NOTE TO USERS
The original manuscript received by UMI contains pages with indistinct print. Pages were microfilmed as received.
This reproduction is the best copy available
UMI
St.John's
WORK AVOIDANCE AS A MANIFFSTAnONOF ANGER, HELPLESSNESS.AND BOREDOM
by Sharoo Jarvis
A thesissubmittedto the SchoolofGraduate Studies in partial fulfilment ofthe requuememsfor thedegreeof
Masters
of
EducationFacultyof Educatioo Memorial Universityof NewCo un dlao d
Newfoundland
ABSTRACf
Thepurposeofthis studywastoexamine a particular goalorientationin achievement motivatio nknownasthework-avoidantorientationand its manifestation as mechanisms(angerandresentment,incompetency,andboredom).whichareakinto the mechanismsthatmay giverisetopassiveaggressiveness.learned helplessness.and boredom.
One-hundredand forty-sixstudentswere screened using a self-reportsurveyto identify studentswitha work-avo idantgoalorientation. The data from thegoal orientation surveyswereanalyzed; twenty studentswho displayed a work-avoidance orientation were identified. A teacherchecklistof work-avoidantbehaviours wasused tocorroboratestudents'self-ratingof workavoidance.Thesetwenty studentswere then interviewedtoprobe the reasons fortheir workavoidance. Specifically,itwas hypothesizedthatfeelings of angerandresenanent,feelings of incompetency.and boredom mayresultinwork avoidance.
Thefindings fromthisstudy,thatis.the resultsoftheself-repongoalsurveys, showed the presence ofthreegoal orientations. ego-socialorientatio n.task-mastery orie ntation.andwork-avoidantorientation. Theresults of the interview analysis indicatedthatbalf of the work-avoidan tstudents intervieweddisplayedfeelingsof anger andresentm ent.feelingsof incompetency.andboredom.Thesemechanisms paralleled someaspects of passive aggressiveness.learned helplessness.and boredom.
ti
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wouldliketothanktheronowingpeoplefortheirassistanceinthecompletion ar misthesis:
My supervisor. Dr.TUD Seifert. forhisvaluablesuggestiom regardingme maIIlI.5Cript;PhilomenaKavanaghfortypingthemanuscript;myfamily.especially my parents,andTheresaandJac k..fortheircontinuous encouragementandassiswJce;and Jim,forhisinterestandsupport throughoutthisproject.
Thanks. Shawn
ill
ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT UST OF TABLES UST OF FIGURES CHAPTER I PURPOSE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
....ii iii ... . ....vii viii
.1 INTRODUCTION.
Underachievement Student Motivation .. Theories of Achievement Motivation RATIONALE AND RESEARCH QUESTION CHAPTER 2
UTERA TURE REVIEW.. PASSIVE AGGRESSION
Definition .
Development of Passive Aggression..
Passive-Aggressive Behaviours LEARNED HELPLESSNESS.
Definition .
Characteristics of Learned-Helpless Students. BOREDOM.
Reasonsfor Boredomin School . Characteristics ofBoredStudents Consequences of BoredominSchool
iv
... . ... .I .. . . ..I . . ..3 . . ... . ... .3 ..7
. .9 15 15 16 17 20 20 21 23 24 25 ...26
CHAPl'ER3 METHODOLOGY
Sample .
Procedure•••.• • • •.•••.•.
Measures _
DATA ANALYSIS ... . Mid-ScaleSplit..
ClusterAnalysis. . InterviewAnalysis
Tl"iDSa'1ptions .
ReadingandStudyingtheTranscripts . ImportandNumber Data Files Procedure. CodeProcedure... ... . . .. . . . Identifying Themesfrom CodesandCategories CHAPTER4
snJDENTINTERVIEWS
RESENTMENT ANDANGER .
LEARNED HELPLESSNESS . BOREDO M
SUMMARY CHAPl'ER 5
SUMMARY.RECOMMENDATIONS.ANDCONCLUSIONS Summary
Discussion .
Recommendations . Passive-AggressiveStudents Learned-HelplessStudents Bright-hut-BoredStudents Conclusions
Implicationsfor FutureResearch Limitationsof theStudy..
28 28 28 30 33 34 35 40 40 40 40 40 . . . .. . . .. 41
43 43
65 76
77 77 78 80 80 81 82 84 84 84
REFERENCES.. .
APPENDIX A:I..E'ITERSTO DIRECfOR. PRINCIPAlS,TEACHERS, PARENTS/GUARDIANS
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW TOPICS/QUESTlONS APPENDIXC:GOAL-QRIENTATION SURVEY APPENDIXD:BEHAVIOUR CHECKUST-TEACHER
vi
87
36 Table 1:
Table2:
Table3:
usr
OF TABLESZero-order conela1ioos betweenswdems'self-repoet ofgoalorientatio ns and teaebcrratingsof stDdeots. ...•.... . . .. . . .... 32 McamandstandarddeviationsfortheWentvariable
ofgoal orieDWioa ..
Summaryswisticsof arqJC3lCdmeasureANDVA(goalOrienw:iODby cluster mem.benJlip) (oUawed bywithinclustertestsofsimple
effeas •... 39
vii
UST OF FIGURES
Figure1: Profile ofMid-ScaleSplit~smdentswhoscored above 2.S on me
wort-avoidanceorientation. 34
Figure 2: Profileofgoalorientation scores by cluster.. 37
viii
CHAPI'ER I PURPOSE
The purposeof thissmdywastoexamineaparticulargoalorientationin achievementmotivationknownasdiewort.-avoidantoricnwioD.Speci fically,itwas the intentofthe studytodemonstratethatworkavoidancemaybea manifestati onof mechanismssuchas,resentmetJtandanger, incompetency,aDdboredom.whichappear toparallelsome aspectsof passiveaggression.learned helplessness.andboredom.Thar is,students whoareangryaDdresentful,incompetent,orboredmaypursueawork- avoidance goal and. subsequ ently ,demonstratewor k-avoidance behav iours.
INTRODUCTION
Und era chi evemen t
MotivatingstudentslOlearnor toachieve attheir potentialbasbeena coocern for teacherslhrougbout thehisloryof education. -Ina perfect world,allstudents would enterclassroomswithenthusiasm and eagerness to learn. In therealworld.however.
the increasingIIUIDberofunmotivalCdstUdentsisaccecera for today'seducators- (Fulk
&Grymes,1994.p.28). Accordingto Orr(1996),thegapbetweenthe ones whotty bardandtheones whocouJdcareless isincreasingeveryyear.Studies haveshownlhat most middle--scboo l studentsdemonstrate poor moti vationtolearn,andtheir amtude towards schoo lbecomes increasingly negative as they enteradolescence(Eccles&
Midgley.1990).AlthOUghitwas generallyagreedthai:itisduringthe junio rhighyears thattheproblemsofunmoti vatedstude msandsubsequentunderachie vement becomes
more obvious,it basbeendemonstratedthai:thesepatternsemerged as earlyas me primarygrades.ShawaDdMcCuen(1960),inastUdyof high school studentswhohad beenclassma tes sincefirstgrade, foundd1atme underachievingboyshadtendedto receive lowergradesthanme achieving boys begi.nning infirstgrade. Bygradethree andcontin uin gupto grade ten,theydemonstrated significantly lower performancelevels andpoorerachievement. Asimilarpatternwasfoundfor underachievinggirlswho began to receivelow ergrades thanthose of achieving girlsingrade six and declinedto significantlylower perfonnancebygradenine. Raph,Goldberg,andPassow(1969) listedseveralstudiesthatsupportedmeidea d1atmotivationalproblems may emergeearly inastudent'sschool career and be firmly entrenchedby the timetheyreach adolescence.
Citinga1964workbyNash, Rapbetat(1969)notedthatthere werea greater number oflowerachievingstudents in meeighm andninthgrades.Raphetal.alsocited a1957 work byBarrettwhich found an underachievement pattern present by gradefiveand workby O'Heurie (cited in Rapbetal.,1969) identified academic underachievement behaviourashavingoccurredinagiftedgroupofthirdgraders.Howeverearlytheonset of motivational difficulties,itismaintained byEcc1es,Midgley,andAlder(1984),that itisinearlyadolescence that a downwardspiraloccurs thatleadssomestud ents EO academic failureand school dropout.SimmonsandBlyth(1987) reponedasignificant declineinschoolgrades as studentsmove into juniorhigh.Themagnitude of thedecline wasalsopredictive of subsequent school failureanddropout. Ecclesand Midgley (1990),in a review of research on changesinacademic motivationduring adolescence,
collected information from a variety of studies that show that students'attitudes towards schooland their self-perceived competency decline with ageuntilthe late highschool years.
Although it is important to recognize that the problems of academic underachievementand student motivationcanbegin quiteearlyin a student' slife,more importantly,itisessentialto recognize the long-range implications of bavingpoorly motivated students who are not achieving to their fullestpotential. These students are surrendering educational opportUnitiesthatwillhave a significant impact on their occupational choices and subsequent lifestyles.
Student Motivatiog
Clifford (1990) referred to theproblem of studentunderachievementas
"educa tional suicide.W She stated that"most disturbing are the students wb.o sever
themselves from the flow of knowledge wb.ilethey occupydesks,likemummies"(p.21).
Shesuggested that itwasprimarilya motivational problem,and therefore,wemustrum tomotivationaltheoriesandresearchforouranswers.
Theories or Achievement Motivation
Increasing and/or understanding student motivation to achieve bas,in fact,been a long-term focus ofresearch ineducation. As early as the19SOS,McClelland and Atkinson proposed a learned-drive theory to explain achievement motivation(Covington, 1984a).They suggestedthat:individuals were motivated to achieve based on a desire to
appearsuccessful on one hand and to avoid failure on the other.Themethods employed by students to resolve this conflictinfluencedthe degree of achievement that occurred.
Weiner andhiscoueegues.inthe seventiesandeighties. added a cognitive component to achievement motivationthat had beenmissing from the previous learned- drive theories.Theywere guidedbyme principles of attribution theory,which suggested thataUindividualslook for ways to explain events that have happened to them (Weiner.
1984).With respect to achievement.an individualwillseek. reasons to explain success or failure outcomes.especiallyifthe outcomeisunexpected. Weiner (1984) went so far as to suggest that"taemajor detenniDants of future achievement behaviour are cognitive attributions.- According to the cognitivc:.anribution theory of achievement motivation.
individualsperceived ability, task effort,and task ease/difficulty as the major causes of achievement performance (Weiner.1984; Weiner.1994). If theindividuals are success oriented or failure avoidant.there wouldberesulting differencesinattributions. Success- oriented individuals atttibured success tohighability and failure to external reasons.such as task difficulty or effort. Feilure-avcidingindividuals. on theother band. ascribed success to external factors.suchas luck ortaskease.andattributed their failure [0 low ability (Weiner. 1984;Weiner. 1994).
Rowing out of the cognitive-attributiontheorywas the basic premise of the self- wonhtheorywhich was that: "a centralpanofallclassroom achievement is the need for students to protect their sense of worth or personal value.Perceptions of ability are crucial tothis-(Covington,1984a. p. 5).Thus.thetheory suggested that students' sense
of selfislargelyimpactedby their self-perception of ability (Covington, 1984a;
Covington. 1984b). Therefore. students are constantly engagedinendeavours to protect their sense of self-worth. either by demonstrating high ability ormasteryor by avoiding demonstrations of low ability.This theory was usefulinexplaining a number of self- handicapping behavioursthatstudents engaged in. such as procrastination.not trying, cheating. and absenteeism (Covington. 1984a;Covington. 1984b). These strategies.
according to the self-worth theory.were designed to protect feelings of self-worth.
Joha Nicholls. drawing on research from both cognitive-attribution theories and self-worth theories of achievement motivation. emerged with"Th e Intentional Approach"
toexplain achievement behaviours (Nicholls,1984). "Iathis approach,behaviour is predicted by assuming that individuals are goal-directed and lbat their behaviourisa rational or economic attempt togaintheir goals"(Nicholls. 1984,p.40). Nicholls (1984) ascertained that: the goal of achievement behaviour was directed towards demonstrating competence ratherthanincompetence.Nicbolls maintained that there were different conceptions of ability.andas suggested by the attributional theorists.one being less differentiatedthantheother. The more differentiated concept of ability involved viewing ability as capacity.anditrequiredindividuals to judge themselvesagainst others to obtain a measure of their own competence. These success-oriented/ego-involved individualsvalued judgements of high ability. The less-differentiated concept of ability used self-referenced judgements of ability as opposed to social comparisons.
Competency was judgedbyincreasesinlearning as perceived by the learner. Nicholls
(1983,1984) proposedthatSOIdentswho were more concerned with learning, as opposed to demonstrating high ability,were tobeknownas task-Involved or rask-oriecred individuals.According to Nicholls (1983,1984),students who were task involved would seek tomaster material they were uncertainthatthey cotlld do,whereas students who wereego-Involvedwouldnot attempt learningifitwasunlikelythattheoutcomewould not demonstrate high capacity. Respectively,these students adhered to task-mastery goalsand ego-socialgoals(Nicholls,Patlshnick, &Nolen, 1985).Although these two goal perspectives, ego-social and task-mastery orientations, were dominant in achievement motivation, Nicholls andhis colleagues further identified athirdgoal orientationthatexistedinacademic settings,thework-avoidant orientation. This particular orientationinvolved a basic desire toputforth as little effon as possible and get away withit(Nichollser al.,1985).Meeceand Holt(1993)suggestedthat whereas task-masterygoals and ego-social goals represent ed different forms of approach motivation, work-avoidantgoals represented a form. of avoidancemotivation .
Achievement problems were viewed,then,interms of motivationrewardsthe goals which have meaning inthe students' world (Roth &Meyersburg, 196 3 ).
Unmotivatedstud ents were viewedinterms which defined their motives for choosing poor achievement. AccordingtoMartino (1993),particular goal orientations would affectthe achievement panem ofthe snuients. Dweck(1986)descri bedthesetwo achievementpatterns: Adaptive motivational patterns, those~tbatpromotethe establishment,maintenance,and attainment of personally challenging and personally
valuedachievemem;-and,maladaptivemotivationalpatIen1Sthatare-associaledwith a failure toestablish reasoDablyvalued goals.maim:aineffectivesttivingtowards those goals.or,ultimately.toaaainvaluedgoalsdwarepltemia.l.lywithin one'sreach-(p. 1(40). Research00goalorieowionshasdemoasttatedthatstUdentswhopursue pc:rfonnancelego-socialgoalsorwork-avoidamgoalsweremorelikely to display maladaptive motivational paneras, have a negativ e attitude towards school. and demonstratebehavioursdwareDOtconduciveto achievemenr. (Meece, Blumenfeld ,&
Hoyle,1988:NiehaUs,1984:Nicholls etaI.,1985; Nolen,1988).
RATIONALEAND RESEARCHQUESTI O N
The problem.of academicuodench.ievemem,then,basitsfoundationinstudent motivationand,inparticular. goalorienwions. If,as thetheramreSUggCSlS,a work- avoidanceorientationleadsto amaladaptivemotivariooaJpanem.,thenstUdentswho pursueawork-avoidantgoalwillhave motivational and achievement difficulties. The prob lem of student motivation,wb.ichfaceseducatorsand parentSdaily,is illustratedby thisexcerptfromaR~r'sDig~st(1996)articlethatdescribed anactualconversation between ateacherandastUdent.
"Iohn," Isaid, "you're bright ,healthy,andyou havea great chancefor a better-than-averag eeducation.Whyarcyousittin g here doing nothing?- His answer wasscary. -Idon'tknow.I know I could dowell, Idon 't knowWhyIdon'ttry."(p.112).
This studyhypoth esized that work. avoidancemaybeamanifestation of mechanisms that parall el thosethatariseinpassiveaggressiven ess,learned helplessness,and boredom.
Docswortavoidanceariseoutof angry-bostile.iDccmpetent.orbottdfeelings'? This istheresearchquestionthatwillbeaddressedindlissnJdy.
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Studies of achievement motivation have demonstrated that achievement behaviour is heavily influenced
bythe particular goal orientation that a student adopts (Duda
&Nicholls, 1992; Dweck, 1986; Dweck
&Leggett, 1988; Meece
&Holt, 1993; Meece er al., 1988; Nicholls el al. , 1985). Citing an anicle
byNicholls (1989), Duda, Fox, Biddle, and Armstrong (1992) asserted that these goal orientations are a directing force which shape the behavioural, cognitive, and affective responses to achievement events.
"In essence,
it is suggested that students
'thoughts, feelings, and behaviours are rational expressions of their dominant goal" (Nicholls, 1989 (as cited in Duda et al.
,1992), p.
313). Dweck and Leggen (1988) suggested that the goals individuals pursue create the
framework from which they interpret and
react to events. In the academic domain, theysuggested students pursue two classes of goals: performance goals, in which students are
interested in obtaining favourable judgements of their ability
;and learning goals, in
which students are concerned with increasing their competence
.Performance goals and
learning goals are also referred to as ego-social goals and task-mastery goals, respectively
(Nicholls et al.
,1985). Nicholls and his colleagues added a third goal orientation, the
work-avoidant orientation. to further explain achievement behaviours
.The goal
dimensions of task and ego orientation are virtually independent of one another (Nicholls,
Cobb, Wood, Yackel, Patashnick
,1990), and work avoidance is negatively related to
task orientation and unrelated or positively related to ego orientation (Nicholls et al. ,
1985; Thorkildsen, 1988).
10 Studemswith a wk-mastery orientation have self-improvement or skill development asdIeirgoal(MeeceeraI.•1988).Researchbasshownthatthesestudents demonstratedactivecognitive engagement(MeecectaI. ,1988)useddeepprocc:ssing strategies (Nolen.1988)aDdindicateda preferenceforcba11enging activities(Seifert.
1995). Task-masterystudents tendedtoview failure experiences as a cue toincrease their effortortorethinkcurrentstrategies(Dweck , 1986). Theyalsobelievedthat successinschoolrequiredeffort,interest,and a cooperative attitude(Duda&Nicholls , 1992).
Unlike studentswith atask-masteryorientatio n.stUdentswho pursued ego-social goals wereprimarilyconcernedwithreceivingfavourabl e judgements of theirabilityor avoidingnegative evaluatio noftheirability(Dweck&leggett.1988). Meeceetal.
(1988) indicatedthalaneglrsocialorientationwasassociated with the beliefthatlearning wasameanstoanend. Theswdc:mswere most interestedinreceivingpraise.
dcmonsttalingsuperiorability.andavoiding negative judgements.Theseego-socialgoals were linkedtothebeliefttw:failure wascaused.byalackofability(Dweck&Leggett.
1988)and thatsuccessrelied 00a competitiveeamre.superior ability, andwas influencedbyexternal factors(Nichollsetal.•19 85).Performancelego-orientedstudents demonstrated less active cognitive engagement,usedsurface-levelprocessin gstrategies.
andengagedinself-handi capp ing behaviours more ofteDthantask-orientedstudents (Berglas&Jones.1978;Meece&Holt,1993;Nolen. 1988).
II DudaandNM:bolls (1992)investigated high schoolstUdems'beliefs about the causes of successinschoolandspan. Rc:sults iDdieatedthaI wkorientationwas associatedwiththe beliefthatswx:c:ssrequiredinteresl,eftan.andcooperativeworkwith one'speers.Anegoorieotation,on !beOlher hand,waslinkedtothe belief tharsuccess inschoolrequiredattemptstobeat othersand superiorability.Inthe classroom andin sport,DudaandNicholls (1992) foundthatsatisfactionandenjoyment were moderat ely com:latcdwithtask:orientationandnegatively correlatedwiththewort-avoidance orientation. Boredo m , however,waspositivelycorrelatedwithwork: avo idancein both achievementsettings.Infact.work avoidance emerged as a strong predictorof boredom intheacademicsetting (Rl
=
22).Again..in1992.DudaetaI.(1992) completeda similar srudyinBritain.Using aninventory.theyassessedachievement goalsandbelie fsabout successinsportamong Britishten-yearaids. The n::sultssuggestedthatthisgroupwasprimarily task-orieered.
valuedcooperatio n,andbelieved mar hard wo rtwouldleadtoachievementinsport.
Thosewhowerecoocemcdwithdemonstratingsuperiorcompetence(egoorientation) believedlhatsuccessinspansstemmedfromhighability.Childrenwhoscoredhighon wortavoidancewerealsomorelikelytothinkthatexternal factorscause success.The ego orien tati onwasalsolinkedto an endorsement of work:avoidance. Nicholls.ina 1989 srudy(citedinDudaetal.•1992),Jagacim ldandNicholls(1990), andalbers suggestedthat,
12 Itwouldberatiooal althoughDOtmotivatiooally adaptive forhigh ego- orientatedchildrenwho doubttheir competence eventually to define successintermsof nottryingoravoidingsport complete ly.Holding back one'seffortand interestisastrategywhichmayhelp maska fragile sense of ability.(DudaeraI.•1992.p.319).
Nichollset al.(1990)administeredscalestoseveral second-grademathematics classestoassess taskandego orientatio n. Results were consistent withpreviously described studies.Task orientation was moderatelycorrelatedwiththe beliefthatsuccess wouldbepromptedbyinterest.effort.andcooperation.Ego orientationwas quitehighly correlatedwiththebeliefthatsuccessrequiressuperiormathematicalabilityandattempts
[Qbeatalbers. Aspredicted.work avoidance was negatively associatedwithtask orientationand positivelyassociatedwithego orientation.
Nolen (1988)extendedthework of Nicholls.Dweck, andothers byexamining the relationship betweengoal orientationsanduse ofstudystrategies. Thestrategies assessed were(a) deep-processing strategies. which include selecting important information,accommodating new information.andmonitoring comprehension .and(b) surfacelevel strategies.which includememnrizaticn, rehearsal,andreading the passage overandover.Task orientation was positivelycorrelatedwithboth perceivedvalue and use of strategies requiring deep processing of information. Ego orientation was positively relatedtouseandperceived valueofsurface-leve lstrategiesonly. Work avoidanc ewas negativelyrelatedtouseandvaluing ofbothkindsof Strategies .Nicholls et aI.(1985),ina study to obtainstudents'views aboutthe purpose of education. found thatthe viewthatschools shouldhelp onegainwealthandoccupatiooalstatuswas
13 positivelyassocia1edwilliwortavoM:!aDcebutDOl:withtasIr::orienwion.Wort avoidance. onmeotherband,wasootassocia1cd withtheviewthatschoolsshouldassistsrodents illbecomingsocially useful,productivemembersofsociety.This beliefwasmoderately correlatcdwith taskorientation•thedesiretogainUDdersrmdingfor its ownsake.
Thortildsen(1988) replical edthissrudyusingSlUdenu of exceptionalacademicability as hersubjects.Herresultswere consistentwiththose of NichoUsetaL (1985).The viewthatschoolshould helpODCattainwealthandstatuswasDOtassocialed withtask orie ntati on,satisfaction withschool,orthe belief that academicsuccessissuppo rtedby interestandeffo rt.Work avoidan cewasassociated positi velywith egoorientationand negativelywithtask orientation.
Dweckand Leggett(1988)describedaseries of studies conducted by Dienerand Dweckin1978and1980(as citedinDweck&Leggett)00childrenwoo weredescribed as performancegoal(ego)ormasterygoal(task)oriented.They reponedthatSl'Udents adoptinga performancegoalviewedtheirdifficulties as failures.as an iDdic:arion of low ability. and as insurmounrable.Theyappeared toview further efforts as futile.They reponed aversionstothetasks.boredomwitb.theproblems.oranxietyovertheir performance. Thosepursuing amasterygoal viewedLhe ir difficulties as challenges.
Theyenga gedinself-instructionand self-mo nitorin g ,and were veryoptimisticthattheir effortswould pay off.Owed:andLeggett (1988)further suggestedthatthesetwo groups viewed intelligencedifferently. Students whopursued performance goals viewed intelligence as afixed entity whereas students whopursued mastery goals saw
14 inleUigeoce as malleable.
Wort-avoidantgoalsiDcludedavoiding work,gettingwork:done withaminimum ofeffon.andescapingteaeberconmaints(Nicho llseeal.,1985).Thisgoalorientation waslinkedtoeffortminimizingstrategiessuchaselicitinghelp fromothers,copying workorguessingatanswers(Meeceetat,1988).MeeceandHolt(1993)suggestedlhat studentsmay choosetopursuethis particular orientationtoexpresstheir negative attitude towardschoolwort,toavoid failure or asacopingstrategytodealwitha particular situa tion.
Workavoidance was alsoperceivedas a defensivestrategy usedbystud ents who were concernedwiththe adequacyoftheirabilityandwho desired[0protect feelings of self-wo rthand avoideegadvejudgementsofabili[)'(Meeceetal.,1988). GenenJ1y, work-avo idantstUdents tended tohave poorer work habitsandstudy skills,were somew hat impuls iveandoftendisplayednegative attitudes towardsschoolandpeers.and wereknowntolad: initiativeandiodepc:DdeDcewithrespect toschoolwort(Bruns.
1992;Pecaut.1991; Rzpheral., 1969). ThesestUdentSwhopursuedwork-avoidant goalsweremorelikely [0thinkthatsuccess was linkedtointernalfactors.suchas abilil:y.andhad little relationshiptoeftan.interest.andacooperative attitude(Duda&
Nich olls,1992;NichoUseraI.,1985).
From the studies described,thethreetypesof motivational orientationthat exist inachievement settings were ego social,taskmastery .andwork avoidance. Itwas bypothesizedin thisstudythat work: avoidanceismanifestedinwaysthataresimil ar to
15 passiveaggressiveness.learned.helplessness.andboredo m.Thesethreecategories and lheirrelaliooship to workavoidancewillbeexplainedin theoext section.
PASSIVE AGGRESSION Dermition
DuringWorldWuD.the passive-aggressivepersonalitydisorder wastim: used as a psychiatticdiagnos iswithinthemilitary andSOODbecametheleadingcauseof psychiatricinpatieotadmissionsandmilitary discharges (Fnnces&Widiger.1990 ).
Passive aggressiveness was characteristic ofpeople who.according toSmall.Small.
Alig, andMoo re (1970),exhJbited behaviourpatternScharacterizedbybothpassivity and aggressiveness.Itwasessentiallya character disorder wbichpre vented individuals from maintainingeffective.intetpcnonal relationshipsdue to difficultywith expressing hostilityandfindiDggr.atificaIion(Parsoes.1983;Small etaI.•1970).The moststriking featureof passive-aggressivepersoDalitydisorder appearedtobetheresistance toexternal demands (Beck&Freeman. 1990;FIDe.Overholser,& Berkoff.1992). Passive- aggressiveindividualsresentedbeingforced to complyto thedemandsof ouiers or roles setbyothers.They typically felt angry andresentfulandbad difficulty with expressing their angerinaconstructive manner.Instead.theirresistance was manifested through behaviours such as dawdling,procrastinatio n.poor-workquality,and forgetting obligations (Beck& Freeman. 1990; FineetaI.,1992). Allbaugh these passive- aggressivebehaviourtraitswere commontomany persons as a pattern ofinterpersonal
16 behaviour.ifextremeeuougb,theyimpairedfuDc:tiooingin aucialareassuchas wort , marriage.and school.
Developmea t of PassinAggression
BerresandLong(1979)tbeoriz.edthaIpassfve-aggressiveindividualswereformed alaveryearlyage. They were usuallytheproduaof a middleclass familywho had highexpectations fortheirchildren. Thechildrenofthisfamilywere taughtthattobe popularandsuccessful,one'sbehaviourmustbeperceivedas being good. HostUity, sarcasm,rudeness.andinappropriatebehaviour wereprohibited. Consequen tly.some childrendenied themselves the normalfeelingsof angerandfrustrationand became passiveaggressive. Passive-aggressivebehaviourinschoolthen was thoughttobea bostil eresponsetowards parents or teachers by students whowereincapable ofhandling feelingsof anger(Bricklin&.Bric.klin.1967;Brues,1992;Weiner.197 1).Beingunable to directlyexpressangerandaggressive fee lingscausedpassive-a ggressive childrento relyonpassiveprocedwestoprovidea somewhatsafe outletfor release. Morrison (1969)suggested thatthe release came through demeaning adult values suchas academic achievement.Shestatedthal.
Underachievement may provide a safe means to aggress for the preadolescentsince intentionof aggression cannotbeproved. Grades providecommunicationbetweenadult authorities.parentandteach er.The underachievers maybeconveyin g the message,-Icando betterbut Iwill not.(p.169).
Poor academic performance.then,wasseen as a waythatsome students vented their angerandretaliatedagainst theirparents(Weiner.197 1).As earlyas1952.Kirk(as
17 cited in WeiDer. 1970) infcrm:I from her experieece with passive- aggress ive uoderachicving coUege5l1Jdenathatthey teDdcdtobe: <al expendingconsiden:ble energytoavertanyawan=:ness orexplicit expressioo.ofangryfeelings,(b)Sb'Uggling.in particular,with pro oounced angeratfamilymembers whoaredemandingorexpecting success,and(e) utilizing academic failure as a meansof indirectly aggressingagainst theirparents.
Aspreviowl ystated,studentswhoembraced a work- avoidance orientatio ooften didsoinan anempt tocopewitha particu1arsituation.Forangry-hostilestudents,itwas asituationwhere anoutlet wasrequiredfor the expressionof hostile feelings.Work- avo idanl behaviours. similartopassive-aggressivebehaviours.allowedstUdentsto vent theirangerina waydwwas more acceptablethandirectaggression. Thisbehaviour had beendescribedbyBric.k1inandBricklin (1967) assneakyaggressiveness.Itannoys whomitis intended to annoy.butitwouldprobab ly001becalled aggressive.
Passive-Aggressin fkharioun
Hardt (1988)suggestedthatina classroomthere were manytactics employedby passive -aggressivestudentsinan anempttoindirea.Iyexpress theirangerand vent their frustrationswithbeingforcedtocomplytothe externaldemandsplaced upon them.
Rabkin(l96S)stated thatsuchstudents entered schoolburdenedbyangerthatcould not properlybe channelled and werefrustrated to anextremedegreeby the most triviaJ demandorproblem.Observablepassive-aggressivebehavioursandve rbal responses fell
18 intotwo categoriesac:cordiogto Mc:dict(1979 ): geoeraUyannoying bebavioun and behavioursrelalcdto schoolwork,
Morrison(1969 ),inher scale for rating passive-aggressivebehaviour,listedlite follo win g symptoms: doeswhatisasked todo butu..k:esa klOgtime;often argues a pointforthesake ofargument;does not foUow direaiomclosely.wouldrathersay-I can' t "than try;oftencomplainsabout rules;doesn'tnun in homework:ontime;often requiresyou10repeat requests;andoften offers implausible excusesfor failure todo something.
There appeared tobe certain patterns of behavioursthatbad been utilizedby passive-aggressivestudentsinthe class room.Theyincludedmefollowing: l. S~Hwrin g. Passive-aggressivestudents'bearingshutsdownwbenthey
were asked todosomethingtheywouldratherDOtdo(Berres&Long,1979).
Alsoknownas passivelistening,thesestudentsonlyheaJdwbartbcywanted lO bear. TheleaCherwasoftenrequiredtorepeatdirectionsleadingtoteacher frustta1ion(Beck&Roblee, 1983).
2. Withholding/SlowDownTddil:s.Thesestudentsweredescribed asbeing slow tocompleteassigned work. They woulddowhat:wasasked but takeforever completingit(Bricklin&Bricklin,1967). Beck:and Roblee(1983)described lhem assmden e who arc alwaysinslow motion.Theywould lake a verylong time to get from one place to another or to complete a task. Thisdelaying technique wasalso an attempt to comrol theclassroombyma.lcingeveryo ne wait until they wereready(Berres&Long,1979).
19 3. PurposefulForgetting.Thesewerethe studcmswhowerecominuaUy leaving their books,pencils.andotherbelongingssomewhereotherthan the classroom(Beck.
&Roblee.1983;Brons,1992;Medick.1983). Asa result.theteacher would lecturethesestudents.whichappearedtobepsychologicallygratifying for them asthe teacher lost control (Beck&Roblee.1983;Berres&Long,1979) . 4. AccidentalDestruction. Beck andRoblee(1983) suggested thatpassive-
aggressivestudentsoften performedtaskssothatthe"endresultisconfus ion.
chaos,andmess"(p.19). Thepassive aggressionhelpedinsuch away as to ensure the teacher could DOtpossiblyrequest theirassistance again (Berres&
Long,1979).
5. Don'tAsk Me ForHelp.ThestUdentsrequestedhelpfrom theteacherbut made it impossiblethrough various behavioursfor theteacher to assist. Theteacher wouldbecome sofrustratedthatb.e/sh ewouldwalkawayinangerfromthem (Berres&Long,1979).
Overall.passive-aggressivestudents displa yedbeha vioursthat wer eannoyin gand irritating andthatcouldresultinangry outbursts bytheteacher. However.while engagin ginthese passive-aggressi vebehaviours,theywouldappearpolite.sorry,and evenconfusedbythe teacher'sreactions (Berres&Long,197 9).
Med.ick (1979)summarizedthebehaviour as follows:
20 Insummary.thea, the passive--aggrasivechild bearsonlywhatbewantS to bear.dragshisfeelaIaUtransitionsinthe schedule,losesormisplaces belongingsaDdthencomplainstba1becaa' tfindtbcm..volunteers[(Jdo thingsbutmanagestomessthemup.anddemandsCODSWIlmentionand service.He talks. laughs ,andmakes ooises ofallkindsatinappropriate times,isoutofhisseatfrequently.andhas asteadystte3IDofexcusesfor misbehaviourandfailuretodo hishomework(p.119).
The behavioursutilizedbypassive-aggressivesrudentstoconveytbeirfeelingsof anger andresentm ent are similarto work- avo idant behaviours.Thefeeling sthat giveriseto passiveaggression mayalso giverisetowork avoidance.
LEARNED HELP LESSNESS
Learned helplessn ess deriveditsname fromthepassive responsethatoccurred as aresultofabelieftba1anyancm.ptto controlaneventwouldprove futile (McKean.
1994).Itisevidencedinthestudents whoarelDteUeauallycapable ofproducing grade- level work,yetdo not perform.u theleveloftheircapabilitiesbecausetheybelievethere isoolhingtheycando toprevent failureorassure success(Alderman. 1990;Medi ck. 1979). Craske(1988)citedworksdonewithcolleagues thatsuggestedthat,inan academiccontext,astateof learned helpl essness wasreachedwhenstudentswhobad experi e nced repeated failure at apaniculartask.attributedthisfailure to alack:of ability.
then experi enced negativeaffectand alowerin gofself-es teem. Thesestudentswould notexpecttoperform. wellon relatedtasksinthefuture. Inparticular.theywo uld perform more poorlyafter failurethanbefore failureinwks ofsimilarlevelsof difficultyaDdwould cxpend less cffo n(Cras kc.1988).DweckaDdLeggett(1988)cited
21 studies byDieneraDd Dweckfrom1978and1980thatiDdieata1helpless studeotsquickly begantoreportnegative sdf-cognitionsafterexperieDcing failure.They attributedfailure topersonalinadequacyand citc:ddeficientinteUigeoce.memoryandproblem-solving abilityas probablecausesof failure. AccordingtoMiller(1986),men,leamed helplessnessoccurred wbeestUdentsexperienced ooocontingeocy.thatis,failure would occur wbether one DiedorDOt,and sothestudent gaveupandstoppedtrying. In essence,the learnedhelplessness model impliedthatsomestudents maywithdraw effort because theydid notseethemsel ves ascapable ofsuccess. Whetherornottheytried.
the outcome wouldbethesame •failure. Logically.therewaslittletobegainedby trying,andnothingto be lostby DOltrying(Crask:e,1988).Thesestudentswerenot intereSted.inproteetingaperceptionofability becausetheydidooc:believetheypossessed ability,oorwerelhcytryingtoprotecttheirself-esteem. Martino(1993)summarized this helplesspatternas:
Self-defeatingbehaviourtba1basledmanyoflheseyoungadolescents to become failwe·acceptiDgstudents. Their seeseof self-worth bas deteriorated. Tbeyhave convinced Ihc:mselvestheir problemshave resultedfromlow ability.andthey believethereislittlehopefor change (p.19).
CharacteristiqofLeamed-Helpl~Students DweckandElliott (1983) described learnedhelplessness:
As anacute and situational response characterized by plunging expectanciesinresponse toperceived failure. Students whodevelop learned helplessness reactionscanbefoundatalllevels of academic ability. They are prone to show catastrophi creactions when they encounter serious frustrations.foUowedbyprogressive deteriorationin the quality of their coping oncetheyhave beguntofail.
22
BulkowskyandWillows(1980),inastudy of learned helpless studentswho were faced witha challenging reading task, reportedthat they tended to: have alow initial expectancy forsuccess, give up quickly when difficulty arises,attr ibute failuretolack of ability.attributesuccess to an externalcause instead of to effort or personal ability, and followingfailure,experienceasevere reduction in estimatesof future success.
Researchestabli shed avariety of affective,cognitive,and behavioural manifestati ons of
learned helplessnessreactions. Theyare characterized primarilybytheir tendencyto giveup before theybegin,their expectancy for failure and their lack ofperseverance in completing a task(Greer&Wethered,1987;Johnson. 1981;Mark,1983;Mckean.
1994). Other featuresthat have been documented as being common tostudents who display "helplessness" include: lack of motivation, inability to associateresultswith effon,reluctance toattempt theinitial task in which failure was experienced ,listlessness andpassivity,self-depreciating remarks,and low self-esteem(Balk, 1983;Bulkowsky&
Willows,1980;Greer& Wethered,1987 ;Roveche,Mink,&Ames,1981). Notonly were theyreluctant to attempt the initial task in which failure was experienced,but they alsotended to avoid related activities (Greer&Wethered, 1987).Aswell,when learned helplessnessstudents were faced with asetback, theywere more likelytoexperience sadness and increased frustrationthannonhelpless students. Learnedhelplessnessis observable instudent behaviours, suchas: givingup quicklyon a test,possibly staring atthepaper, checkingoff answersatrandom, or making Iialeor noeffort: copying answers fromothersor from answersheets if available;oftenworking with a friend and
23 getting a friend10do work forthem;iftheybecomeblockedduringsearwork.awaiting for assistanceinsteadof actively seeking solutions.usuallyworking slowlyand/or hesitantly;andgetting frustratedover assignmentsandpossiblyquickly saying~Ican't doit~(Medid::.1979;Spaulding,1983).
The academic behaviours ofthe learned-helplessnessstudent aresimilarto behaviours engagedinbystudenu who havea work-avoidanceorientation. Work- avoidant strategies.suchas procrastination. premature giving up,copying work.or eliciting help frequently fromothersmay arise fromfeelings of incompetency.
BOREDOM
In 1990. a NationalEducationalLongitudina.J. studyconcludedthat there are too manymiddle schoolstudentswho are boredwiththeir school work.Out of 25,000 eight graders,approximatelyhalfclaimed theywere bored inschool mostofthetime (Rothman,1990).Other studiesconduct edinAmerica.Britain.Africa,and Norway also testified[Qthe problem ofstudent boredom. Robinson(1975).inasecondary analysis ofdatafrom the national sampleof YOUDg SchoolLeaversinBritainbyMorton-Williams
&Finch. 1968.indicatedthat66%ofboredpupilsfeltthatschool was thesameday afterday. Asurveyofsixth gradersinNorwayby Gjesme (1977) revealed astrong correlation betweenratingsof dissatisfactionwithschoolandwith feelingsof boredom atschool. Vandewiele (1980) conducteda study on secondary schoolstudentsin Senegal,Africa. Results showedthatboredom was a widespread feeling among
24 5eoegalese adolescents.andthefrequeucyrateforboredomwasmnartablyhigh.
LarsooandRiclwds(1991)reportedthatboredominschoolwasmorefrtquenI forhigh ability and highachievingstUdents.Gjes:me(1977),in hisstUdyon Norwegian sixth graders,sw.edthatthe stUdents'boredomwasDOtrelated totheir intelligence. O'Hanio n(1981)declared thai: chronicallyboredstudentswereDOdifferent from other studentswithrespect toinlelligence. Itis apparentthen thatboredomis a pervasive probl emthatbelongs toallstudentsandmostespecially00 ourbrightest andmost capable students.
Reasotl!!!for BoredomfgSchool
LarsonandRicba.rd.s(1991)saidthatboredom was relatedtounderstimulation and lackof challengeintheclassroom. Csikszentmihalyi(1975)inhisbook,&yond Bofflfom andAIlriety.crtedlackof challenge as aqualitythatcouldmakelearningor workahumdrum affair.Peoplefeelstagnantwhenwlw: they do demands tooHale of lbeir abilityandeffon.(WlodkoWSD.&;Jaynes.(992). Brightswdems becomebored becausethey doDOlreceiveadequatechallenge from the curriculum and the teacher strategies employedareoften unsuitable fortheirlevel (Feldhusen&;Kroll, 1991).
Relev ance of theschool curriculum.also appeared to play an important rolein studew:boredom.Citinga1968workbyLanningandRobbins.Asbury(1974)suggested thateconomicallydisadvantaged studentssaw no purposeinanacademic curriculum mat was gearedtowards3.socioeconomicmiddleclass.Thestudentsinvolvedinthe Senegal
23 SlUdywere also cooviocc:dthattheirscboolcurriculumwasDOtadjusted to fit theAfrican context,VaDdewiele (1980)believedthiswasthereasonforthe boredom.they so often experiencedal:school.WlodkowstiandJayues(1992) statedthai:meaamgressoessdid increaseboredom. IfSlUdemsdidDOtperceive avalued purposetotheirassignments.
thework wouldbecome wearisome.Finally,Baum.Renzu.Ili.andHebert(1994) cited lad::of appropria te cuniculum(onethatbasDOpersonalrelevancetothestudents)as a reason forboredomandunderachie vement.
Monotonyisalsofrequentlycited asacause of boredom. Wlodkowsld and Jaynes(1992)suggestedthat.doingthe samething overandoveragain without any change becomesdull . DOmatterhow excitingitmayhavebeeniniti.ally.Learning.with it!demandsfor practiceand routine,can easily become tedioustomany srudene. It seemed thenthathigh-abilitystudcnuwoofowxIschoolwork easiermaybethemost bored inschool astheyencowueractivitieslhat are repetitive. habitual. and UDChallenging(l.arsoo &.Richards. 1991).
AJooeorincombination.anunchaJlengingcurriculum.a curriculumthathaslittle meaning,andmoootonyare some ofthecauses of boredominschools.
Chara ct eristi cs orRom!Students
Robinson(l97S)foundthatboredstUdents were generally more hostiletoschool thanother students.didnotlookforwardtogoin gtoschoolmostdays.gotirritatedmore oftenwithteacherstellin gthemwhattodo,andwere more delighted whentheyhadan
26 opportUnitytotake a day off school. Boredstudemswerealsoless likelytothink: lbcir tc:aebcnwerereallyinterestedintbem..andmostofmelDtbou&httheir reacbesforgO(
theyweregrowing up.McGiboneyandCarter(1988)reportedthatanadolescentwho ishighonboredompronenesspresents aprofileof a penon easilyupsetandaffeeu:dby feelingsandisinactiveand easilyinfluencedbypeers. Furtherto~Tolar(1989) indicatedthatboredstudentsan:lesssatisfiedwitbtheirpersonalexistence,andthey experiencea diminished sense ofself-wonhandrestrictedself-expressiveness.
A clear pictur ethenbeginstoemergeofboredstudents.Itisooe ofstudentswho aredisinter estedfor avarietyof rC3S0nsinschool. whoshow little excitementabout school, and whohaveanattitude I:batiseotconducive robardworkandstudy.
C0ttse9UeDces or BoredominSchool
Robinsoo(1975)reponedapositive relatiocship between boredomand miscoDdua atschool. Briscoe(1977)suggested thatbrightstOOentswhoareboredinschool will eitherwitbdrawintothemselves,chronicallyskipc1assorremaininschoolonlyto daydream,clownaround,or stirupmischief. AccordingtoWasson(1981),students who scorehighon a susceptibilitytoboredomscale are more likelytoshow deviant behaviouratschoolthan thosewho scorelow. larsonand Richards(199 1),intheir review oftheliterature00boredominschools.statedexplicitlythatboredo mamong high schoolstudentsisrelatedtoalienation(Tolar,1989) ,disruptivebehaviour(Wasson.
1981).negative attitudetowardschool (Robinson,1975).disregardforroles (McGiboney
27
&Caner,1988},anddissatisfactionwith school (Gjesme,1977).Theyalsosuggested thatboredomdiminishesattention,interfereswitha student'sperformance.andisoften given asafrequentreason for dropping out.
ThefindiDgspresentedinthe previoussection on boredom suggestedthatthese students not onlybave thepotential tobecome a problemintheclassroom.either through disruptivebehaviour orpoor academic performance, butinfact.are oftenproblemsin meclassroom. Thebehavioursandmotivesof bored students aresimilar towore- avoidantbehaviours.Like students who pursuea work -avoidancegoalorientation.bored studen ts avoidschoo l work either throughabsenteeism.diminished attention, orby enga ginginbehavioursthatareinconflict with achievement. Work-avoidantstudents attempt to avoidschool work. through avariety ofbehaviours which mayincludethose used bythebored student.
Behavioursthataredisplayed by passive-aggressivestudents.learn ed helplessness students.and boredstudents seem to besimil ar to the behavioursof students who adopt awork-avoidanceorientation. The feelings thatgiverise to passiveaggressi ven ess.
learned helpl essn ess.andboredom.suchasfeelingsof resentmentand anger and feelings of incompetency.may also give riseto work avoidance. Iswork avoidance a manifestation of mechanisms that aresimilar to thosethatariseinpassiveaggressiveness.
learned helplessness .andboredom?Thisistheresearch questionthatisaddressedinthis stUdy .
CHAPTERJ METHODOLOGY
This studysoughtfirsttodetttmiDetheexistenceof a wort.-avoidaDceorieotation insomestudents, aodsecoodly,soughttoidentify srudc:nts'reasonsforcheirwork- avoidantbehavioun. Chapter3presentsadesc:riptionof thesubjects.prccedure.
instrumemaI:iOD,anddataanalysis.
~
A self-repo rtgoalsurvey wasadministeredto 146participantsat three elementary and junior high scboolsinruraleasternNewfoundland.Of these.20students qualified tobeinterViewedbydemonstratinga work -avoidantgoalorientation. Of these20, 9 were femaleand11were male,with9inGrade 6 and11inGrade7_
- . r .
Beforedatacollection. a letterwassenttothe director oftheschoolboard responsiblefor thethreeelemenwyandjunior high schoolswherethestUdywas[Qtake place(seeAppendixAfor sampleletter todirector) to seek permissiontoconduct the smdyinthoseschools.Oncepermission was obWnedfrom the director.theprincipals of theschools and the homeroomteachersofGrades6and7inthose schools were contactedbythe authoras to thepurpose of thestUdyandtheprocedurethat wouldbe foUowed (seeAppendix Afor sample letters[0principalsandteachers). Letterswere thea sent totheparents/guardians ofalltheGrade6and7studentsinthethreeschools, exp laining thestudyand askingthem[Qsign andreturn the consent formiftheywere
2.
willing to have their child participateinthestudy(see Appendix A for sample letter to parents!guardians).
Only studentswithsigned consent forms participated.which amounted to 146 studentsinthree schools. The author then arranged timeswiththe respective homeroom teachers to visit each school and class to administer the goer-orientation survey to the participating students.The survey was given to groups ofl~15 students at a time.The author was present for clarification of items and toassiststudents whobadreading difficulties. Completiontimeof survey ranged from 8-10 minutes.
Results of the goal-orientation survey for the 146 students were tabulated and students whobada mean scoregreaterthanthe scale midpoint of 2.5on the work- avoidance items were considered to be work avoidant.A cluster analysis was performed on thedatafrom the 146 goal surveys,anditconfinned the mid-scale split as well as identified. two distinct work-avoidant clusters. Thus. students were selected as work:
avoidant if their mean score on the work-avoidance items was greater orequalto 2.5and iftheywereinone of the two work-avoidant clusters. In total,20 students met the criteria and were identified as "work avoidant."
These 20 students were then asked to participate in a personal interview with the authorto investigate the underlying reasons for their work: avoidance. All 20 students agreed to participate in the interview process. To conduct the interviews, a series of interview topics and questions were prepared beforehand (see Appendix B). The interviews were conducted at the students' school during class time. They were
30 structuredtolastbetween20-30minutes.Students' responses were recorded on audio tapes.Thetapesweretranscribed.
The goal-orientationsurvey(Seifert ,1997) was a self-report four-point Likert scalethatwasusedtoassessthegoal orientations ofthestudents(see AppendixC). Ona four-point scale, students rated how true each statementwas forthem(4
=
definitelydisagree,3
=
disagree,2=agree.1=
definitelyagree). Items were reverse scored. The threeparticular goalorientation variables thatwereassessed using thisinstrumentwere the performance.mastery,and work-avoidance goal orientations.Theperformance scale containedsixitems that impliedthestudents'goalwas todemo nstra te superiorabilityandtoimpress peersandthe teacher. Examples are:
~Iwantothers tothink:Iamsmart,~"Imustget an excellent grade.Mand"Iworkhard soIwon'tlook stupid to others" (n=.63).
Themastery scalehad nineitemsthatsugg estedthatthestud ents' goalwasto learn newandchallengingthingsandtoimprove themselvesthrough education.
Examp les are: "I like solving difficultproblems.""Itty toimprove myself through learning,"and"Ifind difficult work challenging"(ex
=
.79 ).The workavoidance scale consisted ofsixitemsthat suggested that the students'goalwas to doonly enoughworktoget by ortoavoidwork.Examplesare:
31
~Itrytopasswiththeleast amountof work Ican,""Idoonly what I needtodoto geta good grade,"and"Itrytodo as little workas possible"(a=.76).
Theteacher behaviour check.1ist was a 21-itemsurvey createdbythe authorfor the purposeofthisstudy. Itwas intendedtoprovide a measure of teachers' perceptionsof work-avoidancebehavioursinthe targetsampleof 20students.
Teachers' rating of students' work avoidance was lhen comparedwith students'self- rating of work: avoidancethrougha correlation analysis. Table 1 presents me correlations. The correlation between students"self-ratingsof work avoidanceand teachers'ratings of students' workavoidance was.398.which suggestedthatteachers' ratings ofsmdenetendedtocorroborate students'ratings of themselves.
The itemsinthe checklistwere constructed from a review of the literatureon work-avoidantbehavioursandattitudes. Examplesofitemsinclude: "Doesthis studen t misplace/forgetbooks.pencils. orother materials?"
"noes
thisstudentappear tolack motivationandinterestinschool work?""Doesthisstudent make excusesfor not doing assignments?"and"Doesthisstudent complain that other studentsare preventing himlher from completing work?" Teachers rated on a S-pointscalethe degreetowhichthestatement describeda particularstudent(5=
always.4=
often .3=sometimes.2=seldom.1=never).
32 TableI
ZenHJrderc=orrelatJODS between students' self-reportorgoalorientationsand teacher ratings of students.
Teacher Work Mwery Performance
Teacher 1.00 0.397S -<).1206 0.1149
Work 0.3975 1.000 -<).3000 0. 1772
M",e<J' .().1206 -0.300 1.000 0.1189
Performance 0.1149 0.1772 0.1189 1.000
Personal interviewswereconductedwiththe20 work-avoidantstudentstogain informationonwhytheywerefollowinga work-avoidantgoal orientation. Seidman (1991)statedthat"interv iewing providesaccessro the contextof people'S behaviour and thereb ypro videsa wayfor researchers to undemand the meaning ofthatbehaviour"(p. 4). Headvocatedinterviewin g asthebestavenue ofinquiry ifoneisinterestedin learnin gabout students' experiencesintheclassroom andthemeaning theymakeoutof thatexperience.Theaverageinterviewlasted30 minutes.
AsrecommendedbyMcCrac ken(1988 ),theinterv iewtopicsandquestions arose outofanexhaustivereview of theliteratureonwork avoidance .passiveaggressi veness , learned helplessness.andboredom.Thisreviewenabled theauthortospecifycategories andlisttopicsfromwhich thequestionsevolved. Thethreeoverridingtopicsfor the interviews were:stUdents'feelingsofcompetency.students' feelingstowardsauthority.
andstudents'feelingsabout thecurriculum..
Following thisstep.questions were formulatedtodevelopthe interview topics.
Thc questions wereof twomain types.whicharcreferredto by McCracken (1988) as
33 categoryquestionsandspecialincidentquestions. Category questionsallowedthe authortoexplore for specificfeatures ofthetopicsandspecial incident questions allowedthe respoodenttorecallaparticularsituation orincidentinwhich the topic was implicated. A sample ofinterviewquestions are as follows: "Sometimes school can bechallenging. You may have abardtask. asubjectthatisdifficulttounderstand.or yourteachermay go too quickly for you. How oftenisschoolhardfor you?"and
"How doesyour teacher treat you?- Thelistof interview questions are presentedin Appendix B.
DATA ANALYSIS
Thegoalorientation scores were analyzed using several procedures to identify the studentswitha work avoidance orientation. A mid-scale splitanda cluster analysis followedbya series ofwithingroups and between groups contrastsyielded consistent results, identifying 20studentsfromthe poolof146aswork avoidant.Inthe second procedure.the interview datafromthe20studentswassubjected to a qualitative analysis bythe author.Theprocess ofinterviewanalysis followed the steps proposed by Seidman (1991)inInterviewing as Qualitative Research.TheEthnograph software package was usedto facilitatetheinterviewanalysis.
Thesedata analysis procedures.themid-scale split. cluster analysis. and interview analysis are explainedinthefollowing pages.
34 Mid-Sc;3ltSplit
Resultsof146goalsurveys weretahulatcdandswdeDtsreceiveda composite score00thethreegoalorientations assessed. 1bosestudentswho hada meanscore
greaterthanthescalemidpoinIof2.5on thework avoidanceitemswerepotential caIJ1idatc:sfor a worll:-avoidaDc:eorienwioo_FigureI showsapictorialrepresentation ofthesrodeDts whoscoredator above2.5 onthework-avoidanceorientation.
4-4. \ . , '
3...l ··· ··· · 2"":'..- ...•... ."
1_.··· ··· ·.. "
~
.
I··· ·· ··;···
.
... . ... .•Figure 1: Profile ofMid-Scale Split- studentswho scored above 2.S00the work-avoidance orientation.
35 gust erAnalnk
Clusteraoa.Iysisreferstotheprocedurethatfocusesonreducingorseparating the dataiDrorelevantsubgroups thatdiffer insome meaningful way(Dillon&
Goldstein. 1984;Tabachnick:&rldell.1983). ADUmberof possibleClustering solutions rangingfromtwo to ten were explored. Theoptimumnumber of solutiom was determinedfrom theCaIinskiandHarabaszstatisti c , the cubicclusteringcrite ria (M illigan&Cooper.1985)and theamountof variance accountedfor.
Theresultsofthecluster analysissuggested a seven-d ustersolution which accounted for72percent ofthemultivariatevariance. Descriptivestatistics forthe variable scoresineach clusterarepresentedinTable2.
FoI.lowingme results of the cluster analysis.goalorieotatiooswere subjecled[0 an omnibus repeated measures analysiswithcluster membership as a betweengroups factor (fable3).Thiswas an omnibustest(a "",OS)foUowedbywithingroupsrests ofsimpleeffects(a
=
.01)andbetweengroupcontraSts(a s:.0 1).TIleresultsof the omnibustes tsugg es ted astatisticallysignificantcluste rXgoaJ- orientatio ninteractionandthetests ofsim ple effectswithinallclusters werestatis tically delectable ,suggestingthatstude ntsinall7 clustersweremoreinclined topursu eone goal overtheother..Foreachcluster.aprofile of goal-orientationscores was conducted andanalyzed(Figure2). Inspection of Figure2indicatedlhaEclusters4and7are
~
~
.- J
:::•
f;l~ !O:::
O~
,.
..; ..; ..;~~
f;l:;
;:0;J '
~ ::l O~,. - ...
..;~::: f;l~ ~ ~
.~
] J
o~' ,. l'l -
:;:..; :l:..;;;
l "'
.~-
f;l'i'
1. J
o~' ,. ~
l':... ::: ...
..
.!!f;l
'" >! '"
1
~'"J"
.~ 1:l~
!ll
O~,. -
..;,9
M::: f;l,M
~ ~..2
J '
'"
:;;~
j
O~,. - ...
I -'" .-
f;l'" "!
;!!I J
o~' ,. '" -
:;:..; ~"
] I~
~~ i
i=::E
: n ,.
37
4
3.S
3
2.S
~Group1
... Group 2 ---- Group 3
i2 ---- Group 41
... Group s]
1.S ~Group6 i
- Group7 i
o .s
o
+----...,..----...,..---~Wo rk avoidance
Performance orientat ion
Mastery orienta tion
Fagure2:ProfileoforimwioD scoresby dum!'.
38 clearly work avoidant.Therewas110 statistically detectabledifference betweentherwo clusters00the work-avoidancegoal orientation(F6.I:lO
=
3.17.p>.01),buttherewas a statisticallysignificant differenceinwork-avoidencescores between cluster 4andthe other clusters(smallestF6•130=107.74,P<.0 1). Studentsincluster7 wereaslikely[Qbe masteryoriented as work avoidant(FUfIO
=
.11, P>.01) but weremore work avoidantthanperformance oriented(Fu 6ll=
16.50,P<.0 1).Cluster 6 couldbedescribed asmasteryoriented.Studentsinthiscluster reponed mastcry-orientationscoresthatwere higherthantheir pcrformance-orientation scoresand their work avoidance-o rientation scores(smallestFU60
=
74.42.P<.01) .However.therewas no statistically detectabledifference betweenmastery-orientati on scores of stud entsincluster6and studentsincluster7or cluster5(smallestF6.l30
=
2.65,P>.01). But the mastery-orieotationscoresof studentsincluster 6 werehigherthanin clustersI, 2,3,and4(smallestF6.l30
=
16.31.P<.0 1).Studentsincluster5couldbedescribed asbeingeithermasteryor perfonnance oriented. Neither goal was dominantandscoreswerehighonbothgoal-ortemauon scales(F;u.ro
=
11.40.P>.0 1).Further.there was no statisticall y significan tdifference inthe mastery-orientationscoresof studentsincluster5andthestudentsincluster7 (Fulo=
11.67,P>.01). Studentsincluster 7 wereas masteryoriented asstudentsin clusters5and6. Aswell,there was DOstatisticallydetecta ble differencebetween clusters 5and7 on perfonnance-orientation scores(F6•130=
11.67. P>.01).Students incluster 7were:as perfonnance oriented asstuden tsincluster 5.39 Cluster4couldbedescribed aswork:avoidant. Studentsincluster4had marginallyhigher work-avoidanceoriemation scoresthanperfonnance scores(FU60
=
7.59.P<.02)andwork-avo idance scoreswerealso higherthanmasteryscores(F2.260
=24.60 .P<.02 ).Further,cluster4badlower mastery-orientationscoresthancluster 7 (largestF6,lJO
=
51.56,P<.0 0.Also,tberewasa statisticallydetectable difference inperformance-orienranonscores between cluster4and cluster7 (Fw o=61.26.P<.01). Thus.althoughwebadtwowork-avoidantclusters.clusters4and7.bothhad differe nt profiles .Cluster7studentsbad higher scoresonthe performanceandmastery - orientati on scalesthandid thestudentsincluster4.
Table3
Summarystatistics ofarepeated.measnre ANOVA (goalorientationbyduster membership) foUowedbywithin dustertests ofsimpleeffects.
50_ df MS
0 -
' .507
67.57 <.000 1Ern" 130 0.09
GoalorieDtatioD. 43.14 366.74 <.CO)}
Goalorieoutioo xcluster 12 '.00 51.03 <.ocoi
Ern" 260 .12
0 _1 20. 53 114.55 <.01
0_ 2 11.53 98.0< <.01
0 _ 3 16.68 141.84 <.01
Cluster 4 1.47 12.47 <.0 1
0_ ' 47.17 401.14 <.01
0 _ ' 16.81 142.93 <.01
0 _ ' .68 5.76 >.01
InterviewAnalysis
Theinterviewswere aoaIyzed following guidelinespresented bySeidman(1991) in his book,lnrerviewing as QuaJilarive Research. Thedataanalysis was facilitated through the use of a computet software package called Ethnograph (Seidel,Friese,&
Leonard.1995).
The following steps in the procedure of qualitativedataanalysis were used:
Transcription
The tape-recordedinterviewsweretranscribedintowrittentextby theauthor. They were then enteredintoa computer-based word-processing program. ReadingandStudyingtheTranscripts
The transcripts of the interviews were read repeatedlybythe author in an attempt togaina senseof the studentsandtheir generalexperience.During thesereadings,any passage thatappearedtoberelevant[0lite research topicwas marked by brackets.
These passages would have,in a general sense,conveyed something about work avoidance. helplessness. boredom,or feelings of anger and resentment.
ImportandNumberDataFiksProcedll.re
The Ethnograpb computer programreadthe transcripts on the word processing programandconveneditinto an Ethnographdatafile. Every line ofdatawas assigned a number.Thisfacilitatedcoding.
Code Procedures
Indeterm.ining whichexcerpts wouldbemarkedandcoded,theauthor followed Seidman's(1991) suggestionand usedthe following questionsas a guide:
41 1. Whatisthesubject of the passagebeingmarked?
2. Aretherewords orphrasesthatseemtodescribethem'!
3. Isthere a wordwithin the passageitself thatsuggests a category intowhich the passagemightfit?
4. Is Uteexcerptor passagerelevant totheresearch question?
For the purpose ofthisstudy,theinterviewwasintendedto capture thestudents'reasons for work-avoidantbehaviours.Specifically,the author was interestedinknowingifthe students wereangry.resentful.hadfeelings of incompetency.orwerebored.Thus.the codingsystem used by thisauthor reflected thosegeneralcategories. Passagesor excerp ts were markedand codedwith symbolssuch as: WA for workavoidance. LH for learnedhelplessn ess. ANG foranger,etc.Thesetermswere used to denote a general description.These passages were then given subcodes,forexample.illapplied tolines 8-15inInterview 086.but withinthatpassagelines 8-10mayhave reflected lowself- esteem,therefore.subcode LSE would have been assignedto lines 8-10. Thisprocess was done foralI20 interviews.
Identify ingThemesfromCodesandCDlegories
Passages orexcerpts were marked andcodedtoreflectgeneral categories.such as,learned helplessness.boredom, work avoidance,and angerandresentment. They werealso assigned codes to reflect specific characteristics of each category.After this hadbeen completed.each transcriptwasexaminedforconnections and patterns between
42 codesm:l.caregories.Inthisway.acompositepictureofc:ac:bstudcut:begantoemerge.
Atthisstage.the iDlerviewsweresortedaccordingto the overriding themes of anger eed resentment.helplessness.andboredom. Outof the20 work-avoidantsrudents interviewed.10 interviewswere chosenasbeingillustrative ofthehypothesesput fanh.
These interviews arepresentedinChapter4.
CHAPrER4 STUDENT INTERVIEWS
Thiscbapter presentsthe interviewsof10 ofthework-avctdant students.
Responseswereexaminedand, consequen tly.students were grouped accordin g[0
theirhavingexpressedprincipallyone ofthefollowingthreemajorthemes:feelings of resentmentandanger,feelings of incompetency,andboredom. The chapteris arranged according ro the noted themes. Sectionone concentratesonstudents who express feelingsof angerand resentmentwhichmay lead[Qreduced work effort. The secondsection focuses on those students whoconveyfeelings of incompetencyand who demonstrate behaviours similar to learned helplessness.Thethird section of the chapterisdevotedtothosestudents whoemergeas bored.
Analysis of the data suggestedthatthereweretwowork-avoidant clusters.both withdifferin g profiles.butincomparisontoother clusters,havingthe highestwork- avoidantmean score.Thesesmdenrs were interviewed for thepurpose of identifying possiblefeelings of resentmentandanger,incompetency,and boredom.
Resentmen t andAnger
Anyindividualmayengageinpassive-aggressivebehaviourasameans of relating toothers .Although thefeelin gs underlyingpassive aggression.thatisanger.resentm ent, andirritability,are not readily identifiablebytheaggressor,behavioursareawayof expressing thesefeelings(Fineetet., 1992).Three of thestudentsintervieweddescribed vari ous student-reacberinteracti ons which,uponexaminatio n,revealedcertain
44 characteristicslikefeelings of resentment and angerthatmay have causedtheirwork avoidance.
Thisfirst interviewwas with a Grade7female student (Work.-Avoidant Scale Scorew3.0).Ratings from the Teacher Checklist also suggested that she demonstrated many work avoidant behaviours. For example.she was rated as always forgening10 copydownhomeworkassignments,always misplacing/forgetting books,alwaysspending excep tionally long periods of time getting ready to work,alwaysneeding directions repeated, always giving up easily,andalways requiringfrequentassistance. Itwas interesting considering theinfonnation providedbythe reacher that this studentexpressed deepconcern overhowsheisviewedbyothers.Thisconcern was revealedinboththe Student Survey (Ego-Social Scale Score
=
3.3)andinher interview.Her response to the roUowing question acknowledged the existence of a competencyissue.Howoft~nare you presented with materiallhat youalreadybowtmdunderstand? SometimesIget a lot
of
itandIgets things wrong.becauseIam not tryingtha1hard, becauseI already blowit. EverybodythinJcsI don't knowit.Here. reduced effort wasoffered as an excuse for oot achievingasDottothrowher abilityintoquestion.Work-avoidant students, like ego-o rien ted students.displayconcern over their ability as perceivedbyothers. However.the most prevalentfeaturetoemerge from the interview was the feelingof resentment and hostility that was directedtowards the reacher,wbo represented authority. Thestudent initiallygave me impression that the teacherisnice butstrict.men quicldy provided details about how muchthisparticular teacher bothers her.finallyculminating with a declaration ofbatred towards me teacher.
4S I:JeseriMJOurt«ldr.erlor1fU.
She'snia.stria.andshedon'tsmile.
No'!
Shedon',
smue
atall. 1 neversawMTwithasmile011MTfaa.HowdonJOUTte«w tnaIJOU!
ShetreatsfMIiUt\lt!ryOIlierstudenr.aaptSomm1MSWtreais~IiUsh~'s mymodrLr.
HowtIDJOUfulDboUltJuzt?
l feelrigluum:onrfortabk.because.I mean,theonly personIlmntlmuing me litLmymothLrisJan.e.and
of
course.my mom,butshe'snotthere.ErpIainwluztyour/each.,doesto mllkeyou fee/liketIuIl.
Lih.say1wastaring something liu abagofchipsandshe goes.Nowyou' re supposedtobetaringsomething healthybqonyou.earthat. And, yougor ail yourIwmewo rt.?MakesureyougotallyourholMWOrt.
You~firHit'sonly you she'stnalingIiJ:elIua?
Ymh. Now.yougottowearyourglasses.
Do10 11.MJmetimn ledtufgTyatJOurktJdIu?
Yeah.when shedoesthat.Like,inLanguageAm,n-eryrhingis gOingthrough mymind.IiU1M teadierisreachingsomnhingandeverythingisgoingthroug h mymind.andSCIJfdimesI blurtsit0Ul.whichcouldgn me intoaloroftrouble.
11&iJ thingyou'nblurriItgDill.isitU1dowithlmIgJUlg eAm'!
Ig~.
on.
sometimesI blurtSitout.1hazesher.andshe'sthenlootingQlme.M,
wouldyoublurttJuztoUl?/ can',help
u.
IstIuzthowlOUledaboutJOurteach er?
Well.sorrof.
Why ?
Because she11Ul1cLsme[eeltike I'mababyandlikeI'mI3andIdon" needto betreaeaIiUa baby,andit'smygrtIdn,my everything,mymarksthatsh~
don'tneedto worry abous. Rmher it 'sm4. Igaltoworry abour it,andI'm Iryingmybestbusitdon 'ts~~mlihitsgood~no"gh.
