Putwain, Dave

There is an almost bewildering array of different ways in which practitioners and researchers can conceptualise and measure academic motivation, and how academic motivation may overlap with and relate to adjacent constructs such as interest, engagement and enjoyment in learning. Conceptual clarity is required to clearly delineate between different constructs, develop precision in measurement tools and to advance theory. The purpose of this article is to describe one popular and contemporary approach to academic motivation – achievement goals – and how it can be measured

Edge Hill University Research Information Repository

Conceptualising and measuring academicmotivationDave PutwainThere is an almost bewildering array of different ways in which practitioners and researchers canconceptualise and measure academic motivation, and how academic motivation may overlap withand relate to adjacent constructs such as interest, engagement and enjoyment in learning. Conceptualclarity is required to clearly delineate between different constructs, develop precision in measurementtools and to advance theory. The purpose of this article is to describe one popular and contemporaryapproach to academic motivation – achievement goals – and how it can be measured.ACHIEVEMENT GOALS are defined as future-orientated, cognitive representations   of competence-related aims that serve to guide behaviour (Elliot, 2005; Hulleman et al., 2010). This rather obtuse and concise definition contains three importantelements which are worth highlighting. First, goals are an end-point, something which astudent works towards. Second, the goals in question are related to the standards by whichstudents evaluate their competence: against an objective task criterion, against a personalstandard or aspiration or in comparison to others (Elliot, 2005). When students judgetheir competence against task criterion or personal standards they are said to hold amastery-orientated goal and when they judge competence against others they are said tohold a performance goal. Perhaps the term ‘performance goal’ is a little misleading here,as it is not a concern with performance per se, but performance relative to others. Thus, astudent who wishes to perform well on an exam may wish to do so because they aremotivated to improve on their past performance (a mastery goal) or to show that they arebetter than others (a performance goal). Third, goals guide particular behaviours towardsthat end state, such as interest, effort, help-seeking behaviour, learning strategy and so on.Achievement goal theoryAn important development in achievement goal theory was the incorporation of anapproach and avoidance valence. Initially, this was incorporated into performance goals(Elliot & Church, 1997), so that a student could be motivated to outperform others, suchas peers or classmates (a performance-approach goal) or to avoid performing worse thanothers (a performance-avoidance goal). The trichotomous framework of achievementgoals distinguished between mastery goals, performance-approach goals and performance-avoidance goals. Although the valence of mastery goals was not salient in this framework,the construct and items used in its measurement correspond to an approach valence.Later the approach-avoidance distinction was incorporated into mastery goals (Elliot& McGregor, 2001; Elliot & Murayama, 2008), so that a student may be motivated toapproach the development of task or intrapersonal competence (a mastery-approachgoal) or avoid task or intrapersonal competence (a mastery-avoidance goal). The 2x2framework differentiates between four goals: performance and mastery goals alongapproach-avoidance dimensions. More recently a 3x2 framework has been proposed(Elliot, Murayama & Pekrun, 2011) in which the separate task and interpersonal26 Assessment & Development Matters Vol. 5 No. 2 Summer 2013components of mastery goals are considered separately: task, self and performance goalsalong approach-avoidance dimensions.Achievement goals are adopted on the basis of personal and situational antecedents.The hierarchical model proposed by Elliot and colleagues (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot& McGregor, 2001) locates goal orientation in personal temperament (approach/avoidance temperament) and motivational (fear of failure/need for achievement)dispositions. Situational antecedents include the classroom environment in whichpersonal goal adoption is, in part, influenced by the goals held by the teacher orpromoted in a particular class (Urdan & Schoenfelder, 2006) and the messages conveyedby teachers about important tests and examinations (Putwain & Symes, 2011).Achievement goal measurementThe two most commonly used instruments are the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales(PALS; Midgley et al., 2000) or Achievement Goals Questionnaire (AGQ; Elliot et al.,2011). The PALS manual contains scales corresponding to the trichotomous frameworkfor achievement goals (mastery, performance-approach and performance-avoidancegoals) along with a variety of other measures pertaining to students. There are versions ofthe AGQ corresponding to the trichotomous framework (Elliot & Church, 1997) and the2x2 framework (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). There is also a revised version for the 2x2framework in which items contain common stems intended to emphasise a goal focus(goal, aim, strive) and which contain no affective content (Elliot & Murayama, 2008). Aquestionnaire incorporating these elements has been developed to correspond to the 3x2framework with differentiated mastery goals (Elliot et al., 2011). The differences betweenthe PALS and AGQ items are relatively subtle and small where AGQ performance itemshave a greater emphasis on comparing competence to others whereas PALS performanceitems have a greater emphasis on appearing competent to others. Achievement goals aretypically measured at a domain-specific level, in relation to a specific class, subject andassessment, but can also be measured at a general domain (Hulleman et al., 2010).Validity and reliability of measuresThe factor structure and reliability of PALS and AGQ have been well-documented. Inparticular, factor-analytic models suggest that measurement models which differentiatebetween different goals along approach/avoidance dimensions are superior to thosewhich ignore goal valence or collapse different goals into approach-avoidancedimensions. In terms of predictive validity, mastery-approach goals are generallyconsidered as adaptive and are associated with positive educational and motivationaloutcomes, including interest, enjoyment and achievement whereas mastery-avoidanceand performance-avoidance goals are associated with reduced interest, motivation andachievement (see Huang, 2012; Hulleman et al., 2010; Senko, Hulleman & Harackewicz,2011). The status of performance-approach goals as facilitating or debilitating has beenhotly debated as equivocal findings have been reported in the research literature. Positive,negative and null findings have been reported with salient educational and achievementoutcomes (Harackiewicz et al., 2002; Mägi et al., 2010). Some recent work which helpsuntangle the reason for these discrepancies, has examined how the performance-approach goal construct has not been uniformly operationalized in the literature. Whenscales are operationalised using normative item content (e.g. AGQ) rather thanappearance/evaluative items (e.g. PALS), positive relationships are reported withachievement (Hulleman et al., 2010).Assessment & Development Matters Vol. 5 No. 2 Summer 2013 27ConclusionThere is a vast body of research on the measurement, antecedents and outcomes ofachievement goals. This short article has only touched on some of the major issuesconcerning definition and conceptualisation of achievement goals; however, theliterature has reached a sufficient state of maturity that a number of integrative reviewsand meta-analyses which have been published recently bring a great deal of order andclarity to the field. I would recommend the interested reader to Huang (2012), Hullemanet al. (2010); Senko et al. (2011) and to Elliot (2005) for a general introduction. Whenpractitioners and researchers are considering work in the field of achievement motivationI would recommend considering the following three points. First, achievement goals are exactly that; goals. If you are interested in examining whatguides behaviours towards certain forms of achievement-related behaviours (both goodand bad) and not others, then goals might be the right construct. Second, goals are over-arching which might consist of many different reasons. Furthermore, a particular reasonmay contribute to different goals. If your interest is reasons rather than goals, this may notbe the right construct. Third, make sure that the goals are properly matched to thecontext. Wording of the instructions and items may require adjustment to ensure that thegoal is being measured in relation to the level of specificity required, a specific test, examor assessment, a particular subject domain, or the general orientation towards school,university or learning.ReferencesElliot, A.J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goals construct. In A.J. Elliotand C.S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp.52-84). New York:Guilford Press.Elliot, A.J. & Church, M. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidanceachievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218–232.Elliot, A.J. & McGregor, H.A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501–519.Elliot, A.J. & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals:Critique, illustration and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3),613–628.Elliot, A.J., Murayama, K. & Pekrun, R. (2011). A 3 x 2 achievement goal model. Journalof Educational Psychology, 103(3), 632–348.Harackiewicz, J.M., Barron, K.E., Pintrich, P.R., Elliot, A.J. & Thrash, T.M. (2002).Revision of achievement goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 638–645.Huang, C. (2012). Discriminant and criterion-related validity of achievement goals inpredicting academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology,104(1), 48–73.Hulleman, C.S., Schrager, S.M., Bodman, S.M. & Harackewicz, J.M. (2010). A meta-analytic review of achievement goal measures: Different labels for the sameconstructs or different constructs with the same labels. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3),422-449.Mägi, K., Häidkind, P. & Kikas, E. (2010). Performance-approach goals, task-avoidantbehaviour and conceptual knowledge as predictors of first graders’ schoolperformance. Educational Psychology, 30(1), 89–106.28 Assessment & Development Matters Vol. 5 No. 2 Summer 2013Midgley, C., Maehr, M.L., Hruda, L.Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K.E.,Gheen, M., Kaplan, A., Kumar, R., Middleton, M.J., Nelson, J., Roeser, R. & Urdan,T. (2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning. Michigan: University ofMichigan.Putwain, D.W. & Symes, W. (2011). Classroom fear appeals and examinationperformance: Facilitating or debilitating outcomes? Learning and IndividualDifferences, 21(2), 227–232.Senko, C., Hulleman, C.S. & Harackiewicz, J. (2011). Achievement goal theory at thecrossroads: Old controversies, current challenges, and new directions. EducationalPsychologist, 46(1), 26–47.Urdan, T., & Schoenfelder, E. (2006). Classroom effects on student motivation: Goalstructures, social relationships, and competence beliefs. Journal of School Psychology,44(5), 331-349. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.003The authorDave Putwain is a Reader in Psychology at Edge Hill University. He is interested in thepsychological predictors of learning and achievement including motivation, emotion,competence beliefs and classroom environment.Assessment & Development Matters Vol. 5 No. 2 Summer 2013 29European Test User Certificate (Level 2):Work and Organisational AssessmentIf you hold all of the following BPS test user qualifications n Assistant Test User: Occupationaln Test User: Occupational, Ability n Test User: Occupational, Personalityyou are eligible for the award of the European Test User Certificate (Level 2): Work and Organisational Assessment, accredited by the European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations (EFPA).Since its launch in February 2012, more than 1,000 BPS registered test users have been awarded the European Test User Certificate – and more certificates are being issued every week.For further information and an application form, please visithttp://www.psychtesting.org.uk/apply-packs/euro-test-user-certificate

Conceptualising and measuring academic motivation

https://research.edgehill.ac.uk/ws/files/20161784/ADM_5(2).pdf

Conceptualising and measuring academic motivation

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Edge Hill University Research Information Repository