Goal Orientation
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
1 j'aime•3,725 vues
Presentation at the 2013 University of Houston Graduate Research Symposium
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
En vedette
En vedette (20)
Similaire à Goal Orientation
Similaire à Goal Orientation (20)
Plus de Scott R. Furtwengler, Ph.D.
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Goal Orientation
- 1. Does Goal Orientation Predict Participation in a Community College Honors Program? Scott R. Furtwengler, University of Houston UH EPSY-GSO Research Symposium Saturday, April 20, 2013
- 2. Outline Overview of the problem Purpose of the current study Brief overview of extant literature Methodology Results Discussion References Questions
- 3. Overview of the problem A disproportionate number of students who are eligible to participate in a community college honors program choose to forego such an undergraduate experience, often to the detriment of their GPA.
- 4. Purpose of the current study Research question: Does the adoption of a particular Achievement Goal Orientation among high ability students have predictive accuracy in predicting participation in a community college honors program?
- 5. Overview of extant literature Post-secondary honors programs The community college context Achievement goal orientation
- 6. Honors Programs Cosgrove (2004): mean GPA Long & Lange (2002): conscientiousness, openness to experience, GPA, ACT Rinn (2007): academic achievement and higher academic self-concept Scager, Akkerman, Keesen, Mainhard, Pilot , & Wubbels (2012): desire to learn, drive to excel, creativity
- 7. Honors Programs Moon (2012): Perceived honors as extra work without adequate benefit Were concerned about time commitments and increased stress Lacked a clear understanding about the program Lacked academic self-efficacy
- 8. Community College Context Byrne (1988): review of literature Long & Kurleander (2011): lower rates of degree completion and college credits earned Olivas (1975) & Outcalt (1999): disproportion of underrepresented students
- 9. Achievement Goal Orientation Dweck (1986) Maehr (1983) Nicholls (1984) Mastery goals: developing competence through task mastery Performance goals: developing competence relative to others
- 10. Achievement Goal Orientation Elliot (1999) Elliot & Harackiewicz (1996) Pintrich (2000) Extended to a 2 x 2 model Definitions of competence: mastery & performance Valences of competence: approach & avoidance
- 11. Achievement Goal Orientation Table 1. The 2 x 2 Framework of Achievement Goal Orientations Approach Valence Avoidance Valence Mastery-Goal Orientation Definition Focus on learning Focus on avoiding misunderstanding Performance-Goal Orientation Definition Focus on out-performing others Focus on avoiding the appearance of incompetence, avoiding negative judgments
- 12. Achievement Goal Orientation Law, Elliot, & Murayama (2012) Performance-approach goals: high effort, high persistence, high level of aspiration, high academic performance Performance-avoid goals: disorganized study strategies, high test anxiety, low academic performance, low intrinsic motivation Perceived competence is a moderator in the relation between AGO and performance
- 13. Methodology Participants Instrument Procedure
- 14. Methodology: participants N = 398, 3.25 GPA on at least 12 hours Groups: 120 honors, 278 non-honors Cum. GPA: 2.25 - 4.00 (M = 3.55, SD = 0.29) Age: 15 - 70 (M = 29.27, SD = 11.00) Gender: 293 Female, 105 Male Ethnicity: 159 White or Caucasian, 116 Hispanic or Latino Origin, 23 Black or African American, 37 Asian, 7 Native American or Alaskan, 19 International, and 37 Unknown or Not Reported Status: 383 Continuing, 15 FTIC
- 15. Methodology: instrument Achievement Goal Questionnaire – Revised or AGQ-R (Elliott & Murayama, 2008) 12-item survey, each item consisting of a five-point summative response scale Cronbach’s alphas: • Mastery-approach, .84 • Mastery-avoidance, .88 • Performance-approach, .92 • Performance-avoidance, .94
- 16. Methodology: instrument Their SEM analyses of the predictive utility of the instrument were also strongly supportive, with performance-approach significantly and positively predicting exam performance (.36) and performance avoidance goals significantly and negatively predicting exam performance (-.33).
- 17. Methodology: instrument Revisions resulted in similar degrees of internal consistency and reliability on all but the mastery- avoidance subscale Cronbach’s alphas: Mastery-approach, .88 (.84) Mastery-avoidance, .71 (.88) Performance-approach, .91 (.92) Performance-avoidance, .90 (.94)
- 18. Methodology: procedure 1606 e-mail invitations San Jacinto College 12 hours of college-level courses 3.25 cumulative GPA 400 students responded by completing the instrument for a 25.91% response rate. 1 respondent was excluded because he/she could not be identified. 1 eighteen-year- old, Hispanic female originally identified as “honors” and “continuing” was excluded based on 0.66 GPA.
- 19. Results ANOVA: No statistically significant difference in goal orientation between groups, although honors students maintained higher mean scores in Mastery-Avoidance. Logistic Regression: The present study offers no evidence of predictive accuracy for goal orientation for high-ability students choosing to participate in a community college honors program.
- 20. Results Logistic Regression Results for Predicting Whether High Ability Students Participate in a Community College Honors Program Using Goal Orientation Scores as Independent Variables 95.0% CI for Exp (B) Step Variable B Wald Significance Exp (B) Lower Upper 1 Mast_App -.145 .410 .522 .865 .555 1.348 Mast_Av .289 2.359 .125 1.335 .923 1.929 Perf_App -.109 .281 .596 .897 .600 1.340 Perf_Av -.012 .003 .953 .988 .670 1.459 Constant -.902 1.300 .254 .406
- 21. Discussion Achievement Goal Orientation: In this sample, AGO was not an accurate predictor of high-ability students’ decisions to participate in an honors program. Similar research in more established contexts may yield different results. Limitations: sample size, community college population (generalizability), lack of awareness.
- 22. Future research Explore other factors that might account for differences in participation and academic outcomes between the two groups: academic self-concept, achievement goal orientation, attributional style, expectancy- values theory, parents’ level of education, SES. Achievement Goal Orientation: co- activation of performance valences. Additional dimensions.
- 23. Future research Achievement Goal Orientation: More research needed to determine if there is a directional relationship between AGO and choice of honors, gifted/talented programs. Also, exploring a domain-general AGO. Further research on co-activation of performance valences and discrimination between mastery-approach and mastery- avoidance. Additional dimensions.
- 24. References Byrne, J. P. (1998). Honors Programs in Community Colleges: A Review of Recent Issues and Literature. Cosgrove, J. R. (2004). The impact of honors programs on undergraduate academic performance, retention, and graduation. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 45- 53. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048. Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461– 475. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.461 Law, W., Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2012). Perceived competence moderates the relation between performance-approach and performance-avoid goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 806-819. Long, E.C.J. & Lange S. (2002). An Exploratory Study: A Comparison of Honors & Non-Honors Students. The National Honors Report, 23 (1): 20-30. Long, T. L & Kurleander, M. (2011). Do community college provide a viable pathway to a baccalaureate degree? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 30-53. Maehr, M. L. (1983). On doing well in science: Why Johnny no longer excels, why Sarah never did. In S. Paris, G. Olson, & H. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp. 179–210). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- 25. References Moon, J. L., (2012). Honors and high-ability students: Factors that predict academic efficacy, critical thinking skills, and academic goals. Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Paper 12412. Olivas, M. A. (1975). A Statistical Portrait of Honors Programs in Two-Year Colleges. (ED 221 257). Outcalt, C. L. (1999). The importance of community college honors programs. New Directions for Community Colleges, 108, 59-68. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 92–104. Rinn, A. N. (2007). Effects of programmatic selectivity on the academic achievement, Academic self-concepts, and aspirations of gifted college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 232-245. Scager, K., Akkerman, S. F., Keesen, F., Mainhard, M. T., Pilot, A., & Wubbels, T. (2012). Do honors students have more potential for excellence in their professional lives? Higher Education, 64, 19-39. DOI 10.1007/s10734-011-9478-z
- 26. Questions?
- 27. Contact information Scott R. Furtwengler Honors Program, San Jacinto College 13735 Beamer Road Houston, TX 77089 281-929-4614 scott.furtwengler@sjcd.edu srfurtwengler@uh.edu
Notes de l'éditeur
- Research interests, background, preliminary researchMean differences: are non-honors students exhibiting self-handicapping behavior by not participating in an honors environment? For some community colleges, this is a question of accountability. If the students participating in honors are experiencing a higher degree of success on metrics of retention, achievement outcomes, persistence, and time-to-graduation, why aren’t all high ability students choosing to participate. If there are no measureable differences, why should we allocate resources to such a small population of students?
- Achievement Goal Questionnaire – Revised or AGQ-R (Elliott & Murayama, 2008), a 12-item survey, each item consisting of a five-point summative response scale. The structural validity of Elliott’s and Murayama’s revised instrument stands up to rigorous scrutiny. They found the four-factor structure to be a better fit to the data than other three- and two-factor structures, with each of the four factors exhibiting a high-degree of internal consistency and reliability (Cronbach’s alphas: Mastery-approach, .84; Mastery-avoidance, .88; Performance-approach, .92; and Performance-avoidance, .94).
- Their SEM analyses of the predictive utility of the instrument were also strongly supportive, with performance-approach significantly and positively predicting exam performance (.36) and performance avoidance goals significantly and negatively predicting exam performance (-.33). In addition, their results show mastery-approach goals emerging from the “need for achievement” antecedent and performance-avoidance goals emerging from the “fear of failure” antecedent
- Changes were made to the following items to diminish ambiguity. For item 1, the word “completely” was deleted, based on the assumption that one either masters a task or does not; there are no gradations of mastery. Item 4 was revised to “relative” rather than “in comparison” simply for readability’s sake. Item 5 was revised to “My aim is to avoid falling behind in learning the material.” Item 9 was revised to “My goal is to avoid not mastering the subject matter.”These revisions resulted in similar degrees of internal consistency and reliability on all but the mastery-avoidance subscale (Cronbach’s alphas: mastery-approach, .88; mastery-avoidance, .71; performance-approach, .91; Performance-avoidance, .90).In addition, students were asked to choose one of their courses and respond to the items based on that particular course.
- 1606 e-mail invitations to participate in the study were sent to San Jacinto College students who had successfully completed at least 12 hours of college-level courses and had a cumulative grade point average of at least 3.25.
- Because the criterion variable is dichotomous (to participate in a community college honors program or not) a simultaneous logistic regression was used to model the student’s decision to participate in the program. The predictor variables in this study are the four factors in the two by two model of achievement goal orientation (mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, performance-avoidance) with higher scores indicating greater adoption of the particular construct. Results of the logistic analysis indicate that the four-predictor model does not provide a statistically significant improvement over the constant only model, 2 (4, N=398) = 3.66, p = .000. The Nagelkerke pseudo R2 indicated that the model accounted for .01% of the total variance. This suggests that the set of predictors do not discriminate between high ability students who choose to participate in a community college honors program and those that choose to forego participation. Prediction success for the cases used in the development of the model was extremely low, with no change in overall predictive accuracy between the constant-only model at 69.8% and the model including the predictors at 69.8%. Table 2 presents the regression coefficients (B), the Wald statistics, significance level, odds ratios [Exp(B)], and the 95% confidence intervals (CI) for adds ratios (OR) for each predictor. The Wald test reports that none of the four predictors (mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, performance-avoidance) are statistically significant predictors of participation in a community college honors program.