Bodkin-Andrews, G, Craven, RG, and Martin AJ - SELF Research ...

within the confines of SEM as “a ubiquitous phenomenon that can produce strange, misleading, or uninterpretable
results when a set of highly related independent variables is used to predict dependant variables (Marsh, et al., 2004).
To overcome this difficulty, a full CFA including all the SMES factors and academic outcome variables was also
conducted, thus bypassing misleading ‘predictions’. Instead, factor relations were used to assess what relations the
various SMES factors may have held with the academic outcomes. As can be seen in Table 3, a large number of
significant relations were identified, all of which sit well within the theoretical implications of the SMES. All adaptive
dimensions were positive and significantly related to academic outcomes, suggesting that as Indigenous students’
adaptive motivations strengthen, so does their ratings of school enjoyment, perceived instrumentality educational
aspiration, student-self and perceived teacher-ratings, tentatively attesting to the importance of each these
motivational/behavioural constructs as significant path to academic success.
With regard to the non-significant relations between the impeding factors (anxiety, low control, and failure
avoidance) of the SMES and academic outcomes, this is not, in isolation, surprising or completely inconsistent with
previous research. For example, in a comprehensive analysis by Martin (2004), who utilized government, independent
and secondary school students, it was found that they held only low correlations with the subjective academic outcomes
measures including future academic plans, class participation, and school enjoyment (correlations ranged from -.27 to
.05). Indeed, in returning to Martin and colleagues (2003) previous longitudinal defensive pessimism research, it can be
seen that time-one relations between defensive expectations, defensive reflectivity, and uncertain control with future
academic plans and grade-point-average were non-significant, yet time-two relations were significantly negative for
uncertain control. Additionally, the defensive expectations component was negatively related to academic persistence
and self-regulation over both time periods. The implications for this study is that to truly understand the effects of the
impeding factors within the SMES, one must examine a longitudinal time frame to utilizing the likes of uncertaincontrol,
and one must also consider what relations the impeding dimensions may have with more adaptive motivations
and behaviours over time.
What relations the maladaptive dimensions (self-sabotage and disengagement) held with academic outcomes were
all negative, and for the most part significant with the exception of the non-significant relation between self-sabotage
and self-student ratings. These results cautiously allude to the negative impact both self-sabotage and disengagement
have with a variety of outcome variables, especially for disengagement which was moderately related to school
enjoyment and perceived instrumentality.
Overall, the results are quite promising for not only elucidating what motivational behaviours and cognitions
Indigenous students may hold, but also for identifying what impact these motivations may have on academic outcomes.
But the results are far from conclusive. Firstly, the correlational nature of the study leaves little room for any causal
inferences, but it at the very least does provide some useful directions for future research. Indeed, the large number of
moderate to high relations between adaptive and maladaptive motivational dimensions with the academic outcomes
utilized in this study does call for more precise longitudinal research that would allow an examination of causal paths.
Additionally, considering that the outcomes utilized in this study were limited to self-report measures, it would also be
plausible to investigate what relations SMES factors may hold with more objective outcomes such as standardized
academic tests and teacher report ratings for Indigenous students.
The largest limitation of this study though is the unresolved issue of the size of the relations between adaptive
motivational factors. Although it is argued that this may have been due to particular method sampling inadequacies, no
strong conclusions can be made to support this. Ideally, future research must precisely and efficiently target a realistic
number of issues, rather than inundating students with what may seem to students as an endless array of similar
questions. Invariance testing would also be required to examine the potential differences between Indigenous and non-
Indigenous response patterns to the SMES and analysis should also seek to understand how relations between the SMES
and outcomes variables would also differ for Indigenous and non-Indigenous students.
Conclusion
This research has added weight to the suggestions of McInerny (2003) and Covington (2000) who both highlighted
the need to understand the motivational patterns of students beyond that of the simple mastery/task distinction, and this
was achieved by identifying a large number of significant relations between Indigenous students’ academic outcomes
and most facets of the SMES. It is important to note though, that any future attempt at examining these relations
between Indigenous participants’ understanding of motivation and their relations with other outcome variables must
also acknowledge the disadvantaged history Indigenous Australians have been forced to endure, and also the
disadvantages of their minority status within the Australian setting. Pinning down the exact nature of the effects of a
continually disadvantaged history is a difficult task, but one that must be acknowledged and strived to be understood. In
the process, research that identifies the academic strategies and beliefs of Indigenous students should also provide a
pivotal step for intervention, and ultimately contribute to extinguishing many of the inequities that still exist today.
About The Authors