MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078192845 · doi:10.1348/00070990360626921

Changes in self‐perceptions of competence and intrinsic motivation among elementary schoolchildren

2003· article· en· W2078192845 on OpenAlexaff
Thérèse Bouffard, Marie‐France Marcoux, Carole Vezeau, Luce Bordeleau

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Educational Psychology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyIntrinsic motivationCompetence (human resources)Developmental psychologyPerceptionSelf-determination theoryAcademic achievementLongitudinal studySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Children's perceived competence and intrinsic motivation are assumed to be very high at the outset of schooling. However, how they change and how they relate to each other and to academic achievement across early schooling years remain open to question. AIMS: This 3-year longitudinal study was aimed at examining the following questions. Do children's perceived competence and intrinsic motivation about reading and mathematics change across the first 3 years of schooling? Do their perceived competence and intrinsic motivation differ according to academic domains? Do their perceived competence and intrinsic motivation relate to their academic achievement in each academic domain? SAMPLE: A total of 115 elementary schoolchildren (63 boys and 52 girls) were examined in first grade (mean age = 84,5 months, SD =.67) and for the next 2 years. METHOD: Children responded to questionnaires about their perceived competence and intrinsic motivation in reading and mathematics. Year-end grades in these two subjects were used as a measure of performance. RESULTS: Changes in perceived competence and intrinsic motivation, and between-year intercorrelations, were observed to differ according to academic domains and gender. Intrinsic motivation did not make a significant contribution to academic achievement at either school grade or in any academic domain, whereas perceived competence was significantly related to achievement at each school grade in both reading and mathematics. CONCLUSIONS: Differences between boys and girls observed in this study were not linked to a specific domain and cannot be attributed to gender-role stereotypes. Girls appeared to be more precocious in differentiating their competence and intrinsic motivation according to academic domain, as well as in being able to process and integrate information about their ability from past performances in a domain to judge their competence in the same domain.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations186
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Educational PsychologySame topicEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessFrench-language works237,207