991). A test of Dweck's model of
achievement goals as related to perceptions of ability. Journal
of Experimental Education, 59, 226-234.
Hulleman, C. S., Schrger, S. M., Bodmann, S. M., &
Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). A meta-analytic review of
achievement goal measures: Different labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar labels? Psychological Bulletin, 36, 422^449.
Ingls, C. J., Garca-Fernndez, J. M., Castejn, J. L., Valle, A.,
Delgado, B., & Marzo, J. C. (2009). Reliability and validity
evidence of scores on the achievement goal tendencies questionnaire in a sample of Spanish students of compulsory secondary education. Psychology in the Schools, 46,1048-1060.
Jimnez, J. E., Rodriguez, C , Crespo, P., Gonzlez, D., Artiles, C ,
& Alfonso, M. (2010). Implementation of response to inter-

Leaming Disability Quarterly 34(4)

vention (Rtl) model in Spain: An example of a collaboration


between Caaran universities and the Department of Education of the Canary Islands. Psicothema, 22, 935-942.
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory. Educationai Psvchology

Review, 19, U\-\%4.


Kavale, K. A., Kaufhian, A. S., Bachmeier, R. J., & LeFevers, G. B.
(2008). Response-to-intervention: Separating the rhetoric of selfcongratulation from therealityof specific leaming disability identification. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 31, 135-150.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Achievement goal
theory and affect: An asymmetrical bidirectional model. Educational Psychologist, 37, 69-78.
Margalit, M. (2004). Second-generation research on resilience:
Social-emotional aspects of children with leaming disabilities.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 45-48.
Margalit, M., & Idan, O. (2004). Resilience and hope theory: An
expanded paradigm for leaming disabilities research. Thalamus,
22, 58-65.
Marsh, H. W. (1988). Self-Description Questionnaire 1. San Antonio,
TX: Psychological Corp.
Marsh, H. W., Caims, L., Relich, J., Bames, J., & Debus, R. ( 1984).
The relationship between dimensions of self-attribution and
dimensions of self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology,
76, 3-32.
McLaughlin, M. J., Dyson, A., Nagle, K., Thurlow, M., Rouse, M.,
Hardman, M., . . . Perlin, M. (2006). Cross-cultural perspectives on the classification of children with disabilities. Journal
of Special Education, 40,46-58.
Meece, J. L., Glienke, B. B., & Burg, S. (2006). Gender and motivation. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 351-373.
Meltzer, L. (2004). Resilience and leaming disabilities: Research on
intemal and extemal protective dynamics. Introduction to the special series. Leaming Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 1-2.
Meltzer, L., Reddy, R., Pollica, L. S., & Rodt, B. (2004). Academic
success in students with leaming disabilities: The roles of selfunderstanding, strategy use, and effort. Thalamus, 22,16-32.
Mddleton, M., Kaplan, A., & Mdgley, C. (2004). The change in
middle school students" achievement goals in math over time.
Social Psychology of Education, 7,289-311.
Meltzer, L. J., Rodt, B., Houser, R. F , & Perlman, M. (1998).
Perceptions of academic strategies and competence in students
with leaming disabilities. Jbur/ia/q/'Z,earn/>igDi.sa6i7/i(e5. 31,
437-451.
Mddleton, M., & Mdgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration
of lack of ability: An unexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 99, 710-718.
Morrison, G., & Cosden, M. (1997). Risk, resilience and adjustment
of individuals with leaming disabilities. Leaming Disability
Quarterly, 20,43-60.
Murray, C. (2003). Risk factors, protective factors, vulnerability,
and resilience. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 16-26.
Nez, J. C , & Gonzlez-Pienda, J. A. (2007). School psychology
in Spain. In S. R. Jimerson, T. D. Oakland, & P. T. Farrell (Eds.),

285

Nez et al.

The handbook of intemational school psychology (pp. 381-390),


Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
Nez, J. C , Gonzlez-Pienda, J. A., Gonzlez-Pumariega, S.,
Roces, C , Alvarez, L., Gonzlez, P . , . . . Rodrguez, S. (2005).
Subgroups of attributional profiles in students with learning
difficulties and their relation to self-concept and academic
goals. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 86-97.
Nez, J. C , Gonzlez-Pumariega, S., & Gonzlez-Pienda, J. A.
(1995). Self-concept in children with and without learning disabilities. Psicothema, 1, 587-604.
Pastor, D., Barron, K, E,, Davis, S, L,, & Miller, B. J. (2004,
April). College students ' achievement goal orientation profiles. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Pintrich, P R. (2000a). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The
role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 92, 544555.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000b). The role of goal orientation in selfregulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner
(Eds.), Handbook ofself-regulation (pp, 451-502), San Diego,
CA: Academic Press,
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the
role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667-686.
Pintrich, P R., Anderman, E. M., & Klobucar, CH. (1994). Intraindividual differences in motivation and cognition in students
with and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 360-370.
Settle, S. A., & Milich, R. (1999). Social persistence following
failure in boys and girls with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 20\-2\2.
Sideridis, G. D. (2003). On the origins of helpless behaviour of
students with learning disabilities: Avoidance motivation?
International Journal of Educational Research, 39. 497-517.
Sideridis, G. D. (2005a). Classroom goal structures and hopelessness as predictors of day-to-day experience at school:
Differences between students with and without learning
disabilities. International Journal of Educational Research,
43, 308-328.
Sideridis, G. D. (2005b). Goal orientations, academic achievement, and depression: Evidence in favour of revised goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 366-375.
Sideridis, G. D. (2005c). Social, motivational, and emotional aspects
of learning disabilities. Editors' introduction to special issue.
Intemational Journal of Educational Research, 43, 209-214.
Sideridis, G. D. (2006). Achievement goal orientations, "oughts,"
and self-regulation in students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 3-18.
Sideridis, G. D. (2007). Why are students with LD depressed?
A goal orientation model of depression vulnerability. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 40, 526-539.
Sideridis, G. D., & Tsorbatzoudis, C. (2003). Intra-group motivational analysis of students with leaming disabilities: A goal

orientation approach. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary


Joumal,}, S-19.
Stone, C. A., Bradley, K., & Kleiner, J. (2002). Parental understanding of children with language leaming disabilities and its
role in the creation of scaffolding opportunities. In B. Wong
& M. Donahue (Eds.), The social dimensions of learning disabilities (pp. 133-160). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L, S. (1989). Using multivariate
statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Valle, A., Cabanach, R. G., Nez, J. C , Gonzlez-Pienda, J. A.,
Rodriguez, S., & Pineiro, I. (2003). Multiple goals, motivation
and academic leaming. British Journal of Educational P,ivchology,73,l\-Sl.
Valle, A., Nez, J.C., Cabanach, R.G., Gonzlez-Pienda, J.A.,
Rodriguez, S., Rosario, P., Cerezo, R. y Muoz-Cadavid, M.A,
(2008). Self-Regulated Profiles and Academic Achievement.
Psicothema, 20, 4, 724-731.
Valle, A., Nez, J. C , Cabanach, R. G., Rodriguez, S,, GonzlezPienda, J. A., & Rosario, P. (2009). Perfiles motivacionales en
estudiantes de Secundaria: Anlisis diferencial en estrategias
cognitivas, estrategias de autorregulaein y rendimiento acadmico [Motivational profiles in secondary students: Differential analysis of cognitive and self-regulation strategies and
of academic achievement]. Revista Mexicana de Psicologa,
26, 113-124.
Valle, A., Nez, J. C , Cabanach, R. G., Gonzlez-Pienda, J. A.,
Rodriguez, S., Rosario, P., . . . Cerezo, R, (2009), Academic
goals and leaming quality in higher education students. Spanish
Journal of Psychology, 12, 96-105.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Zhang, H., & Schatschneider, C.
(2008). Using response to kindergarten and first grade intervention to indentify children at-risk for long-term reading difficulties. Reading and Writing: .4n Interdisciplinary Journal,
27,437^80.
Villalobos, M. V, Gonzlez-Pienda, J. A., Nez, J. C, & Mjica, A. D.
(1997, March). Sydney Attribution Scale: Facture structure
and psychometric properties in Chilean students. Presented at
the Portuguese-Spanish Congress of Educational Psychology,
Coimbra, Portugal.
Wolters, C. A., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P R. (1996). The relation
between goal orientation and students' motivational beliefs
and self-regulated learning. Leaming and Individual Differences, 8,21 \-23S.
Wong, B. (2003). General and specific issues for researchers' consideration in applying the risk and resilience framework to the
social domain of leaming disabilities. Leaming Disabilities
Research & Practice, 18, 68-76.

About the Authors


Jos Carlos Nez Prez, PhD is a Leaming Disabilities
Professor in Psychology Department at the University of Oviedo.
Research lines focus about motivational and emotional components in leaming disabilities and self-regulation processes.

286
Julio Antonio Gonzlez-Pienda, PhD, is an Educational
Psychology Professor in Psychology Department at the University
of Oviedo. Research lines focus in thinking styles and leaming
disabilities.
Celestino Rodrguez, PhD. is an Educational Psychology and
Learning Disabilities Assistant Professor in Psychology
Department at the University of Oviedo. Research lines focus in
ADHD and leaming disabilities.
Antonio Valle, PhD, is an Educational Psychology Professor in
Educational and Development Psychology Department at the

Learning Disability Quarterly 34(4)

University of Conia. Research lines focus in academic motivation, self-regulation processes and leaming disabilities.
Ramn Gonzalez-Cabanach, PhD, is an Instructional Psychology
Professor in Educational and Development Psychology
Department at the University of Corua. Research lines focus in
self-regulation processes, learning disabilities and stress.
Pedro Rosario, PhD, is an Educational Psychology Assistant
Professor in Psychology Department at the University de Minho.
Research lines focus in self-regulation processes and school
failure.

Copyright of Learning Disability Quarterly is the property of Council for Learning Disabilities and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

You might also like