Why Don’t My Students Focus on Meaningful Learning?

Why Do Some Even Sabotage Their Own Learning?

Goal Theory

Achievement Goal Theory

Learning/Mastery Goal Orientation Goal is to learn something from engaging in the task (develop competence).

Performance Goal OrientationFocus not on learning, but on the outcome and how you look compared to others.Performance-Approach Goals

Focus on demonstrating competence (want to look good in comparison to others).

Performance-Avoid GoalsFocus on avoiding demonstrating incompetence (want to avoid looking bad in comparison to others).

Which box is best?

Mastery/Learning Goal Orientation

Performance-Approach Goal Orientation

Performance-Avoid Goal Orientation

High

High

High

Low

Low

Low

Where are you?

I want to learn & be one of the best

I want to get good grades & show others I’m smart

I like to learn & don’t care so much about grades or what others think

I could care less about learning and what others think.

I like learning but worry about appearing incompetent

Please don’t let me look dumb!

I want to look smart but worry about looking dumb.

Outcomes Related to Goals

Learning/Mastery Goal Orientation Predicts use of deep-level learning strategies, self-efficacy, interest and other adaptive outcomes. Students seek out optimal challenges.But doesn’t always predict achievement.

Outcomes Related to Goals

Performance-Approach Goals OrientationSometimes predicts achievement (more so in college) Often associated with use of surface-level (e.g., memorization, cramming) instead of deep-level learning strategies – but not always.Students often avoid challenges – but again, not always.Performance-approach goals may switch to performance-avoidance goals in particular contexts or when students struggle.

For example, a student who was top of the class in high school may develop more of a performance-avoidance orientation in college when he/she discovers that it is not so easy to be appear the smartest or be the top achiever.

Outcomes Related to Goals

There’s actually a lot of debate about the value of performance-approach goals.

Some researchers argue that a performance-approach orientation is beneficial, particularly when paired with a mastery orientation (i.e., when students are focused on both learning and achieving/looking smart/outperforming others).Others disagree and particularly worry about surface-level achievement, risk avoidance, and performance-approach goals becoming avoidance goals when students struggle.See the articles about this in the Article Archive.For an example of a high performance-approach orientation paired with a low mastery-goal orientation and low self-efficacy, see the profile of Safe Sally in the Stipek chapter. (note: she also demonstrates extrinsic motivation with little intrinsic motivation – see self-determination theory)For an example of a high mastery orientation and virtually no performance orientation at all, see the profile of Satisfied Santos in the Stipek chapter. (note: he also demonstrates intrinsic motivation with little extrinsic motivation – see self-determination theory)

Outcomes Related to Goals

Performance-Avoid Goal OrientationPredicts lower achievement.Related to use of surface-level learning strategies.Students seek out the very easiest tasks (guaranteed success) or impossible tasks (so even if they fail at the task they won’t look dumb).Related to the negative aspects of self-worth validation such as self-handicapping.

Self-Worth ValidationThe Covington (1992) chapter has great information on ways that students engage in maladaptive motivation patterns because they are focused on preserving their self-worth. Such patterns include:

Self-handicapping.Students do things to avoid looking dumb (such as purposely not trying) that, unfortunately, undermine their learning and achievement (“Nobody can think I’m dumb if they know I didn’t even try”).

Poor goal settingChoose easy goals that guarantee success (but don’t require any learning) or impossibly difficult goals (“Nobody will think I’m incapable if I fail, because nobody could be expected succeed”).

Focus on avoiding “acting white”Purposely underachieving or hiding your achievement, because such achievement is viewed negatively by your peer group.

Performance-Avoid BehaviorsA sports team playing “not to lose.”A student in gym class choosing to only try half-court shots (don’t have to worry about failing because no one expects you to make it anyway!).

A student goofing off instead of trying on a test (No one can conclude that you’re not smart if you didn’t even try!).

A student being a class clown instead of trying to participate.A student bragging about not studying.A student who enjoys science choosing not to take an advanced science class because he is concerned about not doing well.See the Defensive Dave profile in the Stipek chapter.

Other Differences between a Learning/Mastery Orientation and a Performance Orientation

Learning GoalsBored by easy tasks.View effort as necessary to learning.More self-regulated.Intrinsically motivatedEvaluate performance in terms of progressView errors as normal and useful for learning.Are satisfied with performance if they try hard.

Attribute failure to internal, controllable things (mainly effort or strategy).View teacher as a resource and guide.

Performance GoalsRelieved by easy tasks.View effort as sign of low competence.Less self-regulated.Extrinsically motivatedEvaluate performance relative to others.View errors as sign of failure and incompetence.Are satisfied with performance only if they succeed.Attribute failure to internal, uncontrollable things (mainly ability).View teacher as a judge and as a rewarder or punisher.

Environmental conditions that foster learning or performance goals.

Environment Learning Goals Performance Goals•Success defined as . ..

•Value placed on . . . •Teacher oriented toward . . .•View of errors . . .•Focus of attention . . .

•Evaluation criteria . . .

•Improvement

•Effort/learning•How students are learning.•Part of learning.•Process of learning.

•Absolute, progress.

•High grades, *normative performance.•Normative high ability.•How students are performing.•Problems.•Own performance relative to others.•High grades, performing better than others.

•Overall . . . •The process of learning and/or the usefulness of the task is emphasized.

•Social comparison and public observation of performance is emphasized.

* “Normative” means in comparison with others. Adapted from Ames & Archer (1988)

To foster learning goals

Emphasize the process of learning.Emphasize the usefulness and meaning of the learning activity and content. Avoid treating learning activities or outcomes as ends unto themselves. Avoid social comparison (including individual competition).Avoid public evaluation of performance or try to make it less salient.

TARGET Model• Meaningful• Optimal challenge• Focus on mastering

Task

• Students have choice & control• Sense of autonomyAuthority

• Focus on personal accomplishmentRecognition

• Group by interest or heterogeneous grouping instead of ability grouping.Grouping

• Provide informative feedback• De-emphasize comparison with others.• Opportunities for improvement, mistakes

Evaluation

• Flexible• Allow for completion of complex

projectsTime

An approach to fostering a mastery goal orientation(from the Ames, 1992 article)

What impact might proficiency testing have on the type of goals that students adopt?

What is Calvin’s goal orientation in these strips?

Other Goals

Variations of the performance-avoid orientation:

Work-avoidance goal (just want to avoid doing work).

Social GoalsWhat to fit in with a peer group (that may or may not value school).Want to be cool; impress a girl/guy.

Satisfy basic needs.Achievement may not even be on a student’s radar because he/she is lacking the basic needs of safety, security, food, etc.