MOTIVATIONAL PATTERNS AND USE OF EFFECTIVE LEARNING STRATEGIES AMONG FIRST YEAR UNIVERSITY STUDENTS Jennifer Archer Jill Scevak Melissa Monfries Department of Educational Studies University of Newcastle Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Gold Coast, November, 1991 Introduction Educators of university students, like educators at all levels, want students who are keen to learn, who want to develop a real understanding of what they are studying. Often, however, educators despair that too few students display this attitude towards their work. The present study presents an exploration of the motivation of first year university students and a linking of these motivations with variables that indicate a positive approach to learning, for example, a willingness to take further courses, and a willingness to tackle demanding tasks. In addition, the relationship between students' motivational orientations and their reported use of learning strategies that are likely to enhance understanding is explored. An emerging theory of motivation to learn focuses on the achievement goal or goals that a person holds (Weiner, 1990). Two types of goal in particular have been proposed. Because the construct of goals as a significant motivational variable emerged from several quarters, the goals have been variously labeled but share similar theoretical distinctions. One goal has been referred to as a performance goal (Ames & Archer, 1988; Elliott & Dweck, 1988), an ego incentive (Maehr & Braskamp, 1986), or ego involved (Nicholls, 1984). Those who hold this goal are concerned primarily with demonstrating their ability, and this is shown to best advantage by out performing others, particularly if success is achieved with little effort. The second achievement goal has been labeled a mastery goal (Ames & Archer, 1988), a task incentive (Maehr & Braskamp, 1986), task involved (Nicholls, 1984), or a learning goal (Elliott & Dweck, 1988). Those who hold this goal want to develop their competence on a task or increase their understanding of a subject and anticipate that this end will be achieved by working hard. These two goals are referred to subsequently in this paper as performance and mastery goals. Orientation toward a goal is presumed to be a function of individual differences or to be induced by situational constraints. In situations where one goal does not appear more salient than the other, individual differences would be expected to emerge (Bandura & Dweck, 1981; Dweck & Bempechat, 1983; Ames & Archer, 1987). Alternatively, the imposition of different learning structures has been shown to make one goal more salient than the other (Ames & Ames, 1981; Ames, Ames & Felker, 1977; Ames & Felker, 1979). In Ames' experiments, the setting up of a competitive learning structure (where one child was instructed to try to do better than another) appeared to precipitate the adoption of a performance goal , whereas the setting up of a more individualistic learning structure (where two children worked independently and were told not to be concerned with the performance of the other) encouraged the adoption of a mastery goal. There is considerable evidence that achievement goals are an important motivational construct. It has been demonstrated that adoption of a goal has consequences for beliefs about the nature of achievement (Ames & Archer, 1987; Nicholls et al., 1985), attributions for and affective response to success and failure (Ames, 1981; Ames et al., 1977; Ames & Archer, 1988), creativity of poetry (Archer, 1989), and behaviours such as choosing tasks (Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Ames & Archer, 1987; Ames & Archer, 1988) and using effective strategies (Farrell & Dweck, 1985; Ames & Archer, 1988; Nolen, 1987; Meece, Blumenfeld & Hoyle, 1988). In particular, an orientation toward a mastery goal has been associated with the desire to gain in understanding of a topic, the choice of more difficult tasks rather than easier ones (in effect, taking more risks), focusing on attributions to effort rather than attributions to ability, and using more effective learning strategies. As Dweck (1986, p. 1043) puts it, the adoption of a mastery goal "encourages children to explore, initiate and pursue tasks that promote intellectual growth." In addition to the mastery and performance goals postulated by achievement goal theory, it can be argued that a third goal is held in academic contexts by many students. This goal cannot be called an achievement goal because the intent is not achievement but to complete academic tasks with the minimum of effort. This desire to exert as little effort as possible should be distinguished from the performance goal orientation where success with little apparent effort provides evidence of high ability (or where failure with little effort does not provide evidence of low ability). For students oriented towards what will be called the academic alienation goal, their interests and source of self-esteem lie in areas other than the classroom. The intention academically is to do barely enough work to "get by." A similar goal has been used in previous research. Meece et al. (1988) developed a work- avoidant goal. Nicholls et al. (1985) developed an academic alienation scale which subsequently was used by Nolen (1987). In all, the present study takes the motivational construct of mastery and performance goals, plus the non- achievement goal of academic alienation, and applies them for the first time to an Australian sample of first year university students. Can goal scales be devised that have both an internal consistency among items and a construct validity by demonstrating theoretically predictable relationships with related variables? Subjects Subjects of the study were 627 university students (composed of 271 students enrolled in a first year psychology course and 356 students enrolled in a first year educational psychology course). The students in the psychology course were majoring in a variety of subjects such as mathematics, languages, economics or psychology. To some extent, then, for the non-psychology majors, the students chose to take the psychology module. For the education students (all of whom were training for a specialist teaching career, that is, primary, early childhood, or the various high school subject areas), the educational psychology module was compulsory. There were 175 males and 530 females (with 22 subjects not indicating sex on the questionnaire). In age, 452 of the subjects were aged between 18-20 years, 64 were aged between 21 and 23 years, 18 were aged between 24 and 26 years, 15 were aged between 27 and 29 years, and 55 were aged 30 years and above. Three subjects did not indicate their age. Procedure Subjects were asked to complete a questionnaire during a tutorial period towards the end the year when they had almost completed the psychology or the education module. Subjects were instructed to think about that module as they responded to the questionnaire. Developing the mastery, performance, and alienation goal scales The mastery and performance goal items were adapted from scales developed using a sample of American undergraduate students (Archer, 1989). The items for the academic alienation scale were devised by the authors with some additional items taken from the Study Process Questionnaire (Biggs, 1987). A factor analysis (with a varimax rotation) was performed, specifying three factors. The analysis confirmed substantially an a priori classification of items into mastery, performance, and alienation factors. Items were eliminated if they failed to load strongly (.53 and above) on one factor with only a weak loading (.26 or below) on either of the other two factors. It should be noted that the items loading on the performance factor had negative loadings. Coefficient alphas were acceptable for each scale: .84 for the mastery scale (comprising 8 items); .82 for the performance scale (comprising 8 items); and .70 for the alienation scale (comprising 4 items). A number of items which had been designed as alienation items were discarded because they loaded on both the performance factor and the alienation factor. Inspection of the items loading on both performance and alienation factors suggested that this double loading could be interpreted in theoretical terms. Consider the items of feeling satisfied when you "found the work easy", "did well without having to work hard", and feeling successful "when all the tasks and assignments were easy." These items fit the alienation orientation of wanting to pass the course with the expenditure of as little effort as possible. These items also fit the performance orientation of wanting to highlight one's ability by achieving success with little effort. Similarly, the item "as long as I pass the course, I don't care about the grade I get" fits an alienation orientation, but also may be interpreted as a defensive posture by a performance oriented student who, though desiring a high grade, knows that he or she has little chance of getting one. The items adapted from Biggs' SPQ instrument for inclusion in the alienation scale (for example, "whether I like it or not, I can see that a university education is a way to a good job" and "lecturers should not expect students to study material that won't be examined") did not satisfy the selection criteria noted previously. The questionnaire items that constituted the three goal scales were prefaced with one of the following: "In general, when did you feel most successful", "In general, how satisfied did you feel when you ...", "In general, how much do you agree with these statements", and "Think about the times in the course when you felt greatly satisfied or positive about yourself. Was it because you ..." Responses to the items were made on 5 point Likert scales : not successful (1) to very successful (5); not satisfied at all (1) to very satisfied (5); do not agree at all (1) to strongly agree (5) (this last scale was used with the last two prefaces). Examples of the 8 items comprising the mastery goal include feeling successful "when a lecture or tutorial made me think about things", "when I learned something interesting", feeling satisfied when you "worked on a challenging task or assignment", and feeling satisfied or positive about yourself when you "understood something for the first time." Examples of the 8 items comprising the performance goal include feeling successful "when I got a higher mark than other students", "when I was the only one who could answer the lecturer's question", feeling satisfied or positive about yourself when you "accomplished something that others couldn't do", and "I like to be the top person in my group." The four items comprising the alienation goal are feeling successful "when I did almost no work and got away with it", "when I didn't have to work too hard", feeling satisfied "when you realized you were getting through the course without having to work hard", and "when you realized you didn't have to prepare for tutorials." The mastery and performance scales were correlated (r=.26, p.< .001), suggesting that some students were oriented toward both goals. As Ames and Archer (1987) point out, it is possible for students to hold both goals simultaneously. The priority they give to one goal versus another may not become apparent unless they are faced with a conflict and must choose between them. There was no correlation between mastery and alienation scales (r=-.08). The performance and alienation scales were correlated (r=.21, p.<.001). As noted previously, it is difficult to disentangle these two orientations. Students oriented toward a performance goal with low perceived ability may effect the defensive posture that they do not care about academic accomplishment when in fact their major concern is to avoid the implication of low ability. The scales are available from the authors upon request. Learning strategies scale Students' reported use of information processing, self- planning, and self-monitoring strategies were assessed using 11 items adapted from the scale used by Ames and Archer (1988). The items were intended to tap strategies that are generic to the process of learning and studying. Slight changes were made to the items to make them more suitable for university students. The students rated each item on a 5 point scale (1=not at all typical of me, 5 = very much typical of me). The coefficient alpha of the 11 item scale was .83. Examples of the items include: "When I work for this course, I try to decide what I am supposed to learn rather than just read over the material", "I try to relate what I'm studying in this course to other things I know about", "I take time to plan a study schedule for this course", and "I try to make all the topics in this course fit together." The scale is available from the authors upon request. Enjoyment A single question was used to assess students' enjoyment of the course ("How would you rate your enjoyment of this course?") on a 5 point scale (1=very little, 5=a lot). Take more courses A single question was used to assess students' willingness to take similar courses in the future ("If you had the choice, how willing would you be to take more courses like this?") on a 5 point scale (1=not willing at all, 5 =very willing). Relevance A single question was used to measure students' assessment of the relevance of the course ("How would you rate the relevance of this course to your future career?") on a 5 point scale (1=not relevant at all, 5=very relevant). Preference for difficult tasks A single question was used to assess students' willingness to tackle a difficult but ultimately rewarding task ("If you had to choose an assignment to do for this course, how likely is it that you would choose a difficult assignment where you might make a lot of mistakes, but eventually you will learn a lot?") on a 5 point scale (1=not likely, 5=very likely). Preference for easy tasks A single question was used to assess students' willingness to choose an easy task that probably would achieve a high mark ("If you had to choose an assignment to do for this course, how likely is it that you would choose an assignment that would require little work or worry and probably you would get a high mark for?") on a 5 point scale (1=not likely, 5=very likely). Causal attributions Students were asked two sets of attributions questions related to doing well and doing poorly in the course ("If you were to do well in this course, why do you think that would be?"; "If you were to do poorly in this course, why do you think that would be?"). For each set, students rated the importance of ability ("you have ability in this area"; "you do not have ability in this area"), effort ("you worked hard"; "you did not work hard enough"), strategy ("you used effective strategies to complete tasks and assignments"; "you did not use effective strategies to complete tasks and assignments"), the task ("the work was not difficult"; "the work was very difficult"), and lecturing staff ("the lecturers did a good job in lectures and tutorials"; "the lecturers did a poor job in lectures and tutorials") as reasons for their performance. Five-point scales (1=not an important reason, 5=an important reason) were used for each rating. Results Separate analyses were conducted for the psychology and education students in addition to the combined analyses. This approach was taken because there were substantial numbers in both groups, the subject matter of the modules was different, and most of the psychology students had more choice in taking their module than the education students for whom the module was compulsory. Also, many of the psychology students would have entered university with a higher High School Certificate score than the education students, though there is great variability in the HSC scores for education students. That is, there is a sizable number of education students entering university with quite high HSC scores. In sum, there were sufficient differences between the psychology and education students to warrant separate analyses. If similar results were to emerge from these analyses, then it could be argued that the construct of achievement goals was a useful means of differentiating the motivational orientations of university students in more than one sample and with different sorts of students. Also, the construct validity of the goals could be enhanced further if, for each sample, it could be demonstrated that similar relationships held between the goals and other logically related variables. Table 1 provides means and standard deviations for all the variables (except attributions) for the combined sample and for the psychology and education students separately. For the three goal scales, there is little difference in means or standard deviations between the sub-samples. Similarly, for the reported use of effective learning strategies, there appears to be little difference between the samples, though the mean for the psychology is slightly higher than that for the education students. For the variables of enjoyment of the course and willingness to take similar courses in the future, the psychology group differs from the education group in indicating greater enjoyment and greater willingness to take similar courses in the future. Table 2 provides means and standard deviations for attributions for success and failure. No marked differences between the psychology and education students emerge here. Table 3 shows zero-order correlations between mastery, performance and alienation goals and related variables for the combined sample. Because of the large sample size, relatively minor correlations were statistically significant. Inspection of the table revealed a quite consistent pattern in the correlations except for those concerned with attributions. There were strong positive correlations between orientation towards a mastery goal and variables indicating a positive approach to a university course: enjoying the course of study (r=.43); a willingness to take similar courses in the future (r=.44); a perception of the course as relevant to a future career (r=.32); and a willingness to tackle difficult academic tasks (r=.41). There was a negative correlation between orientation toward a mastery goal and a willingness to opt for easy academic tasks (r=-.31). Of particular interest was the strong positive correlation between a mastery goal and reported use of effective learning strategies (r=.53). In comparison, correlations between orientation toward a performance goal and the same variables, though in the same direction, were much less pronounced or not statistically significant: reported use of effective learning strategies (r=.21); enjoyment (r=.17); willingness to take similar courses (r=.15); perceived relevance (r=.09); and willingness to tackle difficult tasks (r=.04). There was no significant correlation with willingness to opt for easy tasks. Correlations between orientation toward an alienation goal and these variables (except willingness to opt for easy academic tasks) were negative: reported use of effective learning strategies (r=-.22); enjoyment (r=-.15); willingness to take more courses (r=-.15); relevance (r=-.10); and willingness to tackle difficult tasks (r=-.26). There was a positive correlation with willingness to opt for easy tasks (r=.32). Correlations between the three goals and attributions for success and failure did not produce the same consistency in results, and in fact there were few significant correlations between goals and attributions for failure. Considering attributions for success, however, it was interesting to note a correlation between a performance goal and an attribution to ability (r=.21), correlations between a mastery goal and an attribution to effort (r=.28) and an attribution to effective strategies (r=.27), and a correlation between an alienation goal and an attribution to easy tasks (r=.28). Tables 4 and 5 show the zero-order correlations between the three goals and related variables for the education students (Table 4) and the psychology students (Table 5). Inspection of the tables does not reveal marked differences in the pattern of correlations between the two groups, particularly for the variables indicating a positive approach to learning and reported use of effective learning strategies. Again, the correlations with attributions for success and failure for the most part are difficult to interpret. Two other variables included in the analyses were age and sex of the students. There was a small positive correlation between sex (male coded 1, female coded 2) and orientation toward a mastery goal (r=.12), though it should be noted that there were many more females than males in the sample. There were correlations between age (coded 1 for age 18 to 20, to 5 for age 30 and above) and a mastery goal (r=.29), a performance goal (r=-.10), and an alienation goal (r=-.24). However, again, these correlations must be accepted with caution because, as noted earlier, the great majority of students fell into the first age category. Discussion The findings of this study show that goal orientations provide a useful way of conceptualizing the motivation of first year university students. Students' orientation toward mastery, performance, and academic alienation goals showed logical patterns of relations with reported use of effective learning strategies and variables that indicate a desirable approach to learning, namely, enjoyment, willingness to take similar courses in the future, perceived relevance of the course, willingness to tackle difficult tasks, and an unwillingness to opt for easy tasks. The consistent pattern of findings across these variables and across two samples of students undertaking different courses suggests that orientation to a mastery goal "may foster a way of thinking that is necessary to sustain student involvement in learning as well as increase the likelihood that students will pursue tasks that foster increments in learning" (Ames & Archer, 1988, p. 264). It had been anticipated that a performance goal orientation would not be related to reported use of effective strategies and variables indicating a positive approach to learning. Significant relationships, however, did emerge for use of learning strategies, enjoyment, and willingness to take more courses, though the strength of these relationships was much less marked than those associated with a mastery goal orientation. These relationships may reflect the fact that the goal scales are not orthogonal. As noted earlier, the mastery and performance scales were positively correlated (r=.26, p.<.001). Proponents of achievement goal theory argue that it is possible for a person similtaneously to hold more than one goal (for example, Ames & Archer, 1987). It certainly is feasible to conceive of students who enjoy their work and want to develop a real understanding of the subject matter, but yet at the same time derive satisfaction from producing work that is graded higher than that of their peers. The findings that students oriented toward an alienation goal did not enjoy the course, did not want to take similar courses in the future, were unlikely to tackle difficult tasks, but keen to opt for easy ones, and reported little use of effective strategies were expected. As discussed in the section detailing the development of the scales, it is difficult to disentangle an alienation goal from a performance goal and these scales were correlated (r=.21, p.<.001). It can be argued that this entangling is not the result of a lack of theoretical clarity, though Nicholls et al. (1989) do discuss this possibility when considering the problems of defining work avoidance as a separate scale. A performance- oriented student is concerned with demonstrating high ability to others, or alternatively, with not demonstrating a lack of ability to others. For this student, self-esteem and demonstrating ability are so intertwined that it may be difficult for him to respond with honesty to items in a questionnaire that pertain, even indirectly, to a lack of ability. The result may be a defensive posture of not caring about academic performance when in fact he cares deeply. The consistent pattern of findings that emerged for the three goal scales and related variables did not hold for the attributions for success and failure, though there were some theoretically logical relationships: between a performance goal and an attribution for success to ability; between an alienation goal and an attribution for success to easy tasks; and between a mastery goal and attributions for success to effort and to use of good strategies. The wording of the attribution items may have created some difficulty: "If you were to do well/poorly in this course, why do you think that would be?" Students were asked to make attributions for a success or a failure that had yet to happen, though by the time of the year that they responded to the questionnaire they should have had at least some idea of their final grade. A variable that was not included in the study but which might be expected to influence goal orientation, use of effective strategies, and a positive attitude to learning is perceived ability. That is, students who see themselves as able students might be expected to reported increased use of effective strategies, more enjoyment, more willingness to take additional courses, and more willingness to take risks than students who see themselves as less able compared with their peers. Surprisingly perhaps, a number of motivational studies using the construct of achievement goals have found only a relatively minor influence of perceived ability on students' goals, behaviours, and attitudes (Ames & Archer, 1988; Meece et al., 1988; Nicholls et al., 1989; Nolen, 1987; Nolen & Haladyna, 1990). In a subsequent study to the present one (Archer, in progress), using the next cohort of education students as subjects, perceived ability was added as an additional variable to those used in the present study. Analyses showed correlations between perceived ability and a mastery goal (r=.20, p.<.01, n=209) and between perceived ability and a performance goal (r=.29, p.<.001, n=209), but no correlation between perceived ability and an alienation goal. Although these results cannot be analyzed further here, the significant correlations between perceived ability and both mastery and performance goals suggest that the relationship between a mastery goal and variables indicating a positive approach to learning cannot be explained purely in terms of perceived ability. Finally, students' adoption of a goal has been demonstrated to be either the result of individual differences or to be induced by situational cues (Dweck, 1986). In the present study, the source of students' motivational orientations was not explored. To talk of individual differences in goal orientation can be somewhat misleading for it suggests differences from person to person that were manifest from an early age if not from birth. Though for some, consistent motivational patterns may emerge early in life, for many the term individual differences reflects years of often conflicting environmental messages to adopt one goal or another. The Australian school system, particularly at high school and university levels, creates competitive conditions that pit students against each other to win the highest grades. So it is heartening to see emerge in this study a motivation for mastery in which students strive not for high grades but for understanding of the subject matter and derive enjoyment from this pursuit. How can more students be encouraged to adopt this desirable motivation? Research at the high school level (Ames & Archer, 1988) has shown that the way teachers structure their classrooms (for example, criteria used for evaluation, attitude towards mistakes, focus on improvement rather than the final product) is perceived by students, and that this perception of teachers' behaviours influences the motivation of students. Perhaps it is time for university educators to consider their courses and ways in which they might be changed to increase the mastery motivation of students. References Ames, C., & Ames, R. (1981). Competitive versus individualistic goal structures. Journal of Educational psychology, 73, 411-418. Ames, C., Ames, R., & Felker, D. (1979). Effects of competitive reward structure and valence of outcome on children's achievement attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 1-8. Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1987). Mothers' beliefs about the role of ability and effort in school learning. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 79, 409-414. Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Student learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260- 267. Ames, C., & Felker, D. (1979). An examination of children's attributions and achievement-related evaluations in competitive, cooperative, and individualistic reward structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 413- 420. Archer, J. (1989). Motivation and creativity: The relationship between achievement goals and creativity in writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Bandura, M., & Dweck, C.S. (1981). Children's theories of intelligence as predictors of achievement goals. Unpublished manuscript. Columbia University, New York. Biggs, J. (1987). The Study Process Questionnaire: User's Manual. Hawthorn: Australian Council for Educational Research. Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048. Dweck, C.S., & Bempechat, J. (1983). Children's theories of intelligence: Consequences for learning. In S.G. Paris, G.M. Olson, & H.W. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp. 239-256). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Elliott, E.S., & Dweck, C.S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12. Farrell, E., & Dweck, C.S. (1985). The role of motivational processes in transfer of learning. Unpublished manuscript. Columbia University, New York. Maehr, M.L., & Braskamp, L. (1986). The motivation factor: A theory of personal investment. Lexington, MA: Heath. Meece, J.L., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Hoyle, R.K. (1988). Students' goal orientations and cognitive engagment in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514-523. Nicholls, J.G. (1984). Conceptions of ability and achievement motivation. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education, Volume 1 (pp. 39-73). New York: Academic Press. Nicholls, J.G., Patashnick, M., & Nolen, S.B. (1985). Adolescents' theories of education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 683-692. Nicholls, J.G., Ping, C.C., Lauer, J., & Patashnick, M. (1989). Individual differences in academic motivation: Perceived ability, goals, beliefs, and values. Learning and Individual Differences, 1, 63-84. Nolen, S.B. (1987). The influence of task involvement on the use of learning strategies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Research in Education. Washington, DC, April. Nolen, S.B., & Haladyna, T.M. (1990). Personal and environmental influences on students' beliefs about effective study strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 116-130. Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivational research in education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 616- 622.