1. Meta-Cognition, Motivation, and Affect PSY504 Spring term, 2011 February 9, 2010

2. Achievement Goals What is the student’s goal in the learning situation?

3. 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

4. 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!

5. Dichotomous model of goals Dweck & Elliott (1983) Note: Elliott and Elliot are not the same person

6. 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”

7. Trichotomous Model of Goals Elliot & Church, 1997 Learning goals remain the same Performance goals are split in half

8. 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”

9. 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.”

10. 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…”

11. Work Avoidance Harackiewicz et al. (1997, 2000, 2002) Having a goal of avoiding work or doing minimal work

12. Questions? Comments?

13. Evidence on construct separation Performance-Approach.vs. Performance- Avoid

14. Middleton & Midgley, 1997

15. Elliot & Church, 1997

16. 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

17. Some contrary evidence

18. Middleton & Midgley, 1997 Correlation between performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals: 0.56 Middle school students doing math

19. Pekrun et al., 2006 Correlation between performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals: 0.59

20. Evidence on construct separation Mastery-Approach.vs. Mastery-Avoid

21. Elliot & McGregor, 2002

22. 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

23. 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

24. Evidence on construct separation Work Avoidance

25. Harackiewicz et al., 1997

26. 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

27. 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

28. Questions? Comments?

29. Impacts on Related Constructs

30. Literally dozens of studies I’ll discuss a few famous (and representative) ones

31. 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

32. 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)

33. Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999 (everything measured by questionnaire)

34. 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

35. 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

36. Dupeyrat & Marine, 2002

37. Blackwell et al., 2007

38. Breaking out of self-report… Using behavioral measures of student learning strategies…

39. 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

40. Hershkovitz et al. (under review) Using EDM detector of carelessness

41. Comments? Questions?

42. 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.