GOAL ORIENTATION Muzna AL Hooti

Lubna AL Maskari

Iman AL Shabibi

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

THANK YOU