Learning Focus for next Few Weeks

1. Business Skills Leadership Skills Interpersonal Skills Intrapersonal Skills Learning Focus for next Few Weeks

2. Business Skills Decision Making & Problem solving Negotiation Planning Evaluating Performance Business strategy

3. How today’s competencies are taught

4. How to set effective goals Lecture on Latham Reading Set goals for a group decision making task

5. Why do goals improve performance Examples in Prof’s behavior What makes goals more effective in improving performance Examples in MGTC24 class Examples of research studies

6. Example of glucose intolerance == Focus on eating/drinking behaivors that increase glucose Read labels of products containing glucose, learn about what products release glucose faster/slower, learn about what ways to reduce glucose intolerance- e.g., exercise Spend more time exercising- Exercise harder– ignore distractions to lowering glucoseExample of glucose intolerance == Focus on eating/drinking behaivors that increase glucose Read labels of products containing glucose, learn about what products release glucose faster/slower, learn about what ways to reduce glucose intolerance- e.g., exercise Spend more time exercising- Exercise harder– ignore distractions to lowering glucose

7. Focus attention on behaviors that will attain goal Assign dates in course timetable Promote use/discovery of knowledge needed to do task Do lit search for articles on how to teach argumentation Increase how hard one works on task Work harder on lecture & activities Lengthen time spent on task Spend more time on lecture & activities as date approaches, practice, audio record practice, make changes

9. How to set effective goals Lecture on Latham Reading Set goals for a group decision making task

10. Task =Meet for 20 min as a 6 person group in class to make a decision in 2 weeks What to make decision about? Conservation crisis case posted on class website (also as handout) How to prepare for each person’s role in the decision making task? Guide for how each person should prepare for their role in group decision making case posted on class website

14. Unskilled, uneducated loggers paid at piece rate were randomly assigned to one of two groups

15. Why do specific & difficult goals result in better performance than ‘do your best’ goals?

16. How you might make the goals for yourself, your group & for individual team members specific and difficult to make a good decision on the case?

19. Learning goals = learn to network; master specific subject matter Performance goals= attain specific GPA at end of semester

20. Learning goals facilitate planning, monitoring & evaluating progress toward goal attainment Such behaviors are especially needed in unstructured environments

21. People differ in how consistently they set learning vs. performance goals Goal Orientation differences in v-leader Learning Orientation: Get knowledge for its own sake, obtain personal and educational insight Performance Orientation: Get a high score, do better than others Copy of section from Payne et al, 2007 JAP ..Eison (1979) described students as possessing either learning or grade orientations. According to Eison, a learning orientation was the predominant attitude held by students who approached college as an opportunity to acquire knowledge and obtain personal and educational enlightenment. Conversely, a grade orientation was the predominant attitude held by students who viewed obtaining a high course grade as an end in itself (Eison, 1979). Eison (1979) developed the Learning Orientation–Grade Orientation Scale to assess these orientations. These two orientations were originally conceptualized as opposite ends of an underlying continuum. However, Eison later reconceptualized them as being independent and revised his measure accordingly (Learning Orientation–Grade Orientation Scale II; Eison, Pollio, & Milton, 1982)….. …(per) Nicholls (1975), the most important factor was how individuals choose to define success. He hypothesized there were two conceptions of success: task involvement, in which individuals compare themselves with their past performance (self-referent), or ego involvement, in which individuals compare their performance with others (external referent). … Dweck (1986) proposed individuals with learning goals approach a task with the goal of learning for its own sake, whereas individuals with performance goals attempt to gain favorable judgments or avoid negative judgments from others. …. Button et al. (1996), who argued individuals often have multiple, competing goals. Using the example of competitive divers, they noted individuals often strive to outperform their competition, while simultaneously improving on their own prior performance. This finding suggests that individuals can have simultaneously high levels of LGO and PGO. More recently, VandeWalle (1993, 1996, 1997) argued PGO is, in fact, multidimensional. Noting PGO was originally defined as the desire to gain favorable judgments and avoid unfavorable judgments about one’s ability (Heyman & Dweck, 1992), Vande- Walle (1996) argued for partitioning PGO into two dimensions: prove and avoid. He defined prove performance GO (PPGO) as “the desire to prove one’s competence and to gain favorable judgments about it” and avoid performance GO (APGO) as “the desire to avoid the disproving of one’s competence and to avoid negative judgments about it.” He subsequently demonstrated a three-factor model was superior to a two-factor model. Elliot and his colleagues have forwarded similar arguments proposing a trichotomous, approach–avoidance– chievement goal framework (Elliot, 1994; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). Building on the classic approach to achievement motivation (Atkinson, 1957), Elliot (1994) distinguished between approach and avoidance motivation by partitioning PGO into separate approach and avoidance components. He described performance-approach goals as focusing on the attainment of competence relative to others, whereas performance-avoidance goals focus on avoiding the perception of incompetence relative to others. Elliot and his colleagues have shown that approach and avoidance components have different antecedents (Elliot & Church, 1997) and outcomes (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). In fact, whereas researchers have tended to associate PGO with negative outcomes, when considering the dimensionality of PGO, some researchers have noted it is really the avoidance dimension that is dysfunctional (e.g., Brophy, 2004). Because the approach–avoidance distinction appears both conceptually and empirically meaningful, several researchers (Conroy, Elliot, & Hofer, 2003; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2000; Pintrich, 2000) have proposed LGO should also be divided into approach and avoidance components in order to focus more on the influence =of these aspects. However, because the 2 2 framework is relatively new and little empirical research has been conducted using it, we examined the three-component conceptualization of GO.Copy of section from Payne et al, 2007 JAP ..Eison (1979) described students as possessing either learning or grade orientations. According to Eison, a learning orientation was the predominant attitude held by students who approached college as an opportunity to acquire knowledge and obtain personal and educational enlightenment. Conversely, a grade orientation was the predominant attitude held by students who viewed obtaining a high course grade as an end in itself (Eison, 1979). Eison (1979) developed the Learning Orientation–Grade Orientation Scale to assess these orientations. These two orientations were originally conceptualized as opposite ends of an underlying continuum. However, Eison later reconceptualized them as being independent and revised his measure accordingly (Learning Orientation–Grade Orientation Scale II; Eison, Pollio, & Milton, 1982)….. …(per) Nicholls (1975), the most important factor was how individuals choose to define success. He hypothesized there were two conceptions of success: task involvement, in which individuals compare themselves with their past performance (self-referent), or ego involvement, in which individuals compare their performance with others (external referent). … Dweck (1986) proposed individuals with learning goals approach a task with the goal of learning for its own sake, whereas individuals with performance goals attempt to gain favorable judgments or avoid negative judgments from others. …. Button et al. (1996), who argued individuals often have multiple, competing goals. Using the example of competitive divers, they noted individuals often strive to outperform their competition, while simultaneously improving on their own prior performance. This finding suggests that individuals can have simultaneously high levels of LGO and PGO. More recently, VandeWalle (1993, 1996, 1997) argued PGO is, in fact, multidimensional. Noting PGO was originally defined as the desire to gain favorable judgments and avoid unfavorable judgments about one’s ability (Heyman & Dweck, 1992), Vande- Walle (1996) argued for partitioning PGO into two dimensions: prove and avoid. He defined prove performance GO (PPGO) as “the desire to prove one’s competence and to gain favorable judgments about it” and avoid performance GO (APGO) as “the desire to avoid the disproving of one’s competence and to avoid negative judgments about it.” He subsequently demonstrated a three-factor model was superior to a two-factor model. Elliot and his colleagues have forwarded similar arguments proposing a trichotomous, approach–avoidance– chievement goal framework (Elliot, 1994; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). Building on the classic approach to achievement motivation (Atkinson, 1957), Elliot (1994) distinguished between approach and avoidance motivation by partitioning PGO into separate approach and avoidance components. He described performance-approach goals as focusing on the attainment of competence relative to others, whereas performance-avoidance goals focus on avoiding the perception of incompetence relative to others. Elliot and his colleagues have shown that approach and avoidance components have different antecedents (Elliot & Church, 1997) and outcomes (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). In fact, whereas researchers have tended to associate PGO with negative outcomes, when considering the dimensionality of PGO, some researchers have noted it is really the avoidance dimension that is dysfunctional (e.g., Brophy, 2004). Because the approach–avoidance distinction appears both conceptually and empirically meaningful, several researchers (Conroy, Elliot, & Hofer, 2003; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2000; Pintrich, 2000) have proposed LGO should also be divided into approach and avoidance components in order to focus more on the influence =of these aspects. However, because the 2 2 framework is relatively new and little empirical research has been conducted using it, we examined the three-component conceptualization of GO.

22. How learning orientation shapes how you approach v-leader

23. Self reflection on goal orientation Assess your goal orientation and hand in questionnaire for participation credit Describe concrete behaviors that you engage in that reflect your goal orientation

25. Learning Goals: Complete individual worksheet for group decision making exercise Training: Lecture on how to argue effectively in writing Sub-goals: Learn to make arguments in negotiation task, in group decision making task so you can get feedback Outcome goal= get a 5 pt rating on a 7 pt scale Learning goal (can be difficult & specific)=generate 10 concrete teaching strategies by which you can obtain higher ratings Sub-goal=generate 5 strategies by mid-semesterOutcome goal= get a 5 pt rating on a 7 pt scale Learning goal (can be difficult & specific)=generate 10 concrete teaching strategies by which you can obtain higher ratings Sub-goal=generate 5 strategies by mid-semester

26. Learning goal is one that is specific about the number of strategies to be discovered to learn how to perform a task Subgoals give markers of progress– recast the big goal into smaller attainable ones, helps get feedback to evaluate whether strategies to attain larger goal are successful. Learning goal is one that is specific about the number of strategies to be discovered to learn how to perform a task Subgoals give markers of progress– recast the big goal into smaller attainable ones, helps get feedback to evaluate whether strategies to attain larger goal are successful.

27. What learning goals & sub-goals can you set as a group? How will help each other acquire training to learn how to prepare for the meeting?

31. Students write down ways & answer orally!How will you increase member commitment to goals ?

33. High Role overload=having excess work without resources to accomplish task Goals positively affect performance only when overload was low

34. Students write down ways & answer orally! How will you overcome situational obstacles for you and your group members 

35. Set goals as a group Set goals as individual team members & team as whole Complete group goal setting sheet (handout in class, or downloaded from class website)

36. Class discussion Qs After meeting with your group, how did you … make your goals specific and difficult? increase knowledge to accomplish goals? increase member commitment to goals overcome situational obstacles

37. Why goals improve performance Focus attention Promote use of knowledge Increase amt of time on task Increase amt of effort on task What makes goals more effective in improving performance Commitment to goals Knowledge of how to attain goals Goal Orientation Feedback on progress toward goals Specificity & difficulty of goals Situational constraints