Showing posts with label goal orientation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label goal orientation. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Beyond IQ Series # 6: Achievement Goal Orientation: Definition and learning implications




Background comment regarding this series

Interest in social-emotional learning and resiliency training (click here and here for just two examples) in education has shown a recent uptick on activity. Given this activity, IQs Corner is starting a series to explain the previously articulated Model of Academic Competence and Motivation (MACM), which was a model ahead of it's time (IMHO). The imporance of non-cognitive (conative) characteristics in learning have been articulated since the days of Spearman, the father of the construct of general intelligence. Richard Snow's work on the concept of "aptitude," which integrates cognitive and conative individual difference variables, is the foundation of the Beyond IQ MACM. Non-cognitive (cognitive) characteristics of learners are important for learning and are more manipulable (more likely to be modified via intervention) than intelligence. Thus, the MACM components make sense as potential levers for improving school learning and pursuing more well rounded life-long learners. This material comes a larger set of materials on the web (click here).

Current MACM Series Installment

This sixth installment in the Beyond IQ series provides a definition and learning implications of goal orientation, a subdomain under motivation orientation in the MACM model. . [All installments in this series (and other related posts and research) can be found by clicking here].

___________________________________________________________________


Achievement Goal Setting: Definition and Conceptual Background

A person’s set of beliefs that reflect the reasons why they approach and engage in academic and learning tasks. A performance goal orientation is exemplified by a concern for personal ability, a normative social comparison with others, preoccupation with the perception of others, a desire for public recognition for performance, and a need to avoid looking incompetent. A learning goal orientation reflects a focus on task completion and understanding, learning, mastery, solving problems, and developing new skills.

Academic goal orientation is based on contemporary “goal-as-motives” theory where it is posited that “all actions are given meaning, direction, and purpose by the goals that individuals seek out, and that the quality and intensity of behavior will change as these goals change” (Covington, 2000, p. 174). Achievement goal theory is particularly important in education as it is believed that by differentially reinforcing some goals (and not others), teachers can influence (change) the reasons why students learn—that is, change their motivation (Covington, 2000).

Different groups of researchers have converged on strikingly similar findings regarding the importance of academic goal orientation for academic success (Snow et al., 1996). The resultant achievement goal theory has received considerable attention during the past decade (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002b). Goal theory focuses on the role that “purpose” plays in motivation attitudes and behavior (Anderman & Maehr, 1994; Eccles &Wigfield, 2002; Maehr, 1999; Snow et al., 1996; Urdan & Maehr, 1995). Goal orientation focuses on the student’s reasons for taking a course or wanting a specific grade (Anderman et al., 2002). In this document, academic goal orientation is defined as an individual’s set of beliefs that reflect the reasons why they approach and engage in academic tasks (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002a; Pintrich, 2000b; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2002; Wentzel, 1999).

Although the specific terminology may differ amongst researchers, goal theory typically proposes two general goal orientations (Covington, 2000; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002a). Nicholls and colleagues (e.g., Nicholls, Cobb, Yackel, & Wood, 1990) classify goals as either ego- or task- involved (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Dweck and colleagues (see Dweck, 1999) distinguish between performance (such as ego-involved goals) and learning goals (such as task-involved goals). Ames (1992) refers to performance and mastery goals. A performance goal orientation is characterized by self-questions such as “Will I look smart?” and/or “Can I out- perform others?” which reflect a concern for personal ability, a normative social comparison with others, preoccupation with the perception of others, a desire for public recognition for performance, a need to avoid looking incompetent, and “outperforming others as a means to aggrandize one’s ability status at the expense of peers”(Covington, 2000, p. 174). In contrast, a student with a learning goal orientation would more likely ask the questions “How can I do this task?” and “What will I learn?” The learning goal orientation reflects a focus on task completion and understanding, learning, mastery, solving problems, developing new skills, and an appreciation for what one learns (Covington, 2000; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002b; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2002).


Achievement Goal Setting: Learning Implications

Locke and Latham’s (2002) review of the goal-setting research suggest the following implications: (See Locke and Latham (2002) for theoretical models that describe the hypothesized relations between assigned goals, self- set goals, self-efficacy, and performance, and the essential elements of Goal-Setting Theory and a “high performance cycle.”)

Specific and difficult goals lead to higher performance than do simple admonitions to students to “do their best.” Research suggests that “do-your-best” goals have “no external referent and thus are defined idiosyncratically. This allows for a wide range of acceptable performance levels, which is not the case when a goal level is specified” (Locke & Latham, 2002, p. 706).

Goal setting is a key variable in self-regulated learning.

The goals set, or endorsed by a student, are hypothesized to play an important role in the student’s subsequent satisfaction or dissatisfaction vis-à-vis the provision of a criterion point for the performance standard.

Specific academic goals are a necessary but insufficient condition for maintaining effort. Students need formative and summative feedback on their progress toward goals. Consistent feedback allows students the opportunity to adjust their strategies and/or the direction or level of their effort
.


- iPost using BlogPress from Kevin McGrew's iPad

Generated by: Tag Generator


Sunday, November 30, 2008

Beyond IQ Project: Ed Psych article abstracts

A recent issue of the Journal of Educational Psychology (2008, Vol. 100, 8) had a number of articles dealing with constructs included in the Beyond IQ projects Model of Academic Competence and Motivation (MACMM). Below are the iAbstracts (images captured and emailed from myiPhone). If any reader would like to read one of the articles (I would provide a copy of the pdf file), in exchange for a guest blog post summary to this bog, please contact the blogmaster (iapsych@charter.net)













Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, October 16, 2008

IQ Research bytes #5: Working memory and motviation orientation

The most recent issue of the Journal of Educational Psychology has a number of interesting articles which are featured below.

Working memory and intelligence in children: What develops? By Swanson, H. Lee

  • This study explored the contribution of the phonological and executive working memory (WM) systems to 205 (102 girls, 103 boys, 6 to 9 years old) elementary school children's fluid and crystallized intelligence. The results show that (a) a 3-factor structure (phonological short-term memory [STM], visual-spatial WM, and verbal WM) was comparable between age groups, (b) controlled attention and STM storage accounted for 67% of the age-related variance in WM, (c) effect sizes for direct paths from WM were substantially larger when predicting fluid intelligence than crystallized intelligence, and (d) the contribution of STM to intelligence was isolated to reading. The results suggest that the development of WM is distinct from STM, controlled attention plus storage accounted for age-related WM changes, and WM underlies age-related changes in both fluid and crystallized intelligence.
The following articles all deal with some important conative variables related to academic and intellectual performance, as I've summarized in a Model of Academic Competence and Motivation (MACM) in my Beyond IQ Project. (esp. note section on Motivation Orientation)


On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique, illustration, and application. By Elliot, Andrew J.; Murayama, Kou

  • The authors identified several specific problems with the measurement of achievement goals in the current literature and illustrated these problems, focusing primarily on A. J. Elliot and H. A. McGregor's (2001) Achievement Goal Questionnaire (AGQ). They attended to these problems by creating the AGQ-Revised and conducting a study that examined the measure's structural validity and predictive utility with 229 (76 male, 150 female, 3 unspecified) undergraduates. The hypothesized factor and dimensional structures of the measure were confirmed and shown to be superior to a host of alternatives. The predictions were nearly uniformly supported with regard to both the antecedents (need for achievement and fear of failure) and consequences (intrinsic motivation and exam performance) of the 4 achievement goals. In discussing their work, the authors highlight the importance and value of additional precision in the area of achievement goal measurement

The relationships among students' future-oriented goals and subgoals, perceived task instrumentality, and task-oriented self-regulation strategies in an academic environment. By Tabachnick, Sharon E.; Miller, Raymond B.; Relyea, George E.
  • The authors performed path analysis, followed by a bootstrap procedure, to test the predictions of a model explaining the relationships among students' distal future goals (both extrinsic and intrinsic), their adoption of a middle-range subgoal, their perceptions of task instrumentality, and their proximal task-oriented self-regulation strategies. The model was based on R. B. Miller and S. J. Brickman's (2004) conceptualization of future-oriented motivation and self-regulation, which draws primarily from social-cognitive and self-determination theories. Participants were 421 college students who completed a questionnaire that included scales measuring the 5 variables of interest. Data supported the model, suggesting that students' distal future goals (intrinsic future goals in particular) may be related to their middle-range college graduation subgoal, to their perceptions of task instrumentality, and to their adoption of proximal task-oriented self-regulation strategies.

Addressees of performance goals. By Ziegler, Albert; Dresel, Markus; Stoeger, Heidrun

  • As performance goals aim to both procure acknowledgment of one's abilities and to avoid revealing a lack of one's abilities, the authors hypothesized that students hold specific performance goals for different addressees and that there are specific correlational patterns with other motivational constructs. They analyzed a data set of 2,675 pupils (1,248 boys and 1,426 girls) attending Grades 8 and 9 (mean age=15.0, SD=0.97). The students completed a questionnaire consisting of 12 items measuring performance approach goals and 12 items measuring performance avoidance goals. In each subset, 4 groups of addressees were differentiated: parents, teachers, peers, and the acting individual him/herself. Additionally, several external criteria were measured. The authors concurrently tested theory-driven, structural equation models. Incorporating all 24 items, the best-fitting model was a multitrait-multimethod model, which posited 2 factors for approach and avoidance goals and 4 addressee factors. While performance goals addressing parents showed relationships to maladaptive motivational and learning patterns, performance goals addressing classmates and self showed relationships to adaptive motivational and learning patterns. The relationships between performance goals addressing teachers and external criteria were rather weak and unsystematic.

Achievement goals and achievement during early adolescence: Examining time-varying predictor and outcome variables in growth-curve analysis. By Shim, S. Serena; Ryan, Allison M.; Anderson, Carolyn J.
  • The present study advances understanding of (a) the development of achievement goals, (b) the changing association of achievement goals and achievement over time, and (c) the implications of changes in achievement goals for changes in achievement over time. African American and European American adolescents' (N=588) achievement goals and subsequent achievement were assessed at 4 time points (fall and spring of 6th and 7th grades) and modeled using growth-curve analytic techniques. There was an overall decline in all 3 types of achievement goals (mastery, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals), because of within-year rather than between-year decreases. The association between mastery goals and achievement was null at Time 1 and then positive at the following 3 time points. The association between performance-approach goals and achievement went from negative to null across time. Changes in students' goals, as well as their initial levels of goals, were particularly important in understanding how mastery goals foreshadow achievement. The implications of the findings for both theory and practice are discussed.
Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Beyond IQ Byte # 4: Achievement goal orientation

Here is Byte # 3 from the Beyond IQ project, a project that outlines a proposed Model of Academic Competence and Motivation (MACM). Today's construct spotlight is on "achievement goal orientation."

Achievement goal orientation

A person’s set of beliefs that reflect the reasons why they approach and engage in academic and learning tasks. A performance goal orientation is exemplified by a concern for personal ability, a normative social comparison with others, preoccupation with the perception of others, a desire for public recognition for performance, and a need to avoid looking incompetent. A learning goal orientation reflects a focus on task completion and understanding, learning, mastery, solving problems, and developing new skills.

Academic goal orientation is based on contemporary “goal-as-motives” theory where it is posited that “all actions are given meaning, direction, and purpose by the goals that individuals seek out, and that the quality and intensity of behavior will change as these goals change” (Covington, 2000, p. 174). Achievement goal theory is particularly important in education as it is believed that by differentially reinforcing some goals (and not others), teachers can influence (change) the reasons why students learn—that is, change their motivation (Covington, 2000).

Different groups of researchers have converged on strikingly similar findings regarding the importance of academic goal orientation for academic success (Snow et al., 1996). The resultant achievement goal theory has received considerable attention during the past decade (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002b). Goal theory focuses on the role that “purpose” plays in motivation attitudes and behavior (Anderman & Maehr, 1994; Eccles &Wigfield, 2002; Maehr, 1999; Snow et al., 1996; Urdan & Maehr, 1995). Goal orientation focuses on the student’s reasons for taking a course or wanting a specific grade (Anderman et al., 2002). In this document, academic goal orientation is defined as an individual’s set of beliefs that reflect the reasons why they approach and engage in academic tasks (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002a; Pintrich, 2000b; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2002; Wentzel, 1999).

Although the specific terminology may differ amongst researchers, goal theory typically proposes two general goal orientations (Covington, 2000; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002a). Nicholls and colleagues (e.g., Nicholls, Cobb, Yackel, & Wood, 1990) classify goals as either ego- or task- involved (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Dweck and colleagues (see Dweck, 1999) distinguish between performance (such as ego-involved goals) and learning goals (such as task-involved goals). Ames (1992) refers to performance and mastery goals. A performance goal orientation is characterized by self-questions such as “Will I look smart?” and/or “Can I out- perform others?” which reflect a concern for personal ability, a normative social comparison with others, preoccupation with the perception of others, a desire for public recognition for performance, a need to avoid looking incompetent, and “outperforming others as a means to aggrandize one’s ability status at the expense of peers”(Covington, 2000, p. 174). In contrast, a student with a learning goal orientation would more likely ask the questions “How can I do this task?” and “What will I learn?” The learning goal orientation reflects a focus on task completion and understanding, learning, mastery, solving problems, developing new skills, and an appreciation for what one learns (Covington, 2000; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002b; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2002).

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,