Alifeofinspiration nelsonmandela1918-2013-131205232125-phpapp02
furtwengler-epsy8300-4-25-2013-130508091637-phpapp02
description
Transcript of furtwengler-epsy8300-4-25-2013-130508091637-phpapp02
Principal Component Analysis of the Achievement Goal Questionnaire - Revised
Scott R. Furtwengler, University of HoustonEPSY 8300 Advanced MeasurementThursday, April 25, 2013
Outline
Overview of the problem Purpose of the current study Brief overview of extant literature Methodology Results Discussion/Implications References Questions
Overview of the problem
Mean differences between honors versus traditional high-ability students on several measures remain largely unexplained.
Purpose of the current study
The purpose of the study is to test the construct validity of the AGQ-R.
Research question: Do latent factors such as the adoption of a specific Achievement Goal Orientation predict who among high ability students will participate in a community college honors program and those who do not?
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) Extended to a 2 x 2 model
Definitions of competence: mastery & performance
Valences of competence: approach & avoidance
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 for the performance dimension
Achievement Goal Orientation
The 2 x 2 Framework of Achievement Goal Orientations Approach Valence Avoidance Valence
Mastery-Goal Definition Focus on learning Focus on avoiding
misunderstanding
Performance-Goal Definition
Focus on out-performing others
Focus on avoiding the appearance of incompetence, avoiding negative judgments
Methodology
Participants Instrument Procedure
Methodology: participants
N = 398, 3.25 GPA on at least 12 hours Groups: 120 honors, 278 non-honors Cum. GPA: 3.25 - 4.00 (M = 3.55, SD = 0.29) Age: 15 - 70 (M = 29.27, SD = 11.00) Gender: 293 Female, 105 Male Ethnicity: 159 White or Caucasian, 116 Hispanic or
Latino Origin, 23 Black or African American, 37 Asian, 7 Native American or Alaskan, 19 International, and 37 Unknown or Not Reported
Status: 383 Continuing, 15 FTIC
Methodology: instrument
Achievement Goal Questionnaire – Revised or AGQ-R (Elliott & Murayama, 2008)
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• Performance-avoidance, .94
Revised several questions to diminish ambiguity.
Methodology: procedure
1606 e-mail invitations San Jacinto College 12 hours of college-level courses 3.25 cumulative GPA 400 students responded by completing the instrument for
a 25.91% response rate. 1 respondent was excluded because he/she could not be identified. 1 eighteen-year-old, Hispanic female originally identified as “honors” and “continuing” was excluded based on 0.66 GPA.
Results
Cronbach’s alphas: Mastery-approach, .88 (.84) Mastery-avoidance, .71 (.88) Performance-approach, .91 (.92) Performance-avoidance, .90 (.94)
Descriptive StatisticsTable 1
Means and Standard Deviations for Achievement Goal Orientation Scales
95% CI
Item N M (SD) LL UL
Mastery-approach_1 368 4.50 (.795) 4.42 4.58
Mastery-approach_2 368 4.67 (.684) 4.59 4.73
Mastery-approach_3 368 4.59 (.733) 4.51 4.65
Mastery-avoidance_1 368 4.63 (.792) 4.54 4.70
Mastery-avoidance_2 368 3.82 (1.401) 3.67 3.96
Mastery-avoidance_3 368 4.22 (1.067) 4.11 4.33
Performance-approach_1 368 4.25 (1.054) 4.14 4.36
Performance-approach_2 368 4.27 (1.073) 4.16 4.38
Performance-approach_3 368 4.00 (1.164) 3.88 4.11
Performance-avoidance_1 368 4.23 (1.145) 4.12 4.35
Performance-avoidance_2 368 3.95 (1.230) 3.83 4.08
Performance-avoidance_3 368 3.98 (1.231) 3.85 4.10
Note: CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit, UL = upper limit.
Principal Component AnalysisTable 2Factor Loadings for Principal Components with Varimax Rotation of Achievement Goal Orientation Scales
Scale Performance Mastery Approach Avoidance
Mastery-approach_1 .183 .819 .141
Mastery-approach_2 .156 .878 .127
Mastery-approach_3 .155 .881 .176
Mastery-avoidance_1 .228 .692 .302
Mastery-avoidance_2 .133 .224 .795Mastery-avoidance_3 .119 .338 .817Performance-approach_1 .826 .319 -.017
Performance-approach_2 .902 .258 -.020
Performance-approach_3 .869 .138 .170
Performance-avoidance_1 .863 .211 .183
Performance-avoidance_2 .716 .048 .573Performance-avoidance_3 .770 .038 .480Note: Factor loadings > .400 are in boldface.
Results
ANOVA: No statistically significant difference in goal orientation between groups, although honors students maintained higher mean scores in Mastery-Avoidance.
Logistic Regression: The present study offers no evidence of predictive accuracy for goal orientation for high-ability students choosing to participate in a community college honors program.
Results
Logistic Regression Results for Predicting Whether High Ability Students Participate in a Community College Honors Program Using Goal Orientation Scores as Independent Variables
95.0% CI for Exp (B)
Step Variable B Wald Significance Exp (B) Lower Upper
1 Mast_App -.145 .410 .522 .865 .555 1.348
Mast_Av .289 2.359 .125 1.335 .923 1.929 Perf_App -.109 .281 .596 .897 .600 1.340 Perf_Av -.012 .003 .953 .988 .670 1.459 Constant -.902 1.300 .254 .406
Discussion
Achievement Goal Orientation: The purpose was to test the structural validity of the AGQ-R, which is based on a 2x2 model of goal orientation. The present findings indicate that this model may not be the best fit.
Discussion
Achievement Goal Orientation: In this sample, AGO was not an accurate predictor of high-ability students’ decisions to participate in an honors program. Similar research in more established contexts may yield different results.
Limitations: sample size, community college population (generalizability), lack of awareness.
Implications
Achievement Goal Orientation: Further research on co-activation of performance-approach and avoidance dimension and discrimination between mastery-avoidance and performance-avoidance valences. Additional dimensions.
Exploration of a subscale for performance-avoidance: adaptive & maladaptive.
Implications
Explore other factors that might account for differences in participation and academic outcomes between the two groups: academic self-concept, achievement goal orientation, attributional style, expectancy-values theory, parents’ level of education, SES.
References
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.
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.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 92–104.
Questions?
Contact information
Scott R. FurtwenglerHonors Program, San Jacinto College13735 Beamer RoadHouston, TX [email protected]@uh.edu