Achievement Goal Theory A Framework For Implementing Group Work And Open-Ended Problem Solving
0 likes34 views
This document discusses achievement goal theory (AGT) as a framework for understanding student motivation and performance in engineering courses. AGT identifies two main goal orientations: mastery, focused on learning and self-improvement, and performance, focused on grades and outperforming others. The document reports on a study using interviews to examine how curricula and pedagogies at a university encourage these orientations. Key findings include tension between instructor and student goals regarding group work and open-ended learning. Students maintained a performance focus on grades despite instructor efforts to encourage mastery goals. Goal orientation depended on assessments and perceived course usefulness.
![Session S1C
978-1-4244-6262-9/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE October 27 - 30, 2010, Washington, DC
40th
ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
S1C-1
Achievement Goal Theory: A Framework for
Implementing Group Work and Open-Ended
Problem Solving
Casey Canfield and Yevgeniya V. Zastavker
Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering, casey.canfield@students.olin.edu, yevgeniya.zastavker@olin.edu
Abstract - In educational psychology, achievement goal
theory (AGT) has emerged as a useful framework for
understanding student motivation and performance.
This paper uses AGT to examine the effects of
curriculum and pedagogy on student and instructor goal
orientations in mathematics, physics, and engineering
courses in a first-year engineering program. The
following questions guide our analysis: (a) How do the
existing curricula and pedagogies affect a performance
goal orientation development? (b) In which ways do the
existing curricula and pedagogies encourage a
development of mastery goal orientation? The results of
this qualitative study indicate: (1) contention between the
instructors’ goals and students’ experiences of group
work and open-ended learning experiences; (2) the
negative impact of time pressure on successfully
implementing mastery goal-oriented teaching strategies;
(3) students’ maintenance of a performance goal
orientation with high emphasis on grades rather than
learning and engagement in work avoidance strategies to
minimize work time, despite instructors’ efforts to
encourage a mastery goal orientation; (4) dependence of
student goal orientation on assessment mechanisms
(grades) and perceived course “usefulness”. It is argued
that AGT may help to frame positive changes in
curricula and pedagogy to benefit overall student
learning.
Index Terms - Achievement goal theory, Group work,
Motivation, Open-ended problem solving
BACKGROUND
Achievement goal theory (AGT), discussed predominantly
in the educational psychology literature, has emerged as the
primary theoretical framework for understanding motivation
to learn [1]. In this context, learning goals are understood as
dynamic states determined by some combination of students’
innate characteristics and contextual factors. Achievement
goals include the full range from specific target goals such
as “I want to get an A in this class” to more long-term goals
such as “I want to be an engineer”. These goals dictate
student perceptions and attitudes toward academic
performance, the role of failure, the importance of effort,
and individual competence [2].
AGT is often separated into two independent goal
orientations: mastery and performance. A mastery goal
orientation is characterized by a desire for self-improvement
and an emphasis on learning. Students with this goal
orientation discover intrinsic satisfaction from solving
challenging problems.
On the other hand, students with a performance goal
orientation are motivated by a desire for extrinsic approval,
i.e., performing well compared to others and surpassing
tangible performance goals. Typically, the performance goal
orientations are further divided into:
• Approach-performance strategies typical of students
who are motivated to perform well compared to others;
and
• Avoid-performance strategies used by students who are
motivated to not do badly compared to others.
In some cases, a third goal orientation called work-
avoidance is used to describe students who seek to minimize
work while maximizing performance as measured by grades
[1]-[4].
Several studies have identified a positive correlation
between a mastery goal orientation and student learning
outcomes. In these studies, the students used learning
strategies to enhance conceptual understanding and
persevere in challenging tasks. These students also reported
high levels of classroom engagement [1].
In comparison, conflicting data is reported about the
effect of performance goal orientation on students’ learning
outcomes. While an avoid-performance goal orientation has
been shown to almost always be associated with negative
learning outcomes, an approach-performance goal
orientation has been positively correlated to improved
student performance [2].
Recent literature stresses the importance of describing
goal orientations as independent entities influencing student
motivation individually or in a combination with each other.
As such, AGT scholars propose that multiple goal
orientations may be employed by students simultaneously
within the same classroom environment. Although faculty
efforts to promote a mastery goal orientation may not
diminish the presence of performance goal orientations in a
particular classroom, it is argued that the two may work
symbiotically to enhance student learning. Hence, faculty
encouragement of a particular goal orientation, such as
mastery, may be desirable whether or not the overall](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/achievementgoaltheoryaframeworkforimplementinggroupworkandopen-endedproblemsolving-230806182743-b7e1516a/85/Achievement-Goal-Theory-A-Framework-For-Implementing-Group-Work-And-Open-Ended-Problem-Solving-1-320.jpg)
![Session S1C
978-1-4244-6262-9/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE October 27 - 30, 2010, Washington, DC
40th
ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
S1C-2
curriculum and other academic structures promote other goal
orientation development [3].
Roebken (2007) found that students with a mixture of
performance and mastery goal orientations had the highest
performance as measured by grades [3]. Similarly, Malka
and Covington (2004) found evidence that target
achievement goals, such as a desire for a high grade, may
correlate with student learning outcomes and behavioral
patterns that go beyond simple performance orientation. In
some cases, a student may be driven by a mastery goal
orientation and see a high grade as merely a stepping-stone
to understanding [4].
Most research indicates that classroom structures, such
as learning scaffolding and pedagogies employed by
instructors, play an important role in determining the
students’ goal orientations [1]-[8]. Faculty can encourage a
mastery goal orientation by emphasizing student autonomy
and ownership of the learning process, assigning
appropriately challenging projects, and stressing learning
over performance. However, due to intrinsic factors, such as
parental involvement in student education and students’
previous learning experiences, there may still be a wide
range of classroom goal structures practiced by students
within the same classroom [5].
Understanding motivational theory is particularly
relevant for engineering education where motivation and
retention are high priorities, particularly in the first-year
courses that serve as a “gateway” to engineering. In
analyzing the results of a web-based survey, Roebken (2007)
found that engineering students were more likely to pursue a
combination of mastery and performance orientation.
Slightly less likely for engineering students were a
combination of work avoidance-performance orientation and
a pure mastery orientation [3].
Encouragement of a particular goal orientation has been
a subject of much discussion in the engineering education
community. Many engineering curricula are moving towards
more innovative pedagogies such as project-based learning
(PjBL). This pedagogy is particularly suited for
encouragement of a mastery goal orientation if implemented
well [6]. In a study focusing on engineering educators, Turns
et. al. (2009) found that most faculty do take student
motivation into account when making instructional
decisions. However, the study determined that faculty find it
difficult to reconcile their desire to demonstrate the real-
world relevance of their course content, one of the factors in
affecting student motivation, with the high level of technical
complexities, often above students’ levels of comprehension,
which the authentic open-ended problems provide [7].
Using AGT as a theoretical framework, this paper
explores how faculty and students discuss motivation in a
first-year engineering curriculum. The following questions
guide our analysis:
• How do the existing curricula and pedagogies affect a
performance goal orientation development?
• In which ways do the existing curricula and pedagogies
encourage a development of mastery goal orientation?
This paper is structured around two key pedagogical
methods often employed in a project-based learning (PjBL)
environment: group work and open-ended problem-solving.
The role of grades and perceived course “usefulness” in
learning and motivation are also discussed.
METHODS
Part of a larger, mixed-methods investigation at three
engineering institutions, this paper focuses on one of the
institutions, identified here as Eastern Technical University
(ETU). This case study examines ETU’s first-year
mechanical engineering curriculum, during which students
typically take Mechanics (ETU Physics), Calculus (ETU
Math), Introduction to Manufacturing (ETU Engineering),
and/or Introduction to CAD (ETU Design). Each course
includes three components: lecture, recitation, and
laboratory. ETU’s curriculum generally identifies lectures as
the main venue through which to impart content knowledge
while the recitation sessions are primarily used as an
opportunity to engage with the material, ask questions, and
participate in group work exercises. The laboratories are
generally thought to serve as vehicles for specific technical
skill development and attempt to allow students
opportunities to find application for the abstract principles
learned in the other portions of the class. PjBL is mostly
employed in ETU’s Engineering and Design courses, while
the Physics course exhibits some components of PjBL and
Mathematics utilizes very little PjBL strategies.
A semi-structured, open-ended, in-depth interview
protocol was employed with eleven students and six faculty.
“Purposive” sampling was employed and the students
interviewed were “matched” to those selected in other sites
in terms of gender, major, and performance [9]. Three of the
interviewed students and two faculty were female. Using
grounded theory, the data were coded and narrative
summaries were written based upon emergent themes [10].
Validity and reliability were ensured through a group
process of codebook development and peer debriefing. Inter-
coder reliability was at least 80% among three coders [11].
Further analysis included exploration and comparison of
patterns within and among the identified themes.
DISCUSSION
Our discussion is organized around four major themes
identified through the analysis of the qualitative data. The
themes are (1) group work; (2) open-ended problem solving;
(3) grading as an assessment; and (4) the role of perceived
course “usefulness”.
I. Group Work
The value of group activities in the classroom has been
indicated by all interviewed faculty to lie primarily in
allowing students to consider different perspectives and
practice communication skills. This reasoning is aligned
with a faculty desire to encourage a mastery goal orientation
in the classroom and enhance conceptual understanding.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/achievementgoaltheoryaframeworkforimplementinggroupworkandopen-endedproblemsolving-230806182743-b7e1516a/85/Achievement-Goal-Theory-A-Framework-For-Implementing-Group-Work-And-Open-Ended-Problem-Solving-2-320.jpg)
![Session S1C
978-1-4244-6262-9/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE October 27 - 30, 2010, Washington, DC
40th
ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
S1C-3
As the mathematics laboratory instructor explains,
ensuring that students verbalize their learning is key to
understanding: “I think [group work] is of a huge benefit to
the [students] because they actually talk to each other about
the concept. Verbalizing the concept is huge” (Math
Faculty, Interview 14, 10/12/07).
Another distinct role that faculty perceive group work
activities to play is in ‘learning by teaching’. In fact,
students seem to be encouraged to ask each other for help
before approaching instructors. Both faculty and students
feel that this is an important part of learning. As one male
student explains, “Mostly I think it’s hearing other people’s
ideas that basically reinforce it in your mind […] also the
best way to learn is to teach […] if you help someone with
something else then it helps you reinforce it in your own
mind” (Student, Interview 11, 4/25/08). This thinking is very
much in line with encouraging a mastery goal orientation.
By promoting a collaborative environment, rather than a
competitive one, faculty can encourage students to focus on
understanding rather than out-performing peers. If, as in this
case, students internalize this message, they can take
advantage of all opportunities to enhance understanding.
Similarly, students explain that group work overall
improves their learning experience despite concerns
regarding academic performance. As one female student
explains, group work improves her enjoyment of the course
and enhances her learning: “I actually enjoyed myself
tremendously. […] we would get together and we would just
go back and forth with ideas […] then sometimes we’d
disagree, […] and we just end up learning a lot more than if
you worked by yourself because you’re just arguing points
and you have to know your material in order to argue these
points” (Student, Interview 6, 3/28/08). This student’s
experience of the group work activity also seems to indicate
a mastery goal orientation. She appreciates the value of
challenging problems because she intrinsically enjoys
working with others to solve them.
However, not all students seem to develop this
perspective. Many students feel that group work is beneficial
because it makes the work easier. As a male student
explains, “I liked [group work] because […] it was easier
[…] because if I didn’t get it, there were three people who
were next to me. One of them might get it, so I liked that.
Instead of me challenging myself and getting all the four
problems myself, […] there were four people working on it,
so it makes it really easier” (Student, Interview 2,
11/20/07). This perspective is indicative of a work avoidance
goal orientation. While this student seems to believe he
could challenge himself to do all the problems, he would
rather not, all the while receiving full credit for them.
One of the physics recitation instructors finds that
students implement distinctly different group work
strategies: while some students use the ‘divide-and-conquer’
method, others emphasize collaboration and discussion: “I
have noticed a couple of groups […] and I do know what
they’re doing. Mainly, they decided, ‘We will not sit around
and try to decide [together] how to do problem one and
problem two. We will split, we will each sit down and try to
do one of the problems,[…] and then we will look at what
we’ve done and copy it all together’. And so it’s actually
[…] industrial group work with different people having
different tasks. […] [On the other hand,] the group of
women appears to sit around in [a] circle and talk to each
other. […] Certainly on the homework grades the women
also seem to be doing quite well” (Physics Faculty,
Interview 18, 9/24/07). While the ‘divide-and-conquer’
method establishes more of a work avoidance goal
orientation, the collaboration method encourages a mastery
goal orientation. Both strategies may be implemented
successfully to improve academic performance. On average,
gendered patterns were identified in student group work
behavior. For example, groups tended to be single-sex and,
as evidenced above, the group work strategies, on the
average vary between all-men and all-women groups with
latter usually employing a collaborative environment that
encourages mastery goal orientation. However, some
students seem reluctant to implement effective group work
strategies due to time and performance concerns. As one
physics professor explains, “You have students who just
[are] on task and may not be as committed to wanting to
understand [the material] because they feel pressured with
the time” (Physics Faculty, Interview 12, 9/24/07). When
students only have the allotted class time to work on a lab or
project, there is pressure to develop more of a performance
goal orientation. These concerns may negatively impact
faculty efforts to encourage mastery student goal
orientations in the classroom creating a contention between
faculty intentions and student conscious and subconscious
goal orientations as well as classroom experiences.
II. Student Autonomy and Open-Ended Experiences
Despite the structured nature of most of the courses in this
study, a few open-ended elements as well as student
autonomy have nevertheless been discussed in both student
and faculty interviews.
In the ETU Engineering course, the lab instructor
encourages autonomy by creating opportunities for students
to take initiative in their learning. He feels that the students
are fully capable of teaching themselves: “I don’t want to
teach [students] too much because they probably already
know more than I do in some things. So I’m happy to have
them read the manual and teach me. […] And so, these are
freshmen two weeks after they had ever seen a machine tool
in the first place, [who] are reading the manual and figuring
stuff out and three weeks later they taught me how to use one
part of the machine” (Engineering Faculty, Interview 17,
10/20/07).This pedagogy clearly places the instructor in the
role of a guide in the classroom, rather than the keeper of
knowledge. This is useful for developing a mastery goal
orientation since students are given autonomy and clear
responsibilities for their own learning.
As with group work, many faculty are concerned that
there is not enough time to adequately execute open-ended
projects, both in terms of implementation and preparation.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/achievementgoaltheoryaframeworkforimplementinggroupworkandopen-endedproblemsolving-230806182743-b7e1516a/85/Achievement-Goal-Theory-A-Framework-For-Implementing-Group-Work-And-Open-Ended-Problem-Solving-3-320.jpg)
![Session S1C
978-1-4244-6262-9/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE October 27 - 30, 2010, Washington, DC
40th
ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
S1C-4
As the mathematics laboratory instructor explains, there is
one professor who had tried to implement an open-ended
project but found that students had trouble transitioning from
highly structured, cookie-cutter high school learning
environment: “[This mathematics instructor] could have had
[the students for] two terms. He could have taught them
[first] to relax, to go with it. ‘Don’t worry about the grey
area’. But he would have needed that first term to teach
them to do that because…these kids… that isn’t their
background” (Math Faculty, Interview 14, 10/12/07). Most
faculty find this difficult transition from structured to open-
ended learning to be a major stumbling block. While faculty
value open-ended problem solving, they are only able to
successfully implement a few elements of it in the
curriculum. Without adequate time to provide students with
the necessary skills to succeed in open-ended environment,
faculty feel uncomfortable and often resistant to
implementing the pedagogy.
In addition, faculty need more time to create the
environment and structure for both open-ended and
autonomous experiences. Even faculty with motivation and
ideas for how to implement such experiences in the
curriculum express concern about their inability to do so due
to time limitations: “You could design the laboratory
experiments so that they can pick some of the input variables
for the laboratory experiment and then they can have
different lab groups do different experiments and then
collaborate on the report, for example [...]. But again, it’s
having time to prepare the instructions for that is the real
problem” (Engineering Faculty, Interview 17, 10/20/07).
Clearly, the practical realities of time are a major barrier to
implementing open-ended and autonomous learning
experiences for students, even for the most motivated
faculty. On the other hand, students have mixed feelings
regarding the value of these experiences.
One female student explains her enjoyment of learning how
to use CAD software in ETU Design, “Having the freedom
of just working on it whenever you can, and having to go
through and use different aspects of geometry and
mathematics, and just being able to visualise what you want
to put on the computer before you can actually create it. I
like that, having that independence to try and figure out
‘how’,[…] trial and error versus someone just telling you
step by step what to do” (Student, Interview 1, 4/18/08).
However, while some students feel autonomous and open-
ended learning improves their ability to learn, others express
frustration with this learning environment. In fact, the same
student who shared her enjoyment of open-ended CAD
experience also explains her concern of being challenged
within certain limits: “I like to be challenged to a point
where I’m not stressed out and frustrated to the point where
I can’t be happy or have fun with it, but it’s not so easy that
it becomes unimportant to me” (Student, Interview 1,
4/18/08). It seems that the pedagogy allowing for open-
ended and autonomous learning is very useful in
encouraging student motivation and a mastery goal
orientation. By allowing students to teach themselves,
faculty actively support the development of students’ self-
efficacy and create an environment for increased knowledge
retention. However, even students that enjoy and thrive in
this environment can sometimes feel overwhelmed. As a
result, it is important for faculty to lay groundwork and
provide structure for students to feel capable of succeeding.
In fact, the classroom success is highly dependent on the
scaffolding provided by faculty to support student learning
in such environments.
To this end, when considering the balance between the
level of challenge and frustration within a project/class, there
is also a risk that students may choose to not challenge
themselves adequately. For example, in the ETU Design
course many students describe the importance of choosing
projects of medium difficulty, “If I choose a really easy one
then I won’t really learn anything. If I choose the hard one
then it’s going to be way too hard. […] I already have a lot
of other stuff to do, so I want to take the hard one [and] if I
had more time I wouldn’t mind taking it” (Student, Interview
2, 11/20/07).
III. Role of Grades
While students are motivated to learn, as expected in a
mastery goal orientation, they balance that desire with a
need to ‘succeed’, often defined by grades. This fear of
failure and desire to limit workload is much more
representative of a work avoidance/performance goal
orientation. As a result faculty attempts to encourage
students to take risks and learn from failure may be
undermined. As one physics professor explains, “I think
there [are] mixed feelings. My sense is that some [students]
are a little worried in the beginning because, you know,
‘How is my grade going to be determined?’… …while others
might say ‘That’s great’” (Physics Faculty, Interview 12,
9/24/07). While many students enjoy working in groups,
performing open-ended problem solving, and/or being given
control of their education, those same students are often also
concerned about academic performance as measured by
grades.
Despite this, our data also indicates that when able to
connect course goals to personal goals, students seem to be
more intrinsically motivated. This is in distinct contrast to
seeking external approval as is typical of a performance goal
orientation. As one student explains, he is very motivated to
learn in his ETU Engineering course because it is relevant to
his interests in robotics: “I wanted to do as best as I could
and learn as much as I could because I knew that
manufacturing and computer-aided design is going to be a
big part in robotics engineering” (Student, Interview 10,
11/16/07). This attitude may be capitalized on with an open-
ended problem solving and/or autonomous learning
environments.
Some students seem to conflate conceptual
understanding with high grades, which may not be
correlated. A fear of failure encourages a performance goal
orientation. For example, one female student is very
concerned about grades because she sees them as](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/achievementgoaltheoryaframeworkforimplementinggroupworkandopen-endedproblemsolving-230806182743-b7e1516a/85/Achievement-Goal-Theory-A-Framework-For-Implementing-Group-Work-And-Open-Ended-Problem-Solving-4-320.jpg)
![Session S1C
978-1-4244-6262-9/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE October 27 - 30, 2010, Washington, DC
40th
ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
S1C-5
quantifying her understanding: “I’ve always struggled with
math, not in the fact that I get bad grades, it just doesn’t
come to me that easy so I have to take extra time and study it
even more than other people and I end up doing well […] so
I guess it’s satisfying when I get a quiz and I get 100 on it,
I’ll be like oh wow! It just makes me so happy because I do
get it you know?” (Student, Interview 6, 3/28/08). It seems
that this student primarily measures her conceptual
understanding of mathematics in terms of grades. As a
result, a faculty member may have to make an effort to
emphasize the importance of risk-taking and learning from
failure when implementing pedagogies such as group work
and autonomous or open-ended problem solving to minimize
the fears of this type of student and encourage a mastery
goal orientation.
Interestingly, not all students place this same emphasis
on grades. Others do not correlate learning with good
grades: “[Grades] are pretty important but they’re not the
most important thing. I think it’s more important to get the
information out of the course rather than just strive for an A
and not know anything, if that makes sense” (Student,
Interview 11, 4/25/08). This attitude is more conducive to
encouraging a mastery goal orientation.
However, this disconnect between grades and
understanding implies that it is also possible for students to
receive high grades without fully understanding the material.
As the physics lab instructor explains, the use of software
and highly specific directions sometimes obscures faculty’s
ability to assess understanding: “A lot of the time I think the
students just follow the instructions and click the button
they’re told to do and write down the number they are told
to write down without fully understanding what it means”
(Physics Faculty, Interview 13, 9/24/07). This lack of
emphasis on understanding is problematic for encouraging a
mastery goal orientation. If students can succeed with little
conceptual understanding, then they may have little
incentive to steer away from a solely performance goal
orientation.
Finally, concerns about grades decrease enjoyment of
many classroom experiences. For example, this student
expresses the concerns about group work, “I don’t know if it
was because it was a grading thing but it would make us
nervous. I know if I had to do a tough problem but we
weren’t graded on it, I would have a blast but if it’s graded,
you have that pressure” (Student, Interview 6, 3/28/08).
Again, it seems that faculty efforts to encourage mastery
goal orientation may be undermined by grading as an
assessment strategy.
IV. Role of Perceived Course “Usefulness”
Similar to the physics laboratory, students have indicated
that the mathematics lab does little in steering them towards
a mastery goal orientation. Interestingly, in this case
students’ lack of motivation is attributed to a perceived
course “uselessness”.
The mathematics lab course is designed to teach
students how to use Maple, mathematical and analytical
software, while reinforcing concepts from the lecture and
recitation components of the course. However, even
compared to other classes primarily designed to teach
software, such as ETU Design, students feel that this lab is
“useless”: “It just seemed like we’re never going to use
Maple so it seemed kind of pointless. […] SolidWorks has a
more mechanical…it just seems more useful to me because
you can make things on it that you’d probably use in the real
world because I’ve already used SolidWorks for other
classes” (Student, Interview 11, 4/25/08). Having little
context for understanding the purpose of learning Maple,
students immediately degrade the entire course to “useless”
undermining faculty efforts for encouraging mastery goal
orientation.
In addition, the mathematics lab is not perceived as
stimulating or interesting. As a male student explains, “I
didn’t think it was that helpful really, because it seemed
more like you were doing what you knew would be the right
answer and what you would do to get 100 on the lab, rather
than actually understanding why you were doing it”
(Student, Interview 7, 4/25/08). This atmosphere is much
more conducive to a performance goal orientation rather
than a mastery goal orientation. In such a structured
environment, it is easy for students to go through the
exercise without gaining any conceptual understanding.
There is some validity in student concerns regarding the
role of the mathematics lab course in the curriculum. In an
attempt to belay student concerns about grades, the
mathematics lab was designed to be less challenging. As the
instructor explains, “The administration said ‘Make ‘em
happy’ so we make ‘em happy and that’s fine. […] Because
the freshman year is pretty tough […] and [in the] lab they
usually get As. So that helps [students] and it makes them
feel like they’re not failing everything because some of the
tests can be hard. But they usually end up learning
something despite it…” (Math Faculty, Interview 14,
10/12/07). While students may not realize that this was the
case, they still perceive the course to be “useless” and
“unhelpful”. The lack of challenge in the course does little to
improve student motivation. As a result, this course
encourages more of a performance goal orientation while
doing little to explicitly encourage conceptual understanding
and mastery orientation.
CONCLUSIONS
This study serves to illuminate elements of a curriculum that
need to be implemented carefully in light of achievement
goal theory. This work also highlights key stumbling blocks
to encouraging a mastery goal orientation. Numerous
research studies have shown that group work as well as
autonomous and open-ended learning enhance student
motivation and retention of knowledge [12-14]. However,
these pedagogies clearly must be implemented with care to
ensure that students receive the full benefits. We propose
that faculty may be better able to make pedagogical
decisions in the classroom through education on
achievement goal theory. By implementing teaching](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/achievementgoaltheoryaframeworkforimplementinggroupworkandopen-endedproblemsolving-230806182743-b7e1516a/85/Achievement-Goal-Theory-A-Framework-For-Implementing-Group-Work-And-Open-Ended-Problem-Solving-5-320.jpg)
![Session S1C
978-1-4244-6262-9/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE October 27 - 30, 2010, Washington, DC
40th
ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
S1C-6
practices in a way that emphasizes a mastery goal
orientation, faculty can enhance student learning and
understanding.
In group work, students may implement various
strategies to accomplish their goals. For example, they may
resort to a ‘divide-and-conquer’ strategy, which aims to
reduce workload and make the project easier, thereby
encouraging a work avoidance goal orientation.
Alternatively, students may use a collaborative strategy, and
discuss the problems together, establishing a mastery goal
orientation. If faculty want to encourage more of a mastery
goal orientation, it may be useful to require students to
discuss problems and teach each other to ‘verbalize’ their
learning. In addition, it may be helpful to eliminate grades
for group work to reduce the associated stress and place the
classroom emphasis on learning rather than performance.
In open-ended and autonomous learning environments,
students have mixed feelings regarding these pedagogies’
benefits. While enjoying challenge and working on
interesting projects that they have chosen, students feel there
is a limit to the reasonable difficulty of a project. There is a
clear tension between students’ desires to learn the content
and to succeed academically as measured by grades. For
example, students would choose a medium-difficulty project
rather than challenging themselves to choose a project that
could fail.
Among pedagogies particularly effective in the
development of mastery goal orientation, faculty in this
study use group work as well as autonomous and open-
ended learning environments. However, as faculty note,
limitations of time in the curriculum make it difficult to
successfully implement either of these pedagogies. Students
are more likely to engage in ‘divide-and-conquer’ group
work and feel frustrated by open-ended problem solving or
autonomous environments if they are not given the skills to
adopt more beneficial learning strategies. Faculty may find it
useful to provide some structure when implementing open-
ended problem solving so that students know where to go for
help. This may alleviate concerns regarding frustration with
large, open-ended projects. In order to create an environment
conducive to a mastery goal orientation, faculty need time to
transition students from structured, high school learning. In
addition, faculty need time to prepare new curricula with
these goals in mind. It may be necessary to address these
issues at the institutional level as well as in individual
classrooms. Two major stumbling blocks to encouraging a
mastery goal orientation are identified: grades and perceived
course “usefulness”. The emphasis on grades can be very
distracting when attempting to promote a mastery goal
orientation. While some students see grades as quantifying
their understanding, others see their understanding as a
completely separate matter. There are also those who realize
that they do not always need to understand the material to
achieve high grades. However, by making a specific effort to
evaluate students based on understanding rather than ability
to follow directions, faculty may be able to more easily
make this judgment.
In addition, students are very uninterested by courses
that they perceive to be “useless” and generally tend to put
less effort into such courses. In this case, pedagogies such as
group work do little to increase the motivation of students.
By addressing these motivational concerns at their root,
faculty may find that such pedagogies are implemented more
successfully.
In particular, by approaching these concerns from an
AGT perspective, faculty may be able to more successfully
pinpoint these stumbling blocks. If students are more
concerned with grades than understanding or if students feel
that a course is “useless”, group work and open-ended
problem-solving or autonomous learning environments will
not be able to be implemented successfully. Therefore, it is
important for faculty to take these factors into consideration
when making teaching decisions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to thank National Science Foundation (HRD-
0624738). We would also like to thank Maria Ong of TERC
for her invaluable contributions during the stages of study
design, data collection, and initial analytical
conceptualization. We would also like to thank Elizabeth
Blair, Kathleen Farrell, and Rebecca Miller of Harvard
Graduate School of Education for their help in the initial
stages of instrument development and in data collection. We
would also like to send our thanks to Olin students Brittany
Strachota and Lillian Tseng for their assistance in coding
and analyzing the data as well as Julie Baca, Katarina Miller,
Geoffrey Pleiss, Jennifer Simonovich, and Emily Towers for
sharing their insights during the data analysis. Finally, we
would like to express our words of gratitude to the members
of our advisory board, Theda Daniels-Race of Louisiana
State University, Joni Falk of TERC, Yehudit Judy Dori of
Technion (Israel Institute of Technology), Susan Silbey of
MIT, and Barbara Whitten of Colorado College.
REFERENCES
[1] Meece , J. L., Anderman, E. M., and L. H. Anderman, “Classroom
Goal Structure, Student Motivation, and Academic Achievement”,
Annu. Rev. Psychol., 57, 2006, 487-503
[2] Pintrich, P. R., “An Achievement Goal Theory Perspective on Issues
in Motivation Terminology, Theory, and Research”, Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25, 2000, 92-104.
[3] Roebken, H., “The Influence of Goal Orientation on Student
Satisfaction, Academic Engagement and Achievement”, Electronic
Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 5, 3, 2007, 1696-
2095.
[4] Malka, A. and M. V. Covington, “Perceiving School Performance as
Instrumental to Future Goal Attainment: Effects on Graded
Performance”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 2004, 60-
80.
[5] Urdan, T. and E. Schoenfelder, “Classroom Effects on Student
Motivation: Goal Structures, Social Relationships, and Competence
Beliefs”, Journal of School Psychology, 44, 2006, 331-349.
[6] Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J.S., Guzdial,
M., and A. Palincsar, “Motivating Project-Based Learning: Sustaining](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/achievementgoaltheoryaframeworkforimplementinggroupworkandopen-endedproblemsolving-230806182743-b7e1516a/85/Achievement-Goal-Theory-A-Framework-For-Implementing-Group-Work-And-Open-Ended-Problem-Solving-6-320.jpg)
![Session S1C
978-1-4244-6262-9/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE October 27 - 30, 2010, Washington, DC
40th
ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
S1C-7
the Doing, Supporting the Learning”, Educational Psychologist, 26,
3&4, 1991,369-398.
[7] Turns, J., Gygi, K. and M. J. Prince, “How Engineering Educators
Take Student Motivation into Account”, Proceedings of the Research
in Engineering Education Symposium, Palm Cove, 2009.
[8] Nicholls, J. G., Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E. and M. Patashnick,
“Assessing Students’ Theories of Success in Mathematics: Individual
and Classroom Differences”, Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 21, 2, 1990, 109-122.
[9] Maxwell, J.A., Qualitative research design: An interactive approach.
Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2005.
[10] Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. The Discovery of Grounded Theory:
Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine Transactions, 1967.
[11] Private conversations with Dr. Carroll Seron, professor of
Criminology, Law and Society at University of California, Irvine, in
which the process of multi-coder team performance and validity of the
data with 80% inter-coder reliability was discussed and confirmed.
[12] Prince, M., “Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the
Research”, Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 3, 2004, 223-246.
[13] Truax, D. D., “Restructuring the Undergraduate Laboratory
Instructional Process”, J. Profl. Issues in Engrg. Educ. And Pract.,
133, 3, 2007, 192-198.
[14] Ingerman, A., Berge, M. and S. Booth, “Physics group work in a
phenomonographic perspective – learning dynamics as the experience
of variation and relevance”, European Journal of Engineering
Education, 34, 4, 2009, 349-358.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Casey Canfield, Student, Franklin W. Olin College of
Engineering, casey.canfield@students.olin.edu.
Yevgeniya V. Zastavker, Associate Professor of Physics,
Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering,
yevgeniya.zastavker@olin.edu.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/achievementgoaltheoryaframeworkforimplementinggroupworkandopen-endedproblemsolving-230806182743-b7e1516a/85/Achievement-Goal-Theory-A-Framework-For-Implementing-Group-Work-And-Open-Ended-Problem-Solving-7-320.jpg)
Achievement Goal Theory A Framework For Implementing Group Work And Open-Ended Problem Solving
- 1. Session S1C 978-1-4244-6262-9/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE October 27 - 30, 2010, Washington, DC 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference S1C-1 Achievement Goal Theory: A Framework for Implementing Group Work and Open-Ended Problem Solving Casey Canfield and Yevgeniya V. Zastavker Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering, casey.canfield@students.olin.edu, yevgeniya.zastavker@olin.edu Abstract - In educational psychology, achievement goal theory (AGT) has emerged as a useful framework for understanding student motivation and performance. This paper uses AGT to examine the effects of curriculum and pedagogy on student and instructor goal orientations in mathematics, physics, and engineering courses in a first-year engineering program. The following questions guide our analysis: (a) How do the existing curricula and pedagogies affect a performance goal orientation development? (b) In which ways do the existing curricula and pedagogies encourage a development of mastery goal orientation? The results of this qualitative study indicate: (1) contention between the instructors’ goals and students’ experiences of group work and open-ended learning experiences; (2) the negative impact of time pressure on successfully implementing mastery goal-oriented teaching strategies; (3) students’ maintenance of a performance goal orientation with high emphasis on grades rather than learning and engagement in work avoidance strategies to minimize work time, despite instructors’ efforts to encourage a mastery goal orientation; (4) dependence of student goal orientation on assessment mechanisms (grades) and perceived course “usefulness”. It is argued that AGT may help to frame positive changes in curricula and pedagogy to benefit overall student learning. Index Terms - Achievement goal theory, Group work, Motivation, Open-ended problem solving BACKGROUND Achievement goal theory (AGT), discussed predominantly in the educational psychology literature, has emerged as the primary theoretical framework for understanding motivation to learn [1]. In this context, learning goals are understood as dynamic states determined by some combination of students’ innate characteristics and contextual factors. Achievement goals include the full range from specific target goals such as “I want to get an A in this class” to more long-term goals such as “I want to be an engineer”. These goals dictate student perceptions and attitudes toward academic performance, the role of failure, the importance of effort, and individual competence [2]. AGT is often separated into two independent goal orientations: mastery and performance. A mastery goal orientation is characterized by a desire for self-improvement and an emphasis on learning. Students with this goal orientation discover intrinsic satisfaction from solving challenging problems. On the other hand, students with a performance goal orientation are motivated by a desire for extrinsic approval, i.e., performing well compared to others and surpassing tangible performance goals. Typically, the performance goal orientations are further divided into: • Approach-performance strategies typical of students who are motivated to perform well compared to others; and • Avoid-performance strategies used by students who are motivated to not do badly compared to others. In some cases, a third goal orientation called work- avoidance is used to describe students who seek to minimize work while maximizing performance as measured by grades [1]-[4]. Several studies have identified a positive correlation between a mastery goal orientation and student learning outcomes. In these studies, the students used learning strategies to enhance conceptual understanding and persevere in challenging tasks. These students also reported high levels of classroom engagement [1]. In comparison, conflicting data is reported about the effect of performance goal orientation on students’ learning outcomes. While an avoid-performance goal orientation has been shown to almost always be associated with negative learning outcomes, an approach-performance goal orientation has been positively correlated to improved student performance [2]. Recent literature stresses the importance of describing goal orientations as independent entities influencing student motivation individually or in a combination with each other. As such, AGT scholars propose that multiple goal orientations may be employed by students simultaneously within the same classroom environment. Although faculty efforts to promote a mastery goal orientation may not diminish the presence of performance goal orientations in a particular classroom, it is argued that the two may work symbiotically to enhance student learning. Hence, faculty encouragement of a particular goal orientation, such as mastery, may be desirable whether or not the overall
- 2. Session S1C 978-1-4244-6262-9/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE October 27 - 30, 2010, Washington, DC 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference S1C-2 curriculum and other academic structures promote other goal orientation development [3]. Roebken (2007) found that students with a mixture of performance and mastery goal orientations had the highest performance as measured by grades [3]. Similarly, Malka and Covington (2004) found evidence that target achievement goals, such as a desire for a high grade, may correlate with student learning outcomes and behavioral patterns that go beyond simple performance orientation. In some cases, a student may be driven by a mastery goal orientation and see a high grade as merely a stepping-stone to understanding [4]. Most research indicates that classroom structures, such as learning scaffolding and pedagogies employed by instructors, play an important role in determining the students’ goal orientations [1]-[8]. Faculty can encourage a mastery goal orientation by emphasizing student autonomy and ownership of the learning process, assigning appropriately challenging projects, and stressing learning over performance. However, due to intrinsic factors, such as parental involvement in student education and students’ previous learning experiences, there may still be a wide range of classroom goal structures practiced by students within the same classroom [5]. Understanding motivational theory is particularly relevant for engineering education where motivation and retention are high priorities, particularly in the first-year courses that serve as a “gateway” to engineering. In analyzing the results of a web-based survey, Roebken (2007) found that engineering students were more likely to pursue a combination of mastery and performance orientation. Slightly less likely for engineering students were a combination of work avoidance-performance orientation and a pure mastery orientation [3]. Encouragement of a particular goal orientation has been a subject of much discussion in the engineering education community. Many engineering curricula are moving towards more innovative pedagogies such as project-based learning (PjBL). This pedagogy is particularly suited for encouragement of a mastery goal orientation if implemented well [6]. In a study focusing on engineering educators, Turns et. al. (2009) found that most faculty do take student motivation into account when making instructional decisions. However, the study determined that faculty find it difficult to reconcile their desire to demonstrate the real- world relevance of their course content, one of the factors in affecting student motivation, with the high level of technical complexities, often above students’ levels of comprehension, which the authentic open-ended problems provide [7]. Using AGT as a theoretical framework, this paper explores how faculty and students discuss motivation in a first-year engineering curriculum. The following questions guide our analysis: • How do the existing curricula and pedagogies affect a performance goal orientation development? • In which ways do the existing curricula and pedagogies encourage a development of mastery goal orientation? This paper is structured around two key pedagogical methods often employed in a project-based learning (PjBL) environment: group work and open-ended problem-solving. The role of grades and perceived course “usefulness” in learning and motivation are also discussed. METHODS Part of a larger, mixed-methods investigation at three engineering institutions, this paper focuses on one of the institutions, identified here as Eastern Technical University (ETU). This case study examines ETU’s first-year mechanical engineering curriculum, during which students typically take Mechanics (ETU Physics), Calculus (ETU Math), Introduction to Manufacturing (ETU Engineering), and/or Introduction to CAD (ETU Design). Each course includes three components: lecture, recitation, and laboratory. ETU’s curriculum generally identifies lectures as the main venue through which to impart content knowledge while the recitation sessions are primarily used as an opportunity to engage with the material, ask questions, and participate in group work exercises. The laboratories are generally thought to serve as vehicles for specific technical skill development and attempt to allow students opportunities to find application for the abstract principles learned in the other portions of the class. PjBL is mostly employed in ETU’s Engineering and Design courses, while the Physics course exhibits some components of PjBL and Mathematics utilizes very little PjBL strategies. A semi-structured, open-ended, in-depth interview protocol was employed with eleven students and six faculty. “Purposive” sampling was employed and the students interviewed were “matched” to those selected in other sites in terms of gender, major, and performance [9]. Three of the interviewed students and two faculty were female. Using grounded theory, the data were coded and narrative summaries were written based upon emergent themes [10]. Validity and reliability were ensured through a group process of codebook development and peer debriefing. Inter- coder reliability was at least 80% among three coders [11]. Further analysis included exploration and comparison of patterns within and among the identified themes. DISCUSSION Our discussion is organized around four major themes identified through the analysis of the qualitative data. The themes are (1) group work; (2) open-ended problem solving; (3) grading as an assessment; and (4) the role of perceived course “usefulness”. I. Group Work The value of group activities in the classroom has been indicated by all interviewed faculty to lie primarily in allowing students to consider different perspectives and practice communication skills. This reasoning is aligned with a faculty desire to encourage a mastery goal orientation in the classroom and enhance conceptual understanding.
- 3. Session S1C 978-1-4244-6262-9/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE October 27 - 30, 2010, Washington, DC 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference S1C-3 As the mathematics laboratory instructor explains, ensuring that students verbalize their learning is key to understanding: “I think [group work] is of a huge benefit to the [students] because they actually talk to each other about the concept. Verbalizing the concept is huge” (Math Faculty, Interview 14, 10/12/07). Another distinct role that faculty perceive group work activities to play is in ‘learning by teaching’. In fact, students seem to be encouraged to ask each other for help before approaching instructors. Both faculty and students feel that this is an important part of learning. As one male student explains, “Mostly I think it’s hearing other people’s ideas that basically reinforce it in your mind […] also the best way to learn is to teach […] if you help someone with something else then it helps you reinforce it in your own mind” (Student, Interview 11, 4/25/08). This thinking is very much in line with encouraging a mastery goal orientation. By promoting a collaborative environment, rather than a competitive one, faculty can encourage students to focus on understanding rather than out-performing peers. If, as in this case, students internalize this message, they can take advantage of all opportunities to enhance understanding. Similarly, students explain that group work overall improves their learning experience despite concerns regarding academic performance. As one female student explains, group work improves her enjoyment of the course and enhances her learning: “I actually enjoyed myself tremendously. […] we would get together and we would just go back and forth with ideas […] then sometimes we’d disagree, […] and we just end up learning a lot more than if you worked by yourself because you’re just arguing points and you have to know your material in order to argue these points” (Student, Interview 6, 3/28/08). This student’s experience of the group work activity also seems to indicate a mastery goal orientation. She appreciates the value of challenging problems because she intrinsically enjoys working with others to solve them. However, not all students seem to develop this perspective. Many students feel that group work is beneficial because it makes the work easier. As a male student explains, “I liked [group work] because […] it was easier […] because if I didn’t get it, there were three people who were next to me. One of them might get it, so I liked that. Instead of me challenging myself and getting all the four problems myself, […] there were four people working on it, so it makes it really easier” (Student, Interview 2, 11/20/07). This perspective is indicative of a work avoidance goal orientation. While this student seems to believe he could challenge himself to do all the problems, he would rather not, all the while receiving full credit for them. One of the physics recitation instructors finds that students implement distinctly different group work strategies: while some students use the ‘divide-and-conquer’ method, others emphasize collaboration and discussion: “I have noticed a couple of groups […] and I do know what they’re doing. Mainly, they decided, ‘We will not sit around and try to decide [together] how to do problem one and problem two. We will split, we will each sit down and try to do one of the problems,[…] and then we will look at what we’ve done and copy it all together’. And so it’s actually […] industrial group work with different people having different tasks. […] [On the other hand,] the group of women appears to sit around in [a] circle and talk to each other. […] Certainly on the homework grades the women also seem to be doing quite well” (Physics Faculty, Interview 18, 9/24/07). While the ‘divide-and-conquer’ method establishes more of a work avoidance goal orientation, the collaboration method encourages a mastery goal orientation. Both strategies may be implemented successfully to improve academic performance. On average, gendered patterns were identified in student group work behavior. For example, groups tended to be single-sex and, as evidenced above, the group work strategies, on the average vary between all-men and all-women groups with latter usually employing a collaborative environment that encourages mastery goal orientation. However, some students seem reluctant to implement effective group work strategies due to time and performance concerns. As one physics professor explains, “You have students who just [are] on task and may not be as committed to wanting to understand [the material] because they feel pressured with the time” (Physics Faculty, Interview 12, 9/24/07). When students only have the allotted class time to work on a lab or project, there is pressure to develop more of a performance goal orientation. These concerns may negatively impact faculty efforts to encourage mastery student goal orientations in the classroom creating a contention between faculty intentions and student conscious and subconscious goal orientations as well as classroom experiences. II. Student Autonomy and Open-Ended Experiences Despite the structured nature of most of the courses in this study, a few open-ended elements as well as student autonomy have nevertheless been discussed in both student and faculty interviews. In the ETU Engineering course, the lab instructor encourages autonomy by creating opportunities for students to take initiative in their learning. He feels that the students are fully capable of teaching themselves: “I don’t want to teach [students] too much because they probably already know more than I do in some things. So I’m happy to have them read the manual and teach me. […] And so, these are freshmen two weeks after they had ever seen a machine tool in the first place, [who] are reading the manual and figuring stuff out and three weeks later they taught me how to use one part of the machine” (Engineering Faculty, Interview 17, 10/20/07).This pedagogy clearly places the instructor in the role of a guide in the classroom, rather than the keeper of knowledge. This is useful for developing a mastery goal orientation since students are given autonomy and clear responsibilities for their own learning. As with group work, many faculty are concerned that there is not enough time to adequately execute open-ended projects, both in terms of implementation and preparation.
- 4. Session S1C 978-1-4244-6262-9/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE October 27 - 30, 2010, Washington, DC 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference S1C-4 As the mathematics laboratory instructor explains, there is one professor who had tried to implement an open-ended project but found that students had trouble transitioning from highly structured, cookie-cutter high school learning environment: “[This mathematics instructor] could have had [the students for] two terms. He could have taught them [first] to relax, to go with it. ‘Don’t worry about the grey area’. But he would have needed that first term to teach them to do that because…these kids… that isn’t their background” (Math Faculty, Interview 14, 10/12/07). Most faculty find this difficult transition from structured to open- ended learning to be a major stumbling block. While faculty value open-ended problem solving, they are only able to successfully implement a few elements of it in the curriculum. Without adequate time to provide students with the necessary skills to succeed in open-ended environment, faculty feel uncomfortable and often resistant to implementing the pedagogy. In addition, faculty need more time to create the environment and structure for both open-ended and autonomous experiences. Even faculty with motivation and ideas for how to implement such experiences in the curriculum express concern about their inability to do so due to time limitations: “You could design the laboratory experiments so that they can pick some of the input variables for the laboratory experiment and then they can have different lab groups do different experiments and then collaborate on the report, for example [...]. But again, it’s having time to prepare the instructions for that is the real problem” (Engineering Faculty, Interview 17, 10/20/07). Clearly, the practical realities of time are a major barrier to implementing open-ended and autonomous learning experiences for students, even for the most motivated faculty. On the other hand, students have mixed feelings regarding the value of these experiences. One female student explains her enjoyment of learning how to use CAD software in ETU Design, “Having the freedom of just working on it whenever you can, and having to go through and use different aspects of geometry and mathematics, and just being able to visualise what you want to put on the computer before you can actually create it. I like that, having that independence to try and figure out ‘how’,[…] trial and error versus someone just telling you step by step what to do” (Student, Interview 1, 4/18/08). However, while some students feel autonomous and open- ended learning improves their ability to learn, others express frustration with this learning environment. In fact, the same student who shared her enjoyment of open-ended CAD experience also explains her concern of being challenged within certain limits: “I like to be challenged to a point where I’m not stressed out and frustrated to the point where I can’t be happy or have fun with it, but it’s not so easy that it becomes unimportant to me” (Student, Interview 1, 4/18/08). It seems that the pedagogy allowing for open- ended and autonomous learning is very useful in encouraging student motivation and a mastery goal orientation. By allowing students to teach themselves, faculty actively support the development of students’ self- efficacy and create an environment for increased knowledge retention. However, even students that enjoy and thrive in this environment can sometimes feel overwhelmed. As a result, it is important for faculty to lay groundwork and provide structure for students to feel capable of succeeding. In fact, the classroom success is highly dependent on the scaffolding provided by faculty to support student learning in such environments. To this end, when considering the balance between the level of challenge and frustration within a project/class, there is also a risk that students may choose to not challenge themselves adequately. For example, in the ETU Design course many students describe the importance of choosing projects of medium difficulty, “If I choose a really easy one then I won’t really learn anything. If I choose the hard one then it’s going to be way too hard. […] I already have a lot of other stuff to do, so I want to take the hard one [and] if I had more time I wouldn’t mind taking it” (Student, Interview 2, 11/20/07). III. Role of Grades While students are motivated to learn, as expected in a mastery goal orientation, they balance that desire with a need to ‘succeed’, often defined by grades. This fear of failure and desire to limit workload is much more representative of a work avoidance/performance goal orientation. As a result faculty attempts to encourage students to take risks and learn from failure may be undermined. As one physics professor explains, “I think there [are] mixed feelings. My sense is that some [students] are a little worried in the beginning because, you know, ‘How is my grade going to be determined?’… …while others might say ‘That’s great’” (Physics Faculty, Interview 12, 9/24/07). While many students enjoy working in groups, performing open-ended problem solving, and/or being given control of their education, those same students are often also concerned about academic performance as measured by grades. Despite this, our data also indicates that when able to connect course goals to personal goals, students seem to be more intrinsically motivated. This is in distinct contrast to seeking external approval as is typical of a performance goal orientation. As one student explains, he is very motivated to learn in his ETU Engineering course because it is relevant to his interests in robotics: “I wanted to do as best as I could and learn as much as I could because I knew that manufacturing and computer-aided design is going to be a big part in robotics engineering” (Student, Interview 10, 11/16/07). This attitude may be capitalized on with an open- ended problem solving and/or autonomous learning environments. Some students seem to conflate conceptual understanding with high grades, which may not be correlated. A fear of failure encourages a performance goal orientation. For example, one female student is very concerned about grades because she sees them as
- 5. Session S1C 978-1-4244-6262-9/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE October 27 - 30, 2010, Washington, DC 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference S1C-5 quantifying her understanding: “I’ve always struggled with math, not in the fact that I get bad grades, it just doesn’t come to me that easy so I have to take extra time and study it even more than other people and I end up doing well […] so I guess it’s satisfying when I get a quiz and I get 100 on it, I’ll be like oh wow! It just makes me so happy because I do get it you know?” (Student, Interview 6, 3/28/08). It seems that this student primarily measures her conceptual understanding of mathematics in terms of grades. As a result, a faculty member may have to make an effort to emphasize the importance of risk-taking and learning from failure when implementing pedagogies such as group work and autonomous or open-ended problem solving to minimize the fears of this type of student and encourage a mastery goal orientation. Interestingly, not all students place this same emphasis on grades. Others do not correlate learning with good grades: “[Grades] are pretty important but they’re not the most important thing. I think it’s more important to get the information out of the course rather than just strive for an A and not know anything, if that makes sense” (Student, Interview 11, 4/25/08). This attitude is more conducive to encouraging a mastery goal orientation. However, this disconnect between grades and understanding implies that it is also possible for students to receive high grades without fully understanding the material. As the physics lab instructor explains, the use of software and highly specific directions sometimes obscures faculty’s ability to assess understanding: “A lot of the time I think the students just follow the instructions and click the button they’re told to do and write down the number they are told to write down without fully understanding what it means” (Physics Faculty, Interview 13, 9/24/07). This lack of emphasis on understanding is problematic for encouraging a mastery goal orientation. If students can succeed with little conceptual understanding, then they may have little incentive to steer away from a solely performance goal orientation. Finally, concerns about grades decrease enjoyment of many classroom experiences. For example, this student expresses the concerns about group work, “I don’t know if it was because it was a grading thing but it would make us nervous. I know if I had to do a tough problem but we weren’t graded on it, I would have a blast but if it’s graded, you have that pressure” (Student, Interview 6, 3/28/08). Again, it seems that faculty efforts to encourage mastery goal orientation may be undermined by grading as an assessment strategy. IV. Role of Perceived Course “Usefulness” Similar to the physics laboratory, students have indicated that the mathematics lab does little in steering them towards a mastery goal orientation. Interestingly, in this case students’ lack of motivation is attributed to a perceived course “uselessness”. The mathematics lab course is designed to teach students how to use Maple, mathematical and analytical software, while reinforcing concepts from the lecture and recitation components of the course. However, even compared to other classes primarily designed to teach software, such as ETU Design, students feel that this lab is “useless”: “It just seemed like we’re never going to use Maple so it seemed kind of pointless. […] SolidWorks has a more mechanical…it just seems more useful to me because you can make things on it that you’d probably use in the real world because I’ve already used SolidWorks for other classes” (Student, Interview 11, 4/25/08). Having little context for understanding the purpose of learning Maple, students immediately degrade the entire course to “useless” undermining faculty efforts for encouraging mastery goal orientation. In addition, the mathematics lab is not perceived as stimulating or interesting. As a male student explains, “I didn’t think it was that helpful really, because it seemed more like you were doing what you knew would be the right answer and what you would do to get 100 on the lab, rather than actually understanding why you were doing it” (Student, Interview 7, 4/25/08). This atmosphere is much more conducive to a performance goal orientation rather than a mastery goal orientation. In such a structured environment, it is easy for students to go through the exercise without gaining any conceptual understanding. There is some validity in student concerns regarding the role of the mathematics lab course in the curriculum. In an attempt to belay student concerns about grades, the mathematics lab was designed to be less challenging. As the instructor explains, “The administration said ‘Make ‘em happy’ so we make ‘em happy and that’s fine. […] Because the freshman year is pretty tough […] and [in the] lab they usually get As. So that helps [students] and it makes them feel like they’re not failing everything because some of the tests can be hard. But they usually end up learning something despite it…” (Math Faculty, Interview 14, 10/12/07). While students may not realize that this was the case, they still perceive the course to be “useless” and “unhelpful”. The lack of challenge in the course does little to improve student motivation. As a result, this course encourages more of a performance goal orientation while doing little to explicitly encourage conceptual understanding and mastery orientation. CONCLUSIONS This study serves to illuminate elements of a curriculum that need to be implemented carefully in light of achievement goal theory. This work also highlights key stumbling blocks to encouraging a mastery goal orientation. Numerous research studies have shown that group work as well as autonomous and open-ended learning enhance student motivation and retention of knowledge [12-14]. However, these pedagogies clearly must be implemented with care to ensure that students receive the full benefits. We propose that faculty may be better able to make pedagogical decisions in the classroom through education on achievement goal theory. By implementing teaching
- 6. Session S1C 978-1-4244-6262-9/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE October 27 - 30, 2010, Washington, DC 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference S1C-6 practices in a way that emphasizes a mastery goal orientation, faculty can enhance student learning and understanding. In group work, students may implement various strategies to accomplish their goals. For example, they may resort to a ‘divide-and-conquer’ strategy, which aims to reduce workload and make the project easier, thereby encouraging a work avoidance goal orientation. Alternatively, students may use a collaborative strategy, and discuss the problems together, establishing a mastery goal orientation. If faculty want to encourage more of a mastery goal orientation, it may be useful to require students to discuss problems and teach each other to ‘verbalize’ their learning. In addition, it may be helpful to eliminate grades for group work to reduce the associated stress and place the classroom emphasis on learning rather than performance. In open-ended and autonomous learning environments, students have mixed feelings regarding these pedagogies’ benefits. While enjoying challenge and working on interesting projects that they have chosen, students feel there is a limit to the reasonable difficulty of a project. There is a clear tension between students’ desires to learn the content and to succeed academically as measured by grades. For example, students would choose a medium-difficulty project rather than challenging themselves to choose a project that could fail. Among pedagogies particularly effective in the development of mastery goal orientation, faculty in this study use group work as well as autonomous and open- ended learning environments. However, as faculty note, limitations of time in the curriculum make it difficult to successfully implement either of these pedagogies. Students are more likely to engage in ‘divide-and-conquer’ group work and feel frustrated by open-ended problem solving or autonomous environments if they are not given the skills to adopt more beneficial learning strategies. Faculty may find it useful to provide some structure when implementing open- ended problem solving so that students know where to go for help. This may alleviate concerns regarding frustration with large, open-ended projects. In order to create an environment conducive to a mastery goal orientation, faculty need time to transition students from structured, high school learning. In addition, faculty need time to prepare new curricula with these goals in mind. It may be necessary to address these issues at the institutional level as well as in individual classrooms. Two major stumbling blocks to encouraging a mastery goal orientation are identified: grades and perceived course “usefulness”. The emphasis on grades can be very distracting when attempting to promote a mastery goal orientation. While some students see grades as quantifying their understanding, others see their understanding as a completely separate matter. There are also those who realize that they do not always need to understand the material to achieve high grades. However, by making a specific effort to evaluate students based on understanding rather than ability to follow directions, faculty may be able to more easily make this judgment. In addition, students are very uninterested by courses that they perceive to be “useless” and generally tend to put less effort into such courses. In this case, pedagogies such as group work do little to increase the motivation of students. By addressing these motivational concerns at their root, faculty may find that such pedagogies are implemented more successfully. In particular, by approaching these concerns from an AGT perspective, faculty may be able to more successfully pinpoint these stumbling blocks. If students are more concerned with grades than understanding or if students feel that a course is “useless”, group work and open-ended problem-solving or autonomous learning environments will not be able to be implemented successfully. Therefore, it is important for faculty to take these factors into consideration when making teaching decisions. ACKNOWLEDGMENT We would like to thank National Science Foundation (HRD- 0624738). We would also like to thank Maria Ong of TERC for her invaluable contributions during the stages of study design, data collection, and initial analytical conceptualization. We would also like to thank Elizabeth Blair, Kathleen Farrell, and Rebecca Miller of Harvard Graduate School of Education for their help in the initial stages of instrument development and in data collection. We would also like to send our thanks to Olin students Brittany Strachota and Lillian Tseng for their assistance in coding and analyzing the data as well as Julie Baca, Katarina Miller, Geoffrey Pleiss, Jennifer Simonovich, and Emily Towers for sharing their insights during the data analysis. Finally, we would like to express our words of gratitude to the members of our advisory board, Theda Daniels-Race of Louisiana State University, Joni Falk of TERC, Yehudit Judy Dori of Technion (Israel Institute of Technology), Susan Silbey of MIT, and Barbara Whitten of Colorado College. REFERENCES [1] Meece , J. L., Anderman, E. M., and L. H. Anderman, “Classroom Goal Structure, Student Motivation, and Academic Achievement”, Annu. Rev. Psychol., 57, 2006, 487-503 [2] Pintrich, P. R., “An Achievement Goal Theory Perspective on Issues in Motivation Terminology, Theory, and Research”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 2000, 92-104. [3] Roebken, H., “The Influence of Goal Orientation on Student Satisfaction, Academic Engagement and Achievement”, Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 5, 3, 2007, 1696- 2095. [4] Malka, A. and M. V. Covington, “Perceiving School Performance as Instrumental to Future Goal Attainment: Effects on Graded Performance”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 2004, 60- 80. [5] Urdan, T. and E. Schoenfelder, “Classroom Effects on Student Motivation: Goal Structures, Social Relationships, and Competence Beliefs”, Journal of School Psychology, 44, 2006, 331-349. [6] Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J.S., Guzdial, M., and A. Palincsar, “Motivating Project-Based Learning: Sustaining
- 7. Session S1C 978-1-4244-6262-9/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE October 27 - 30, 2010, Washington, DC 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference S1C-7 the Doing, Supporting the Learning”, Educational Psychologist, 26, 3&4, 1991,369-398. [7] Turns, J., Gygi, K. and M. J. Prince, “How Engineering Educators Take Student Motivation into Account”, Proceedings of the Research in Engineering Education Symposium, Palm Cove, 2009. [8] Nicholls, J. G., Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E. and M. Patashnick, “Assessing Students’ Theories of Success in Mathematics: Individual and Classroom Differences”, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 2, 1990, 109-122. [9] Maxwell, J.A., Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2005. [10] Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine Transactions, 1967. [11] Private conversations with Dr. Carroll Seron, professor of Criminology, Law and Society at University of California, Irvine, in which the process of multi-coder team performance and validity of the data with 80% inter-coder reliability was discussed and confirmed. [12] Prince, M., “Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research”, Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 3, 2004, 223-246. [13] Truax, D. D., “Restructuring the Undergraduate Laboratory Instructional Process”, J. Profl. Issues in Engrg. Educ. And Pract., 133, 3, 2007, 192-198. [14] Ingerman, A., Berge, M. and S. Booth, “Physics group work in a phenomonographic perspective – learning dynamics as the experience of variation and relevance”, European Journal of Engineering Education, 34, 4, 2009, 349-358. AUTHOR INFORMATION Casey Canfield, Student, Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering, casey.canfield@students.olin.edu. Yevgeniya V. Zastavker, Associate Professor of Physics, Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering, yevgeniya.zastavker@olin.edu.