Upload
scott-furtwengler-phd
View
558
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Achievement Goal Orientationacross Gender and Ethnicityin a Community College Honors Program Differences in achievement goal orientation were examined in this survey across gender and ethnicity among high ability students participating in a community college honors program. Students in the program completed the Achievement Goal Questionnaire–Revised. Participants’ mean scores for mastery-approach and mastery-avoidance were higher, but not significant, in comparison to mean scores for both performance-approach and performance-avoidance goal orientations. Results indicate that there were no main effects for gender or ethnicity on achievement goal orientation. Additionally, results suggest that high ability students who choose to participate in a community college honors program are similar in their adoption of achievement goal orientation. Future research may explore differences in goal orientation between high ability students who participate in honors programs and those who choose to opt out of such undergraduate experiences.
Citation preview
Achievement Goal Orientationacross Gender and Ethnicityin a Community College Honors Program
Scott R. Furtwengler, University of HoustonCandidacy DefenseMonday, November 18, 2013
Outline
• Overview of the problem• Purpose of the current study• Brief overview of extant literature• Methodology• Results• Discussion• References• Questions
Overview of the problem• In a competitive, performance-oriented
environment, females are more likely than males to exhibit maladaptive behavior by adopting avoidance orientation (Bear, 1998; Shucard & Hillman, 1990).
• Ethnicity may reflect cultural differences in goal orientation, resulting in maladaptive behavior by adopting avoidance orientation (Elliot, Chirkov, Kim, and Sheldon, 2001).
Purpose of the current study
• Research questions:– How does achievement goal orientation
vary across gender and ethnicity in a community college honors program?
Overview of extant literature
• Achievement goal orientation• Post-secondary honors programs• The community college context
Achievement Goal Orientation• Dweck (1986), Maehr (1983), Nicholls (1984)• Mastery goals: developing competence
through task mastery• Performance goals: developing competence
relative to others
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 & avoid
Achievement Goal Orientation• Law, Elliot, & Murayama (2012)
– Performance-approach goals: high effort, high persistence, high level of aspiration, high academic performance
– Performance-avoidance goals: disorganized study strategies, high test anxiety, low academic performance, low intrinsic motivation
– Perceived competence is a moderator
AGO 2 x 2 FrameworkApproach Focus Avoidance Focus
Master-Goal Orientation
Focus on learning Focus on avoiding misunderstanding
Performance-Goal Orientation
Focus on out-performing others
Focus on avoiding the appearance of incompetence, avoiding negative judgments
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
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
Methodology
• Participants• Instrument• Procedure
Methodology: participants• Participants (n = 120) included community college students
who participated in the institution’s honors program and who earned a cumulative GPA of 3.25 on at least 12 college credit hours by the end of summer semester 2012.
• Gender: 91 (75.8%) Female, 29 (24.2%) Male • Status: 110 (91.7%) Continuing, 10 (8.3%) First-Time-In-
College (FTIC)• Age: Range = 15-70, M = 29.27, SD = 11.00 • GPA: M = 3.55, SD = .31
Methodology: participants
Methodology: instrument• Achievement Goal Questionnaire –
Revised or AGQ-R (Elliott & Murayama, 2008), a 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; and Performance-avoidance, .94).
Methodology: procedure• 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 and participated in the institution’s honors program.
• One respondent was excluded because he/she could not be identified. One eighteen-year-old, Hispanic female originally identified as “honors” and “continuing” was excluded based on 0.66 GPA, which would have made her ineligible for the honors program.
Results
Note: CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit, UL = upper limit.
Note: Multivariate f-ratios were generated from Pillai’s trace.
Discussion• Competitive, performance-oriented
environment may not affect AGO.• Non-significant findings align with the
Witkow and Fuligni (2007) study with regard to the invariance of goal orientations across ethnicities
• Contrary to Smith et al. (2002), the present study found no significant statistical difference between males and females in performance-avoidance goal orientation
Discussion
• Limitations: – sample size– community college
population(generalizability).– Quasi-experimental.
Future research• Achievement Goal Orientation:
– Conduct SEM and CFA; possible co-activation of performance valences; and additional dimensions.
– Analysis of variance between honors and non-honors students
– Relationship between AGO and academic achievement as measured by GPA
– Regression Discontinuity Design between high-ability and typical/low-ability learners
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.
References• 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
Questions?
Contact information
Scott R. FurtwenglerUniversity of [email protected]