DISCLAIMER: The following post was originally completed as part of my coursework for EDUC 520-Student Learning and Motivation, one of my grad classes. If you are not interested in education, this is going to be wicked boring. Please feel free to check out some of my other posts!
Research
Many teachers incorrectly believe that most of their students do not have goals. In reality, every student has goals. Some students want to get an A to impress their parents or peers, whereas some want to spend the least amount of time possible working on school so they can play video games all evening. Some students want nothing more than to avoid looking foolish and get a diploma as quickly as possible. Occasionally, a teacher is blessed with that rare student who truly prizes the knowledge in that class and desires to master the information and skills taught therein. The difference in each of these students is their goal orientation.
The first and most preferable type of goal orientation students can exhibit is that of task-mastery goals. Task-mastery occurs when students do whatever is needed in order to learn the task or information with the primary goal of actually mastering the task (Biehler, McCown, & Snowman, 2009, 410). Students with task-mastery goals have high self-efficacy, will employ a variety of learning strategies in order to master the task or information, and take mistakes in stride as part of the learning process (Biehler, McCown, & Snowman, 2009, 410).
Another type of goal orientation that initially appears similar to task-mastery, at least on the surface, is the performance-approach mentality of setting goals. Performance-approach occurs when students do whatever is needed in order to outperform all the other students and prove their own academic superiority (Biehler, McCown, & Snowman, 2009, 410). Students with performance-approach goals usually have high self-efficacy but are not intrinsically motivated to learn the task or material, but rather seek to perform at the highest level, so they tend to do well on assessments but are less likely to remember things or develop interest in the material in the long run (Biehler, McCown, & Snowman, 2009, 410).
A third type of goal orientation that is the other side of the coin from performance-approach goal setting is the mentality of performance-avoidance. Performance-avoidance occurs when students do whatever is necessary to minimize the risk of failing a learning target in order to avoid appearing less intelligent than the other students (Biehler, McCown, & Snowman, 2009, 410). Students who choose performance-avoidance goals tend to have low self-efficacy and tend to avoid challenges altogether or, when unable to avoid challenges, engage in self-handicapping behaviors so that failure can be excused rather than attributed to low intelligence (Biehler, McCown, & Snowman, 2009, 410-411).
Another type of goal orientation that is not desirable in a student is a work-avoidance goal. Work-avoidance goals are based on trying to do the least amount of work possible for the maximum amount of credit possible (Svinicki, 2005, 2). Students who choose a work-avoidance goal tend to study course requirements rather than course materials in order to achieve the minimum amount of credit necessary to pass. They may not actually be lazy, but may be dealing with outside pressures and simply trying to economize their time and effort (Svinicki, 2005, 4).
In regards to their beliefs about cognitive ability, learners fall into three categories: incremental, entity, and mixed. An incremental theorist believes that intelligence can be improved over time by improving their skills and learning new ones (Biehler, McCown, & Snowman, 2009, 414). Incremental theorists are the learners who have task-mastery goal orientation because they see the task as the goal and obstacles and mistakes as learning opportunities (Biehler, McCown, & Snowman, 2009, 414). An incremental theorist attributes failure to poor effort or learning strategies, and can therefore be motivated to try again (Biehler, McCown, & Snowman, 2009, 414).
The second type of learner, the entity theorist, does not view intelligence as a part of themselves that can be improved, but as an entity with fixed characteristics (Biehler, McCown, & Snowman, 2009, 414). They are much more likely to view learning tasks with a performance-based goal orientation, and attack it with confidence if they believe themselves to be “smart enough” to complete the task or start implementing self-handicapping strategies if they do not believe themselves to be “smart enough” to do so (Biehler, McCown, & Snowman, 2009, 415). An entity theorist blames failure on lack of intelligence, and therefore cannot be motivated to try again because he believes himself to simply be bad at certain subject areas (Biehler, McCown, & Snowman, 2009, 415).
The third type of learner is the mixed theorist. Mixed theorists hold to the incremental theory for some subject areas, and entity theory for other subject areas (Biehler, McCown, & Snowman, 2009, 414). This type of learner needs to learn to apply the same motivation to all subject areas as he does to the subject areas that hold his interest.
No student exists in a bubble, therefore all of these types of goal orientation have a social aspect. Performance-approach goal orientation is often mistakenly promoted by well-meaning parents and teachers by praising high test grades and GPA’s, whereas performance-avoidance goals are often encouraged by peers calling each other dumb and glorifying making excuses. Work-avoidance goals are extremely common among student populations brought up in an educational system where the emphasis is passing classes and moving ahead rather than actual learning. The task-mastery goal orientation is the hardest to promote, and requires teachers to take specific, intentional steps to attain it.
Teachers cannot force students to adopt task-mastery goals, but they certainly can promote it. Some of the most effective ways to encourage task-mastery thinking are to choose learning targets that are worthwhile and challenging yet attainable, creating a learning community where mistakes are acceptable and progress is praised over a numerical representation of achievement, allowing students some options as they set their learning goals, and modeling a task-mastery mindset as the teacher (Svinicki, 2005, 4). Worthwhile targets encourage interest and motivation for work-avoidant students, and challenging yet attainable targets promote a growth mindset in students with lower self-efficacy. A learning community breaks down the competitive environment in which performance-based goals thrive. Giving students choices promotes interest and creative thinking. Most importantly, modeling a task-mastery mindset not only keeps teachers learning throughout their lives, but makes them the leaders in their community of learners.
All teachers worth their salt want students with task-mastery goal orientation. However, few recognize it when they see it. But every teacher can and should encourage their students to adopt that philosophy, and the best way to do so is by modeling it themselves.
Personal Application
Although I have many students with the various types of goal orientation, I was surprised to find how many of my students fit the description of work-avoidance goal orientation to the very last detail as described by Svinicki. I believe this to be due to many factors. It is partially due to the large amount of students who come into my school from the Milwaukee Public School system, where the prevailing mindset is to get the credit and graduate. It is also due to the large number of students who have parents who did not graduate from college or even high school, and therefore place little value in their own education. There are also many students who have tremendous responsibilities outside of school, which is definitely a factor in their spending the minimum amount of effort possible on school. Lastly, I believe many students adopt this type of goal orientation because they see their classmates doing it and, for the most part, getting away with it.
I believe that two of the strategies given by Svinicki that would be particularly helpful in combating this work-avoidance mindset in my students and encouraging task-mastery goal orientation instead. The first is to set worthwhile learning targets. Many of these students view school as little more than a checklist of things they have to do before they can enter the adult world. Choosing activities that actually have an impact on their futures in that adult world can help them see the value in not only that activity, but also other activities and the information in the class as well. One example might be allowing students to choose alternative presentation methods, such as posters or speeches, rather than simply writing an essay every time a writing assignment rolls around. This would have an especially big impact on students aspiring to get into design-based careers or vocations with frequent public speaking.
The second and most important strategy to break down the work-avoidance mindset and foster the task-mastery mindset is that of modeling it myself. Most of the students that fall into this category are there because of the lack of positive role models. Seeing someone succeed at new tasks, and at learning new tasks, may be exactly the impetus many of them need to challenge their own thinking and consider that there may be more to life than just muddling through with minimum effort and hoping things eventually get better. One example I frequently use in my classroom is woodworking. This is one of the hobbies that I picked up as an adult and am continually progressing in by learning new techniques, improving skills I already have, learning from my mistakes, and accepting new challenges. Speaking on this frequently not only gives me constant examples to use while teaching English, but also displays my philosophy of being a self-motivated lifelong learner to my students.
That being said, I still have students that display the other types of goal orientation as well and need to employ every strategy possible to encourage task-mastery mindsets in my students. They are all important. I must remind myself daily that in order to see this type of dramatic change in my students, I must first be willing to change myself.
References
Biehler, R., McCown, R., & Snowman, J. (2009). Psychology applied to teaching. Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Svinicki, M. (2005). Student goal orientation, motivation, and learning. The IDEA Center. Manhattan, Kansas: The IDEA Center. https://www.depauw.edu/files/resources/student-goal-orientation.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment