Michael Haynes
EDER 5050
Quantitative Journal Article Critique

Self-Brown, S.R. & Matthews, II, S. (2003). Effects of classroom structure on student achievement goal orientation [Electronic version]. Journal of Educational Research, 97(2), 106-111.

In this article, Self-Brown and Matthews present an empirical study of varying classroom evaluative structures and the effect these structures have on students’ motivational goals orientation. The article opens by noting the past research surrounding learning environments and student motivation but quickly informs the reader of the minimal research in regards to classroom evaluation techniques on these motivations. This point identifies the problem and provides justification for the research study. The authors define motivational goals as either performance or learning in nature and characteristics of associated student behavior are detailed. Although not yet explicitly stated, it is obvious that performance and learning goals will be the dependent variables of the study. The literature review is primary in nature and details studies supporting the adoption of learning goals in favor of performance orientations as a means of greater academic achievement. The lack of research pertaining to the authors’ specific topic is well noted, but in concluding the literature review, one study (Ames, 1992c) does suggest alternative evaluative classroom methods to facilitate learning goals orientation, which in turn leads to the study’s purpose statement. Although presented late in the article, the purpose appears naturally and is framed within the context of the literature review. Preceding the methodology portion of the article, the literature review leads to a brief introduction of the study’s independent variables, which categorizes three varying classroom treatments; a token-economy structure, a contingency-contract structure, and a control of standard structure. These treatments in the factorial designed study are well defined in scheme and operation within the methodology section of the article. Finally, the authors present three straightforward hypotheses predicting outcomes of the two dependent variables based upon manipulation of the three independent variables. The methodology section of the article clearly identifies the participants of the study and how they were assigned to treatment groups. However, the effect of extraneous variables such as study skills, knowledge base, and intellect and the threat they pose to the study’s internal validity are undocumented. The procedures, materials, and timeframe used in administering the treatment are given and detailed accounts of student interaction are provided. However, it should be questioned whether stressing only reward behaviors within the token-economy group could unduly influenced respondent goal orientations. The authors provided narrative and graphic evidence in support of the three aspects of their hypotheses. Limitations associated with the inability to totally remove standard evaluative measures and limited observed subject matter were noted. The authors also recognized the need for further research on evaluative formats and student goal orientations. However, no mention was made of an inability to generalize findings due to the lack of external validity associated with the restricted sample.