Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Meta-Cognition, Motivation, and Affect
PSY504Spring term, 2011February 9, 2010
Achievement Goals
• What is the student’s goal in the learning situation?
Goal Orientation
• Dweck often referred to this as “goal orientation”
• More recently, “goal orientation” is out of fashion
• Increasing evidence that student goals are situationally determined and malleable– cf. McNeil & Alibali, 2000
Today’s Structure
• We’ll go over some of the key models of achievement goal structure
• Then we’ll discuss some of the evidence for the different models
• Then we’ll discuss impacts on other constructs (e.g. learning, behavior)
• As always, interrupt anytime!
Dichotomous model of goals
• Dweck & Elliott (1983)
• Note: Elliott and Elliot are not the same person
Dweck & Elliot (1983)
• Student goals divide into
• Performance goals – “in which individuals are concerned with gaining
favorable judgments of their competence”• Learning goals– “in which individuals are concerned with
increasing their competence”– also called “task goals” or “mastery goals”
Trichotomous Model of Goals
• Elliot & Church, 1997
• Learning goals remain the same • Performance goals are split in half
Trichotomous Model of Goals
• Elliot & Church, 1997
• Learning goals remain the same • Performance goals are split in half– Performance-approach goals – “directed toward
the attainment of favorable judgments of competence”
– Performance-avoidance goal – “focused on avoiding unfavorable judgments of competence”
2x2 Model of Goals
• Elliot & McGregor (2002)
• Splits mastery into mastery-approach (previous mastery), mastery-avoidance
“In the mastery-avoidance goal construct… the evaluative referent is specific to the task itself or the person’s own attainment trajectory, and the focus is on avoiding a negative possibility.”
2x2 Model of Goals
• Elliot & McGregor (2002)
“Several examples may be provided: striving to avoid misunderstanding or failing to learn course material…. Striving to avoid leaving a crossword puzzle incomplete… perfectionists who strive to avoid making any mistakes or doing anything wrong or incorrectly…”
Work Avoidance
• Harackiewicz et al. (1997, 2000, 2002)
• Having a goal of avoiding work or doing minimal work
Questions? Comments?
Evidence on construct separation
• Performance-Approach .vs. Performance-Avoid
Middleton & Midgley, 1997
Elliot & Church, 1997
Elliot & McGregor, 2002
• Correlation between performance-approach and performance-avoid in 3 studies: 0.18, 0.21, 0.21
• Given in context of intro. psychology course
Some contrary evidence
Middleton & Midgley, 1997
• Correlation between performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals: 0.56
• Middle school students doing math
Pekrun et al., 2006
• Correlation between performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals: 0.59
Evidence on construct separation
• Mastery-Approach .vs. Mastery-Avoid
Elliot & McGregor, 2002
Elliot & McGregor, 2002
• Correlation between mastery-avoid and mastery-approach goals in 3 studies: 0.31, 0.35, 0.40
• Correlation between mastery-avoid and perf-avoid: 0.10, 0.24, 0.36
• Correlation between performance-approach and performance-avoid in the same 3 studies: 0.18, 0.21, 0.21
• Given in context of intro. psychology course
De la Rosa 2010
• Correlation between mastery-avoid and mastery-approach: 0.18
• Correlation between mastery-avoid and perf-avoid: 0.33
• Middle school students in Philippines
Evidence on construct separation
• Work Avoidance
Harackiewicz et al., 1997
Harackiewicz et al., 1997, 2002
• Correlation between performance goal, work avoidance: 0.21, 0.24
• Correlation between mastery goal, work avoidance: -0.10, -0.29
• Given in context of intro. psychology course
Dupeyrat & Marine, 2002
• Correlation between performance goal, work avoidance: -0.43
• Correlation between mastery goal, work avoidance: -0.46
• Given in context of adults taking high-school equivalency course
Questions? Comments?
Impacts on Related Constructs
Literally dozens of studies
• I’ll discuss a few famous (and representative) ones
Nolen, 1988
• Learning goals associated with significantly greater self-reported use of deep processing strategies when reading
• Work avoidance goals associated with significantly less deep processing
• Non-significant correlation for performance goals
• Middle school science classes
Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999
• Mastery goals and exam performance (r=0.17 sig, r=0.11 ns)
• Perf-approach goals and exam performance (r=0.23 sig, r=0.08 ns)
• Perf-avoid goals and exam performance (r=-0.27 sig, r=-0.30 sig)
Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999(everything measured by questionnaire)
Harackiewicz et al.
• 1997: Work avoidance and final grade -0.09 ns• 2000: Work avoidance and final grade -0.11• 2002: Work avoidance and final grade -0.15
Harackiewicz et al., 2002
• Mastery goal and final course grade (intro psych course): r=0.03 ns
• Performance goal and final course grade (intro psych course): r=0.14
• Mastery goal and taking more courses in future r=0.18
• Performance goal and taking more courses in future r=-0.01 ns
Dupeyrat & Marine, 2002
Blackwell et al., 2007
Breaking out of self-report…
• Using behavioral measures of student learning strategies…
McQuiggan et al. (2008)
• Students with mastery-approach goals took more voluminous notes than students with other goals (p-app, p-av, m-av)
• Population: middle school science, working in an ITS
Hershkovitz et al. (under review)
• Using EDM detector of carelessness
Comments? Questions?
Tomorrow (Wednesday)• Extrinsic/Intrinsic Motivation
• Readings– Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L. (2000) Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic
Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
– Lepper, M.R., Henderlong, J. (2000) Turning "Play" into "Work" and "Work" into "Play": 25 Years of Research on Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Motivation. In Sansone, J., Harackiewicz, J.M. (Eds.) Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: The Search For Optimal Motivation and Performance, Ch. 10, 257-310.
– Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Deci, E.L. (2006) Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Goal Contents in Self-Determination Theory: Another Look at the Quality of Academic Motivation. Educational Psychologist, 41 (1), 19-31.
