5th and 8th grade pupils’ and teachers’ perceptions of the relationships between teaching methods, classroom ethos, and positive affective attitudes towards learning mathematics in Japan



245

7.4: Goal setting reflected in teachers’ praise

Pupils ’ perceptions

In the questionnaire survey, pupils were asked to what extent they perceived that their
mathematics teachers praised them according to the following four criteria:

• when pupils get good results in Maths tests, compared to other pupils;

• when pupils have improved the results of Maths tests over their previous results;

• when pupils make more effort in Maths, compared to other pupils;

• when pupils make more effort in Maths than before.

Pupils’ perceptions of teachers’ praise were measured with five-point rating scales. They
were also asked to what extent they were happy to receive praise from their teacher.

Overall, pupils of both age groups perceived that their teachers hardly ever praised
them, although there was a relatively wide distribution of responses. Pupils of both age
groups perceived differences in the extent to which they were praised for different
reasons. 5th graders perceived that their teachers gave praise for effort more than
results, while 8th graders perceived that their teachers praised them based on absolute
comparisons, such as improvement in results or more effort than before, more than for
relative comparisons with other pupils (see Figure 7.4.1). 5th graders were more likely to
perceive that their teachers praised them based on effort than 8th graders, while 8th
graders were more likely to perceive that their teachers praised them based on results
than 5th graders. This difference was statistically significant (see Table 7.4.1 and Figure
7.4.1).

Table 7.4.1: Mean scores and Standard Deviation of pupils’ perceptions of the extent to
which mathematics teachers praised them

5th graders

8tn graders

N____

M

SD

N____

M___

SD

Better results than others
t=6.878, df=3277.287, p<.01_______________

1465

2.24

1.19

2087

2.53

1.28

Improvement of results than before
t=6.281, df=3558, p<.01    _______________

1467

2.49

1.29

2093

2.78

1.33

More effort than others
t=4.476, df=3024.296, p<.01_______________

1469

2.81

1.36

2092

^∑61

1.27

More effort than before
t=3.858, df=3033.615, p<.01___________

1467

2.93

1.40

2093

2.75

1.32

Repeated measure ANOVA

F (2.649, 3873.533)
=227.514, p<. 01________

F(2.649,5514.807)

=67.364, p<. 01_________

245



More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. Second Order Filter Distribution Approximations for Financial Time Series with Extreme Outlier
3. Spatial Aggregation and Weather Risk Management
4. TINKERING WITH VALUATION ESTIMATES: IS THERE A FUTURE FOR WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT MEASURES?
5. Why Managers Hold Shares of Their Firms: An Empirical Analysis
6. Implementation of Rule Based Algorithm for Sandhi-Vicheda Of Compound Hindi Words
7. AGRICULTURAL TRADE IN THE URUGUAY ROUND: INTO FINAL BATTLE
8. fMRI Investigation of Cortical and Subcortical Networks in the Learning of Abstract and Effector-Specific Representations of Motor Sequences
9. The name is absent
10. The name is absent