Educational Psychology Goal goal orientation

1. GOAL
ORIENTATION
Muzna AL Hooti
Lubna AL Maskari
Iman AL Shabibi

2. A 3 × 2 ACHIEVEMENT GOAL MODEL
 The first article "A 3 × 2 Achievement Goal
Model" talks about the components of competence
that are rooted in the definition and the valence.
These components are contain (task, self, and
other) approaches and (task, self, and other)
avoidance. For that, two studies have been done
to support the hypotheses and they focused on
separating the self-based and task-based goals.
Study 1 and 2 were done to establish data about
the model and study 2 specifically was done to
document the antecedents and the consequences
of each goal. Finally, the studies were done on
undergraduate university students from
Germany and the United States.

3. RESULTS:
 All the results supported the hypotheses and it was shown that the 3
× 2 model was better from the 2 × 2 model and many other prior
models. The samples were from Germany and the United States. The
researchers think that the divergence in task-based and self-based
goal adoption is made by situational factors. The consequences of
task- and self- based goal were different, even though they emerge
from the same antecedents. Self-based goal predicted a dependent
variable "energy" which is a positive predictor whereas, self-avoidance
predictors were negative. The results suggest that focusing on an
intrapersonal standard in this contrast process is impactful. Other-
approach goals facilitate performance, but other-avoidance goals were
problematic for performance and experience. This research documents
the structural validity and predictive utility of the 3 × 2 model under
the most stringent of measurement conditions. Furthermore, by
definition and valence, the 3 × 2 model will establish clear
parameters for theory development and provide guidelines to help
knowing when model expansion is no longer needed. Importantly.
Goals are not identical, they are different according to the task.

4. EXAMINING THE STABILITY OF
ACHIEVEMENT GOAL ORIENTATION
 According to A2, Examining the stability of
achievement goal orientation, this topic is related
to students’ learning by examining how
achievement goals affect their learning. In fact,
researchers examined correlations between each
goal orientation measured prior to a specific task
and performance on that task. Students were
given the opportunity to work in groups during
class time so that it develops their understanding
of concepts covered.

5.  Results:
 Individuals’ levels of achievement goal orientations have
some stability but also change over the course of a
semester.
 Individuals’ level of endorsement for all achievement goals
changed significantly across tasks.
 When goal switching occurred, the majority of the switches
were from a mastery-approach orientation to a
performance-avoidance orientation, or vice versa.
 The differential continuity analyses revealed a moderate to
high level of stability for both performance goals, with
performance-approach goals having the highest level of
stability. In contrast, mastery-approach goals were more
likely to change over tasks.
 When we examined stability among similar contexts, and
between different contexts, results from the differential
continuity revealed more stability between different tasks
than between similar tasks.

6. GOAL ORIENTATION TOWARDS TEACHING
(GOTT) SCALE
 The last article, goal orientation towards teaching
(GOTT) scale, designed to develop a new instrument to
begin the exploration of teachers’ goal orientation
towards teaching, defined as a teacher’s desire to
develop or demonstrate her or his instructional ability.
It was a three-phase research design, scale
development, score validation, and
convergent/discriminant validation. . This study is
really important to students learning because it leads
to a better understanding of teachers' goal orientation
which effect student's performance.

7. RESULTS:
 Phase 1: factor 1 was labeled learning orientation with percentage of
2.513% and 25.13%, Factor 2 was labeled proving orientation with
percentage of 2.001% and 20.01%, and
 Factor 3 was labeled avoiding orientation with percentage of 1.087%
and 10.87%.
 Phase 2: estimation of the internal consistency of scores from sample
A and B for each factor of the GOTT scale using the final
measurement model. Cronbach’s coefficient alphas for the 9-item
GOTT scale were .66, .70, and .68 for Sample A and .70, .70, and .74
for Sample B, respectively, for the learning, proving, and avoiding
goal orientations.
 Phase 3: TSES: Learning teaching goal orientation had the strongest
positive correlation with teacher efficacy in comparison to the two
performance teaching goal orientations (proving, and avoiding)
 TCQ: Learning teaching goal orientation had a positive and
significant correlation with concerns for impact (and the correlation
with concerns for self was almost nonexistent). Proving teaching goal
orientation had the strongest positive and significant correlation with
concerns for self. Avoiding teaching goal orientation had the strongest
positive and significant correlation with concerns for task.

8. THANK YOU