Teacher Preferences for Mastery-Oriented Students

Download Teacher Preferences for Mastery-Oriented Students

Post on 20-Feb-2017

213 views

Category:

Documents

1 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • This article was downloaded by: [Nipissing University]On: 08 October 2014, At: 15:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

    The Journal of Educational ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20

    Teacher Preferences for Mastery-Oriented StudentsGregory Schraw a & Billy Aplin aa The University of Nebraska-LincolnPublished online: 02 Apr 2010.

    To cite this article: Gregory Schraw & Billy Aplin (1998) Teacher Preferences for Mastery-Oriented Students, The Journal ofEducational Research, 91:4, 215-221, DOI: 10.1080/00220679809597546

    To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220679809597546

    PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

    Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations orwarranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsedby Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectlyin connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

    This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

    http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00220679809597546http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220679809597546http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

  • Teacher Preferences for Mastery =Oriented Students GREGORY SCHRAW BILLY APLIN The University of Nebraska-Lincoln

    ABSTRACT The relationship between college students goal Orientations and teachers subjective ratings of students was examined. Mastery (concern with improving competence) and performance (concern with proving competence to others) goals were distinguished according to Dweck and Leggetts (1988) theory. The authors predicted that the teachers would give more favorable ratings to hi&-mastery students than to low-mastery students on 12 separate dimensions, including likelihood of being a successful teacher. The relationship among goals, critical thinking skills, and final course grades was also examined. The results showed a strong relationship between mastery goals and teacher ratings, but no relationship among goals, grades, and an objective measure of critical thinking. Implications for future research are discussed.

    eachers and students form dynamic relationships that T affect classroom activities and academic achievement. These relationships are based in part on the beliefs that teachers have about their students (Kagan, 1992). Our pur- pose in the present research was to examine the relationship between student goal orientations and teacher perceptions of students.

    The present research was guided by the distinction between mastery and performance goal orientations (Ames, 1992; Ames & Archer, 1988; Blumenfeld, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Mastery goals are those held by individuals who seek to improve their competence. Those students are characterized by a desire to increase their knowledge and understand a topic better regardless of performance outcomes. Performance goals are those held by individuals who seek to prove their competence. Those students are characterized by a desire to do better than others and to publicly demonstrate their competence but may have little desire to improve their understanding of a topic otherwise.

    According to previous research, student goal orientations are related to classroom behavior and long-term academic achievement in both children (Ames &Archer, 1988; Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Schunk, 1996) and adults (Schraw, Horn, Thorndike-Christ, & Bruning, 1995). High-mastery individ- uals view challenge favorably (Ames & Archer), report a great sense of self-regulatory control (Roedel, Schraw, &

    Plake, 1994), are likely to use deeper processing strategies while learning (Greene & Miller, 1996), and are persistent (Miller, Behrens, Greene, & Newman, 1993). In general, individuals characterized by a strong mastery orientation are likely to engage in adaptive learning behaviors, which include strategy shifting, increased effort, reanalyzing a problem, and a decision to persist in the face of difficulty (Meece & Holt, 1993; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990). In con- trast, individuals characterized by a strong performance ori- entation are likely to engage in maladaptive learning behav- iors, which include low task engagement, low persistence, and the occasional adoption of a helpless response. Also, high-performance students more frequently use shallow strategies than high-mastery students do (Greene & Miller; Schraw et al.).

    Recent research also indicates that academic goal orien- tations are independent of one another (Meece & Holt, 1993; Miller et al., 1993; Roedel et al., 1994): A student may be high on both dimensions, low on both, or high on one and low on the other. Surprisingly, where a student lies on either dimension appears to be independent of measured ability (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Schraw et al., 1995).

    In the present study, we examined the relationship be- tween student goal orientations and teachers subjective rat- ings of students. We know of no study that has examined how others (i.e., fellow students and teachers) view students as a function of goal orientations. One would expect teach- ers to prefer high-mastery students because they are more flexible and adaptive. We assume that teacher preferences for high-mastery students affect their perceptions of stu- dents cognitive skills, personal characteristics, and future prospects as teachers. Teacher preferences may also affect grades (Kagan, 1992).

    Our main research question was whether teachers give more favorable ratings to high-mastery students. Teachers may prefer high-mastery students because they are more likely to persist in challenging situations and may be more likely to engage in cooperative classroom activities that assist other students. Specifically, Dweck and Leggetts

    Address correspondence to Gregory Schraw, Department of Educational Psychology, 1313 Seaton Hall, The University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, N E 68588.

    215

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Nip

    issi

    ng U

    nive

    rsity

    ] at

    15:

    11 0

    8 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

  • The Journal of Educational Research

    (1988) theory predicts that high-mastery students will be more adaptive, cooperative, and optimistic in the classroom and more likely to attribute their success to teachers (Ames & Archer, 1988).

    We tested this hypothesis by asking 9 college instructors to rate teacher-education students who were enrolled in a dis- cussion-based course on human development (see the Method section for further details). The students were grouped into one of four mutually exclusive categories: high- masteryihigh-performance, high-masteryflow-performance, low-masteryihigh-performance, and low-masteryflow-per- formance. We made three predictions based on these cate- gories. First, we predicted that none of the four groups would differ on an objective test of cognitive thinking skills or on teacher ratings of those skills. This prediction implies that teachers do not perceive a relationship between students goal orientations and thinking skills. Second, we predicted that teachers would rate high-mastery students more favor- ably on 12 separate classroom dimensions. The dimensions included adaptive behaviors such as effort, persistence, posi- tive response to negative feedback, and social effectiveness in a classroom setting. Third, we predicted that the high-mas- tery students would receive better grades than the low-mas- tery students would. We based this prediction on the assump- tion that high-mastery students use more strategies and work harder than low-mastery students do.

    We also asked the teachers to provide written descrip- tions of the characteristics they liked and disliked about each student. We expected that the high-mastery students would receive more favorable responses and the high-per- formance students would receive more unfavorable responses. We sorted written responses into five general cat- egories (see Scoring section for further details). We used these categories to provide a descriptive account of which characteristics teachers preferred in their students.

    Method

    Participants

    Nine doctoral students (5 women, 4 men) enrolled in an educational psychology program at a large midwestern uni- versity participated as instructors. Four were completing dissertations in human development, 4 were completing dissertations in school psychology, and 1 was completing a dissertation in human factors. None had previous teaching experience in public or private schools. Each instructor taught one section of an undergraduate human development class at a large midwestern university. Each instructor had taught the same class at least two times before their current teaching assignment. Classes ranged in size from 8 to 12 undergraduate students (M = 9.63, SD = 2.47). Each class met once a week for 2 hr over 13 weeks and focused on small-group discussions of course readings. Readings were identical across all sections.

    The student participants included 65 undergraduates (4 1

    women, 24 men) enrolled in a required educational psy- chology course. Twenty-three eligible students elected not to participate. Participation was in partial fulfillment of a course requirement. All participants were currently enrolled in the teacher certification program. Approximately 80% of the students were juniors, 15% were sophomores, and 5% were seniors.

    Materials and Procedures

    The teachers completed the 25-item goals inventory developed by Roedel et al. (1994) during the 2nd week of the semester. This inventory consists of 13 mastery items (e.g., I preferkhallenging tasks even if I dont do as well at them) and 12 performance items (e.g., I feel angry when I dont do as well as others; see Appendix A). The partici- pants indicated how true each statement was about them on a 5-point scale ranging from always false to always true. The teachers completed the goals inventory in their offices and returned them via campus mail.

    The students were tested outside of their regular classes during the 2nd week of classes in a 1 -hr testing session that included the goals inventory and three subsections of the Watsonalaser Critical Thinking test ( I 980). The Wat- sonalaser test is administered to high school and college students to evaluate higher order thinking skills. Each stu- dent completed the recognition of assumptions, deductive reasoning, and interpretation of ideas subsections. Each of these tests included 16 items on which individuals indicated whether assumptions were met or unmet. The participants were allowed as much time as needed to complete the tests.

    The teachers and students met for I I weeks after the ini- tial testing session without any further contact from the researcher. At the end of this period, the teachers were asked to complete a 12-item questionnaire for each partici- pating student (see Appendix B). These questions addressed whether the students enjoyed being challenged in class (i.e., a prototypic characteristic of the mastery orientation), understood issues at a deeper level, and contributed to class discussions. The teachers also judged whether the students would be effective teachers in the future. Last, the teachers provided a grade for each student on a 9-point scale ranging from A+ to C- and a written description of the student char- acteristics they liked and disliked most.

    Scoring

    The goals inventory, Watson-Glasser subtests, and teacher ratings were scored objectively. We used inductive content analysis procedures described by Straws and Corbin (1990) and Weber (1985) to categorize written re- sponses in an iterative manner. An initial inspection of teacher comments regarding favorable student characteris- tics revealed 62 unique attributes that were grouped into five broader categories. We selected these categories based on common broad themes among the 62 attributes. For

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Nip

    issi

    ng U

    nive

    rsity

    ] at

    15:

    11 0

    8 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

  • MarcWApril 1998 [Vol. 91(No. 4)] 217

    example, the engagement category included attributes such as does good work, is involved in discussions, is persistent, is prepared for class, actively seeks help, and participates in class activities. These five categories were labeled social/ communication skills, cognitive skills, engagement, adap- tiveness, and personality variables.

    We operationalized these categories as follows: Social/ communication skills included attributes related to the stu- dents ability to understand and communicate with others, such as being empathetic, a good listener, an initiator of communication, and cooperative. Cognitive skills included attributes related to the students knowledge, problem-solv- ing skills, or general aptitude, such as being thoughtful, reflective, an active learner, a clear thinker, creative, and insightful. Engagement included attributes related to the students participation and motivation, such as works hard, is persistent, likes challenges, values learning, displays drive, and participates in class. Adaptiveness included attributes related to the students flexibility and ability to present and understand multiple perspectives, such as enter- tains multiple perspectives, responds well to feedback, compensates for weaknesses, seeks help, and copes well with failure. Personality included attributes related to per- sonality traits or characteristic behaviors, such as humor, punctuality, independence, and pleasantness.

    We scored each written protocol together in order to bet- ter evaluate the category membership of each teacher description. We believed that assigning statements to cate- gories would be more reliable if we discussed the sorting process as it occurred. Each teacher description was assigned to one of the five categories described above. All disputes were settled through discussion, such that there was complete agreement between the two scorers. An inspection of unfavorable characteristics yielded 6 1 unique attributes that led to the same five categories used to classi- fy favorable responses.

    Results

    We conducted five sets of analyses, including (a) a factor- analytic replication of the Roedel et al. (1994) instrument, (b) Watson-Glaser critical thinking scores, (c) teacher rat- ings, (d) favorable and unfavorable personal reactions, and (e) a comparison of student and teacher goal orientations.

    Factor Analysis of the Goals Inventory

    We performed a principal-axis factor analysis on the goals inventory to replicate the factor structure reported by Roedel et al. (1994). The two-factor solution of Roedel et al. was replicated almost exactly. The Mastery subscale included eight items (i.e., 1, 6, 10, 1 I , 12, 16, 17, and 22), with a Cronbachs alpha of .82. This factor explained 36% of the total sample variation. The Performance subscale included five items (i.e., 2, 13, 14, 15, and 24), with loadings in excess of .40 and a Cronbachs alpha of .76. This factor explained

    28% of the sample variation. Additional tests revealed that the two subscales were statistically independent. This find- ing also replicated the findings of Roedel et al.

    Watson-Glaser Test

    The 65 students were partitioned into four mutually exclusive groups based on median splits of composite scores for the mastery and performance scales. These groups included those who were high masteryhigh perfor- mance, high mastery/low performance, low masteryhigh performance, and low mastery/low performance. Descrip- tive statistics and the number of individuals in each of the four cells are shown in Table 1.

    We compared the four groups described above on a com- posite score of the 48 Watson-Glaser critical thinking items (Cronbachs alpha of .87). A 2 x 2 (Mastery: high, low x Per- formance: high, low) analysis of variance (ANOVA) did not produce any significant effects. Means and standard devia- tions are reported in Table 1. This finding indicates that goal

    ~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~

    Table 1.-Means and Standard Deviations for Critical Thinking, Teacher Ratings, and Final Grade

    Mastery orientation High Low

    Variable M SD M SD

    Watson-Glaser Rating 1 Rating 2 Rating 3 Rating 4 Rating 5 Rating 6 Rating 7 Rating 8 Rating 9 Rating 10 Rating 11 Rating 12 Grade

    High performance orientation

    n = 14 n = I5 31.5 5.14 34.0 5.56 3.7 .6 1 2.9 .64 4. I 1.20 3.6 .63 3.8 .86 3.1 .64 4.5 .5 1 4.3 .70 4.4 .75 4.1 .64 4. I .77 3.2 .4 I 4.1 .47 3.3 .49 4.4 .64 4.3 .70 3.6 I .oo 3.1 .83 4.8 .43 4.0 .65 4.2 .80 3.6 .5 I 4.6 .5 I 3.9 .7 1 7.4 I .90 7.7 .83

    WatsonGlaser Rating 1 Rating 2 Rating 3 Rating 4 Rating 5 Rating 6 Rating 7 Rating 8 Rating 9 Rating 10 Rating 1 1 Rating 12 Grade

    Low performance orientation

    n = 11 n = 19

    34.6 4.75 32.6 5.75 3.9 .47 3.2 .67 2.9 .83 2.9 .93 3.7 .84 3.6 .5 I 4.4 S O 4.3 .72 4.5 .5 1 4. I .55 3.9 30 3.5 .60 3.5 .79 3.4 .59 4.3 .77 4.3 .55 3.7 .77 3.4 .67 4.5 6 2 4.2 .37 4.0 .77 3.3 .72 4.3 .57 3.9 .45 7.3 2.2 1 7.3 I .19

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Nip

    issi

    ng U

    nive

    rsity

    ] at

    15:

    11 0

    8 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

  • 218 The Journal of Educational Research

    orientations were not associated with differences in critical thinking skills, an outcome that is consistent with recent empirical findings (Miller et al., 1993) and with theoretical predictions (Dweck & Leggett, 1988).

    Teacher Ratings

    We performed a 2 x 2 x 12 repeated-measures ANOVA that examined differences in teacher ratings among the four groups. This analysis yielded a significant main effect for the mastery dimension, F( 1, 6 I ) = 54.83, MSE = .696, p < .001, This effect was due to higher ratings for high-mastery than for low-mastery students. Neither the performance variable nor the two-way interaction between mastery and performance reached significance.

    In addition, the repeated main effect for type of rating was significant, F( 11,671) = 25.86, MSE = .44, p c .001. To examine this effect in more detail, we performed individual ANOVAs for each of the I2 ratings with p < .005 as our cri- terion for significance. In this analysis, Ratings 1, 6, 7, 10, 1 I , and 12 reached significance. Ratings 2, 4, and 8 were not significant, even when the traditional significance crite- rion of p c .05 was used. Ratings 3, 5, and 9 were signifi- cant with the traditional criterion, but not with the conserva- tive value adopted here.

    These findings support our prediction that teachers would view high-mastery students in a more positive light than low- mastery students. An inspection of the 12 ratings revealed that the teachers preferred the high-mastery students on sev- eral dimensions, including willingness to work hard, cooper- ative social skills, and likelihood of future success. Of spe- cial interest, the teachers viewed the high-mastery students as significantly more likely than the low-mastery students to succeed as teachers.

    Final Course Grades

    We recorded grades on a 9-point scale, ranging from A+ to C-, because none of the participants scored lower than a C-. There was no significant difference among the groups (see Table 1). One reason is that the teachers conducted a mastery-based class in which the students had the opportu- nity to redo course work and earn additional credit through class contributions. As a result, most students received a B+ or higher, leading to a highly restricted range of scores. Previous studies that have examined the relationship between goal orientations and course grades reported a sig- nificant advantage for high-mastery students (Miller et al., 1993; Schraw et al., 1995), although those studies were conducted in classrooms with far less restricted final grades.

    Teacher Comments

    The teachers were asked to comment in writing on characteristics they liked most and disliked most about

    students. Descriptive statistics appear in Table 2. We per- formed a 2 x 2 x 5 x 2 (Mastery: high, low x Perfor- mance: high, low x Type of Characteristic: social skills, cognitive skills, engagement, adaptiveness, personality x Valence: positive, negative comments) repeated measures ANOVA. The first two variables were between subjects, and the latter two were within-subject manipulations. This analysis yielded a significant main effect for type of characteristic, F(4, 244) = 8.47, MSE = .382, p < .001. A comparison of means, using Tukeys honestly significant different test revealed, that engagement characteristics were reported significantly more often than were charac- teristics in the other four categories. The main effect for valence also reached significance, F( 1, 61) = 24.72, MSE = .036, p < .001, with positive characteristics reported more than negative ones. The two-way interaction between the characteristic and valence variables also was significant, F(4, 244) = 7.58, MSE = .350, p < .001. The interaction was due in part to a greater proportion of engagement characteristics in the positive comments than in the negative comments. In contrast, negative comments about adaptiveness were mentioned with greater frequen- cy than positive comments about adaptiveness.

    Table 2.-Means and Standard Deviations for Positive and Negative Teacher Comments

    Mastery orientation High Low

    Teacher comment M SD M SD

    High performance orientation

    n = 14

    Positive comments Social skills S O .52 Cognitive skills .29 .6 I

    1.14 1.09 Engagement Adaptiveness .2 I .58 Personality .29 .47

    Negative comments Social skills .2 1 .43 Cognitive skills .I4 .36 Engagement S O .65 Adaptiveness .2 I .58 Personality .oo .oo

    n = 15

    .47 .64

    .33 .49

    .93 .96

    .33 .62

    .87 .I4

    . I3 .35

    .20 .4 1

    .33 .49

    .I3 .35

    .21 .59

    Low performunee orientation

    n = 11

    Positive comments Social skills .41 .72 Cognitive skills .35 .70 Engagement .76 .75 Adaptiveness .53 . I 2 Personality .65 .79

    Social skills . I8 .53 Cognitive ski1 Is .I2 .33 Engagement .I2 .33 Adaptiveness .47 . I2 Personality .I2 .33

    Negative comments

    n = 19

    .32 .48 3 2 .48 .95 .85 .26 .56 .47 .61

    .I6 .37

    .26 .56

    .31 S O

    .58 .w

    .2 1 .42

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Nip

    issi

    ng U

    nive

    rsity

    ] at

    15:

    11 0

    8 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

  • March/April1998 [Vol. 91(No. 411 219

    The Relationship Between Teacher and Student Goal Orientation

    We used the average score for the mastery and perform- ance subscales to examine whether teachers differed from students (see Table 3). We performed a 2 x 2 (Type of Rater: teacher, student x Type of Goal: mastery, performance) ANOVA, in which the type of goal variable was a within- subject variable. There was no main effect for type of rater variable. In contrast, the repeated main effect for type of goal reached significance, F(1, 72) = 33.65, MSE = .038, p < .001. This effect was due to a significantly higher aver- age score on the Mastery subscale. The two-way interaction also reached significance, F( 1, 72) = 8.97, MSE = .038, p < .O I . A comparison of the four means, using the Tukey- Kramer test for unequal ns (see Kirk, 1982, p. 120). re- vealed that teachers mastery scores were significantly higher than their performance scores, whereas this differ- ence was not significant in the student group.

    Discussion

    In the present study, we examined the relationship between student goal orientations and teachers subjective ratings of students. We hypothesized that teachers form more favorable opinions of high-mastery students than of low-mastery students. We found that teachers believe that high-mastery students are harder working, have better in- class social skills, will make better teachers, and are more likely to succeed than low-mastery students are. Those impressions are independent of both perceived (i.e., teacher ratings) and measured (i.e., the Watson-Glaser test) think- ing skills. Thus, differences in impressions cannot be attrib- uted to either real or perceived cognitive differences. How- ever, despite significant differences between high- and low-mastery students with respect to teacher ratings, the students did not differ with respect to final grades. We assume this finding is due in part to restriction of range among final grades in the present study. A replication in which a wider range of scores is used might reveal positive relationships among mastery goals, teacher ratings, and grades, consistent with Miller et al. (1993) and Schraw et al. 7 1995).

    Table 3.-Means and Standard Deviations for the Mastery and Performance Subscales for Teachers and Students

    Goal orientation Group Mastery Performance

    Teacher M SD

    Student M SD

    4.33 .34

    3.81 .43

    2.90 .52

    3.36 .66

    A content analysis of the teachers written comments indicated that they made more favorable than unfavorable responses about their students. Favorable comments were made with the same frequency for both high-mastery and low-mastery students. The teachers tended to view student engagement positively and lack of adaptiveness negatively. Currently, we are conducting a series of in-depth interviews with teachers about their perceptions of high- and low-mas- tery students. We believe these interviews will reveal differ- ences that could not be detected through the use of brief written comments.

    The goals that the teachers held also differed from the students goals. The teachers mastery scores were signifi- cantly higher than their performance scores, whereas the students mastery and performance scores did not differ. The fact that all of the teachers in this study were high-mas- tery individuals may explain why they viewed high-mastery students in a more favorable light.

    In contrast, the students relative standing on the per- formance dimension had no bearing on teacher ratings or on any of the other variables used in this study. This pattern of results suggests that it is a students standing on the mastery dimension alone that is related to teacher-student percep- tions. Taken at face value, this finding suggests that teach- ers find it easier to interact with high-mastery students. Over time, this preference may lead to differences in the amount and type of instruction students receive, as well as personal encouragement and teacher help.

    Taken collectively, our findings replicated a number of earlier studies and addressed several questions that have not been examined previously. As with previous research, we found two independent goal orientations that were not relat- ed to measures of ability (Ames, 1992; Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988; Miller et al., 1993). The results of the pres- ent study further indicated that teachers prefer students high on the mastery dimension regardless of their standing on the performance dimension. The teachers rated the high-mas- tery students as more capable and having more potential as future educators. Those differences were not related to incoming differences in critical thinking skills. In addition, although the teachers gave mastery-oriented students high- er ratings, those differences did not translate into higher grades. This finding warrants further research with a less restricted range of scores.

    These findings extend the research on academic goal ori- entations to the dynamic relationship between teachers and students. Mastery-oriented individuals may make better stu- dents and future teachers, at least according to the teachers who teach them. Future research is needed to explore sev- eral aspects of this claim in more detail. One aspect is to conduct longitudinal studies that track future teachers through their beginning years of teaching. On the basis of theory and the present research, one would expect mastery- oriented teachers to be more successful and more resistant to burnout. A second avenue for future research is to exam- ine how high-mastery teachers interact with colleagues.

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Nip

    issi

    ng U

    nive

    rsity

    ] at

    15:

    11 0

    8 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

  • 220 The Journal of Educational Research

    One would expect them to have better working relationships with fellow teachers and administrators. A third is to exam- ine whether the positive evaluations that high-mastery stu- dents receive are related to their ability to procure a job in todays competitive market.

    The present research suggests at least two implications for educational practice with older students. One is that teacher preferences may lead to biased relationships with students. Although additional research is needed in this regard, it seems plausible that college teachers may favor mastery-oriented students. This preference may lead to dif- ferences in how much attention, feedback, and motivation- al support students receive. Teacher-trainers may wish to make their students aware of this phenomenon in the hope that such awareness will eliminate bias.

    A second implication is that whenever possible teachers may wish to create a mastery-oriented classroom that enables high-performance students to shift their goals toward personal growth. Research with children (Midgley, Anderman, & Hicks, 1995) and middle school students (Ames & Archer, 1998) suggests that creating a high-mas- tery environment improves learning and motivation for all students. Focusing on mastery aspects of learning such as effort, persistence, help seeking, and diffusion of competi- tion may help high-performance students to engage in mas- tery-type behaviors that the teachers in the present study rated as highly favorable.

    Finally, let us emphasize the exploratory nature of this research. There are no studies currently on how goal orien- tations affect teacher-student relationships. Follow-up stud- ies are needed that examine those relationships in more detail. In addition, researchers should examine whether a similar pattern occurs among younger students (e.g., K-8). We predict that these relationships will be stronger than those observed among college students, in part because of greater variability among students and in part because younger students may be affected more by teacher-student interactions.

    REFERENCES

    Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84. 26 1-27 I .

    Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement in the classroom: Student learning strategies and motivational processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267.

    Blumenfeld, P. C. (1992). Classroom learning and motivation: Clarifying and expanding goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 272-28 I .

    Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. S. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.

    Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personalify and Social Psychology, 54, 5-1 2.

    Greene, B. A., & Miller, R. B. (1996). Influences on achievement: Goals, perceived ability, and cognitive engagement. Contemporary Education- a1 Psychology. 21. 181-192.

    Kagan, D. H. (1992). Implications of research on teacher beliefs. Educa- tional Psychologist. 27, 65-90.

    Kirk, R. E. (1982). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.

    Meece. J. L.. & Holt, K. (1993). A pattern analysis of students achieve-

    ment goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 582-590. Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students goal ori-

    entations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 5 14-523.

    Midgley, C., Anderman, E., & Hicks, L. (1995). Differences between ele- mentary and middle school teachers and students: A goal theory per- spective. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 90-1 13.

    Miller, R. B., Behrens, J. T., Greene, B. A,, & Newman, D. (1993). Goals and perceived ability: Impact on student valuing, self-regulation, and persistence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18. 2-14.

    Pintrich. P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 3 3 4 0 .

    Roedel, T. D., Schraw, G., & Plake, B. S. (1994). Validation of a measure of learning and performance goal orientations. Educational and Psy- chological Measurement,

    Schraw, G., Horn, C., Thorndike-Christ, T., & Bruning, R. (1995). Aca- demic goal orientations and student classroom achievement. Contempo- rary Educational Psychology, 20, 359-368.

    Schunk, D. H. (1996). Goal and self-evaluative influences during chil- drens cognitive skill learning. American Educational Research Associ- ation, 33. 359-382.

    Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theon1 procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. (1980). Crirical thinking appraisal. New York: The Psychological Corporation.

    Weber, R. P. ( 1 985). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    APPENDIX A Goals Inventory

    I . I enjoy challenging school assignments. 2. It is important for me to get better grades than my classmates. 3. I persevere even when I am frustrated by a task. 4. Academic success is largely due to effort. 5 . Sticking with a challenging task is rewarding. 6. I try even harder after 1 fail at something. 7. Adapting to challenging circumstances is the key to success. 8. I am willing to cheat to get a good grade. 9. I work hard even when 1 dont like a class.

    10. I am very determined to reach my goals. 11. Personal mastery of a subject is important to me. 12. I work very hard to be a good learner. 13. I like others to think I know a lot. 14. It bothers me the whole day when I make a big mistake. 15. I feel frustrated when I do not do as well as others. 16. I am naturally motivated to learn. 17. I prefer challenging tasks even if I dont do as well at them. 18. I would rather have people think I am lazy than stupid. 19. Learning can be judged best by the grade one gets. 20. My grades do not necessarily reflect how much I learn. 21. Mistakes are a healthy part of learning. 22. I feel most satisfied when I work hard to achieve something. 23. I would rather be thought of as smart than hard working. 24. It is important to me to always do better than others. 25. Every student can learn to be a successful learner.

    APPENDIX B Teacher Rating Statements

    I , Works hard to learn the material. 2. Actively participates in class discussions. 3. Enjoys challenge. 4. Possesses good critical thinking skills. 5 . Understands issues at a deeper level. 6. Relates well with others. 7. Enjoys learning. 8. Reacts well to constructive feedback. 9. Would be enjoyable to work with on a permanent basis.

    10. Has a high potential as a teacher. I I . Has a healthy perspective on grades and class standing. 12. Will be successful in future pursuits.

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Nip

    issi

    ng U

    nive

    rsity

    ] at

    15:

    11 0

    8 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

  • Arb Education Policy Review $63 Institutions, $36 Individuals (add $15 postage outside the U.S.) HELDREF Change: lbe Magazine of Hld~er hmh# $75 Institutions, $38 Individuals (add $15 postage outside the US.)

    Education The C h d ~ House: A Joumi ol Edudoml Research Controversy, and hwtkcs

    $58 Institutions, $32 Individuals (add $15 postage outside the US.)

    College leaching

    lbe Journal of Econodc Edwtlon

    $60 Institutions, $33.50 Individuals [add $13 postage outside the U.S.)

    $75 Institutions, $37.50 Individuals (add $13 postage outside the US.)

    lbe kuml o f EducaUoul ResearcL $80 Institutions, $40 Individuals (add $15 postage outside the U.S.) lolnuiofEduutlolfor~nl!ss $58 Institutions, $35 Individuals (add $15 postage outside the US.)

    Er more than 25 years, Heldref has published award-

    winning journals and magazines for elementary school through gradu-

    ate level educators. These publica- tions provide new ideas and a

    TLC louml o f Envhauntri Edwrtlon $72 Institutions, $37 Individuals (add $13 postage outside the US.)

    The lounui of Education $68 Institutions, $35 Individuals

    (add $13 postage outside the U.S.)

    means to communicate for scholars, teachers, students,

    and concerned citizens. Written and edited by teachers, teacher

    out the education community, Hel- dref s education publications offer

    teachers and professors a treasury of ideas. Whether you are interested in

    projects for a fifth-grade science class, trends on college campuses, articles on teaching, economics, or ideas in

    education publication for you.

    educators, and scholars from through- \ PrmntillgkLodkilun \ $72 Institutions, $38 Individuals

    (add $13 postage outside the U.S.) RE- R&blllt.tkn a d Ed& for Bliadmss and Vkud Impainwrt

    $62 Institutions, $31 Individuals (add $12 postage outside the U.S.)

    k k r c e A c t M t k s . C l r s s r o o n ~ m d Crrrlculum Ideas

    $58 Institutions, $32 Individuals (add $13 postage outside the US.)

    $58 Institutions, $35 Individuals (add $15 postage outside the US.)

    The Social Studies arts education, Heldref has an

    For more information, visit our Web site at: www.heldref.org

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Nip

    issi

    ng U

    nive

    rsity

    ] at

    15:

    11 0

    8 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

Recommended

View more >