Meta-Cognition, Motivation, and Affect

1. Meta-Cognition, Motivation, and Affect PSY504Spring 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. 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

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.