Achievement Goals, Student Engagement, and the Mediatory Role of Autonomy Support in Lecture-Based Courses
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Student Engagement and Achievement Goals
2.2. Autonomy Support
3. Methods
3.1. Participants
3.2. Hypotheses
3.3. Measures
3.3.1. Student Engagement
3.3.2. Achievement Goals
3.3.3. Autonomy Support
3.4. Data Analysis
4. Results
5. Discussion
6. Limitations and Further Research
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gray, K.; Riegler, R.; Walsh, M. Students’ feedback experiences and expectations pre- and post-university entry. SN Soc. Sci. 2022, 2, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, H.; Yeoman, K.; Gaskell, E.; Prendergast, J. Perceptions of university assessment and feedback among post-16 school pupils. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2017, 42, 1233–1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Money, J.; Nixon, S.; Graham, L. Do educational experiences in school prepare students for university? A teachers’ perspective. J. Furth. High. Educ. 2020, 44, 554–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beaumont, C.; O’Doherty, M.; Shannon, L. Reconceptualising assessment feedback: A key to improving student learning? Stud. High. Educ. 2011, 36, 671–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reeve, J.; Jang, H.-R.; Shin, S.H.; Ahn, J.S.; Matos, L.; Gargurevich, R. When students show some initiative: Two experiments on the benefits of greater agentic engagement. Learn Instr. 2022, 80, 101564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veiga, F.H.; Burden, R.; Appleton, J.; Taveira, M.C.; Galvão, D. Student’s engagement in school: Conceptualization and relations with personal variables and academic performance. Rev. Psicol. Educ. 2014, 9, 29–47. [Google Scholar]
- Reeve, J. How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. J. Educ. Psychol. 2013, 105, 579–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reschly, A.L.; Huebner, E.S.; Appleton, J.J.; Antaramian, S. Engagement as flourishing: The contribution of positive emotions and coping to adolescents’ engagement at school and with learning. Psychol. Sch. 2008, 45, 419–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cox, A.; Williams, L. The roles of perceived teacher support, motivational climate, and psychological need satisfaction in students’ physical education motivation. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2008, 30, 222–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reeve, J.; Shin, S.H. How teachers can support students’ agentic engagement. Theory Pract. 2020, 59, 150–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fredricks, J.A.; Blumenfeld, P.C.; Paris, A.H. School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev. Educ. Res. 2004, 74, 59–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reeve, J.; Hyeon-Cheon, S.; Jang, H. How and why students make academic progress: Reconceptualizing the student engagement construct to increase its explanatory power. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2020, 62, 101899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reeve, J. A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In Handbook of Research on Student Engagement; Christenson, S.L., Reschly, A.L., Wylie, C., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 149–172. [Google Scholar]
- Appleton, J.J.; Christenson, S.L.; Kim, D.; Reschly, A.L. Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. J. Sch. Psychol. 2006, 44, 427–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, W.; Reeve, J. Teachers’ estimates of their students’ motivation and engagement: Being in synch with students. Educ. Psychol. 2012, 32, 727–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oga-Baldwin, W.L. Acting, thinking, feeling, making, collaborating: The engagement process in foreign language learning. System 2019, 86, 102–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawson, M.A.; Lawson, H.A. New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and practice. Rev. Educ. Res. 2013, 83, 432–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shernoff, D.J.; Kelly, S.; Tonks, S.M.; Anderson, B.; Cavanagh, R.F.; Sinha, S.; Abdi, B. Student engagement as a function of environmental complexity in high school classrooms. Learn. Instr. 2016, 43, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elliot, A.J.; Murayama, K. On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique, illustration, and application. J. Educ. Psychol. 2008, 100, 613–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elliot, A.J.; Murayama, K.; Pekrun, R. A 3 × 2 achievement goal model. J. Educ. Psychol. 2011, 103, 632–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ketonen, E.; Hienonen, N.; Kupiainen, S.; Hotulainen, R. Does classroom matter?—A longitudinal multilevel perspective on students’ achievement goal orientation profiles during lower secondary school. Learn. Instr. 2023, 85, 101747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elliot, A.J.; Hulleman, C.S. Achievement goals. In Handbook of Competence and Motivation: Theory and Application; Elliot, A.J., Dweck, C.S., Yeager, D.S., Eds.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 43–60. [Google Scholar]
- Schwinger, M.; Trautner, M.; Pütz, N.; Fabianek, S.; Lemmer, G.; Lauermann, F.; Wirthwein, L. Why do students use strategies that hurt their chances of academic success? A meta-analysis of antecedents of academic self-handicapping. J. Educ. Psychol. 2022, 114, 576–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grant, H.; Dweck, C.S. Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 85, 541–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hulleman, C.S.; Schrager, S.M.; Bodmann, S.M.; Harackiewicz, J.M. A meta-analytic review of achievement goal measures: Different labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar labels? Psychol. Bull. 2010, 136, 422–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Senko, C.; Dawson, B. Performance-approach goal effects depend on how they are defined: Meta-analytic evidence from multiple educational outcomes. J. Educ. Psychol. 2017, 109, 574–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Senko, C.; Hulleman, C.S.; Harackiewicz, J.M. Achievement goal theory at the crossroads: Old controversies, current challenges, and new directions. Educ. Psychol. 2011, 46, 26–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elliot, A.J.; Thrash, T.M. Achievement goals and the hierarchical model of achievement motivation. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2001, 13, 139–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cook, D.; Artino, A. Motivation to learn: An overview of contemporary theories. Med. Educ. 2016, 50, 997–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Möcklinghoff, S.; Rapoport, O.; Heckel, C.; Messerschmidt-Grandi, C.; Ringeisen, T. Relationships between achievement goal orientations, multidimensional test anxiety, and performance—In conclusion, every facet counts. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2023, 102, 102269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elliot, A.J.; McGregor, H.A. A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 80, 501–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harackiewicz, J.M.; Barron, K.E.; Elliot, A.J. Rethinking achievement goals: When are they adaptive for college students and why? Educ. Psychol. 1998, 33, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elliot, A.J. Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. J. Educ. Psychol. 1999, 34, 169–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pekrun, R.; Elliot, A.J.; Maier, M.A. Achievement goals and achievement emotions: Testing a model of their joint relations with academic performance. J. Educ. Psychol. 2009, 101, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elliott, E.S.; Dweck, C.S. Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1988, 54, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lüftenegger, M.; Klug, J.; Harrer, K.; Langer, M.; Spiel, C.; Schober, B. Students’ achievement goals, learning-related emotions and academic achievement. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reeve, J.; Lee, W. A neuroscientific perspective on basic psychological needs. J Pers. 2019, 87, 102–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reeve, J. Giving and summoning autonomy support in hierarchical relationships. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2015, 9, 406–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, G.C.; Lynch, M.F.; McGregor, H.A.; Sharp, D.; Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Validation of the ‘‘Important Other’’ climate questionnaire: Assessing autonomy support for health-related change. Fam. Syst. Health 2006, 24, 179–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, H. Teachers’ autonomy support, autonomy suppression and conditional negative regard as predictors of optimal learning experience among high-achieving Bedouin students. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 2018, 21, 223–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheon, S.H.; Reeve, J. Do the benefits from autonomy-supportive PE teacher training programs endure? A one-year follow-up investigation. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2013, 14, 508–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reeve, J.; Jang, H.; Carrell, D.; Jeon, S.; Barch, J. Enhancing students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motiv. Emot. 2004, 28, 147–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Black, A.E.; Deci, E.L. The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Sci. Educ. 2000, 84, 740–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreno-Murcia, J.A.; Barrachina-Peris, J.; Estévez, E.; Campillo, M.B.; Huéscar, E. Proposal for modeling motivational strategies for autonomy support in physical education. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2021, 18, 7717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vansteenkiste, M.; Sierens, E.; Goossens, L.; Soenens, B.; Dochy, F.; Mouratidis, A.; Aelterman, N.; Haerens, L.; Beyers, W. Identifying configurations of perceived teacher autonomy support and structure: Associations with self-regulated learning, motivation and problem behavior. Learn. Instr. 2012, 22, 431–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skinner, E.A.; Belmont, M.J. Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student` engagement across the school year. J. Educ. Psychol. 1993, 85, 571–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazer, J.P. Associations among teacher communication behaviors, student interest, and engagement: A validity test. Commun. Educ. 2013, 62, 86–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jang, H.; Reeve, J.; Deci, E.L. Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. J. Educ. Psychol. 2010, 102, 588–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sierens, E.; Vansteenkiste, M.; Goossens, L.; Soenens, B.; Dochy, F. The synergistic relationship of perceived autonomy support and structure in the prediction of self-regulated learning. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2009, 79, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Legault, L.; Ray, K.; Hudgins, A.; Pelosi, M.; Shannon, W. Assisted versus asserted autonomy satisfaction: Their unique associations with wellbeing, integration of experience, and conflict negotiation. Motiv. Emot. 2017, 41, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Willison, J.; Sabir, F.; Thomas, J. Shifting dimensions of autonomy in students’ research and employment. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2016, 36, 430–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Self-Determination Theory. Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Buskist, W.; Keeley, J.W. Searching for universal principles of excellence in college and university teaching. New Dir. Teach. Learn. 2018, 156, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hospel, V.; Galand, B. Are both classroom autonomy support and structure equally important for students’ engagement? A multilevel analysis. Learn Instr. 2016, 41, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montenegro, A. Lecturers’ perceptions of student engagement and their role in supporting it. Eur. J. Educ. Stud. 2022, 9, 134–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montenegro, A. Why are students’ self-initiated contributions important? A study on agentic engagement. Int. Sociol. Educ. 2019, 8, 291–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, J.C.; Midgley, C.; Meyer, D.K.; Gheen, M.; Anderman, E.M.; Kang, Y.; Patrick, H. The classroom environment and students’ reports of avoidance strategies in mathematics: A multimethod study. J. Educ. Psychol. 2002, 94, 88–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD. Mathematics Teaching and Learning Strategies in PISA; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Nicholls, J.G. Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychol. Rev. 1984, 91, 328–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dweck, C.S. Motivational processes affecting learning. Am Psychol. 1986, 41, 1040–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karabenick, S.A. Perceived achievement goal structure and college student help seeking. J. Educ. Psychol. 2004, 96, 569–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaudreau, P.; Braaten, A. Achievement goals and their underlying goal motivation: Does it matter why sport participants pursue their goals? Psychol. Belg. 2016, 56, 244–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buchanan, T.; Palmer, E. Student perceptions of the History lecture: Does this delivery mode have a future in the Humanities? J. Univ. Teach. 2017, 14, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoeber, J.; Otto, K. Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches, evidence, challenges. Pers. Soc. 2006, 10, 295–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ikeda, K.; Yue, C.L.; Murayama, K.; Castel, A.D. Achievement goals affect metacognitive judgments. Motiv. Sci. 2016, 2, 199–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conley, A.M. Patterns of motivation beliefs: Combining achievement goal and expectancy-value perspectives. J. Educ. Psychol. 2012, 104, 32–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belenky, D.M.; Nokes-Malach, T.J. Mastery-approach goals and knowledge transfer: An investigation into the effects of task structure and framing instructions. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2013, 25, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grüttner, M.; Schröder, S.; Berg, J.; Otto, C. Refugees on their way to German higher education: A capabilities and engagements perspective on aspirations, challenges and support. Glob. Educ. Rev. 2018, 5, 115–135. [Google Scholar]
- Hofverberg, A.; Winberg, M. Challenging the universality of achievement goal models: A comparison of two culturally distinct countries. Scand. J. Educ. 2020, 64, 333–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Items | Strongly Agree | Agree | Disagree | Strongly Disagree | Factor Loading |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Emotional engagement | |||||
Feeling good | 59.0 | 36.3 | 4.1 | 0.6 | 0.63 |
Learning new things | 38.2 | 46.2 | 14.7 | 0.9 | 0.66 |
Feeling interest | 19.2 | 47.5 | 27.7 | 5.6 | 0.89 |
Enjoyment | 19.5 | 50.5 | 27.1 | 2.9 | 0.89 |
Behavioral engagement | |||||
Punctuality | 76.5 | 17.9 | 5.0 | 0.6 | 0.15 |
Attendance until the end | 82.4 | 14.4 | 2.9 | 0.3 | 0.44 |
Attention | 19.4 | 58.5 | 19.7 | 2.4 | 0.72 |
No writing private messages | 10.6 | 17.4 | 29.1 | 42.9 | 0.84 |
No Internet surfing | 15.6 | 22.6 | 30.9 | 30.9 | 0.87 |
Cognitive engagement | |||||
Finding new solutions | 6.5 | 44.2 | 42.1 | 7.1 | 0.59 |
Relating knowledge to everyday situations | 10.3 | 37.1 | 40.6 | 12.1 | 0.76 |
Relating previous to new knowledge | 15.3 | 49.4 | 30.6 | 4.7 | 0.79 |
Thinking of other ways to solve problems | 4.4 | 28.3 | 51.3 | 15.9 | 0.77 |
Interdisciplinary reflection | 14.5 | 52.1 | 27.2 | 6.2 | 0.73 |
Agentic engagement | |||||
Asking questions | 0.0 | 3.5 | 34.1 | 62.4 | 0.86 |
Answering questions | 1.2 | 9.1 | 39.7 | 50.0 | 0.79 |
Asking for clarification | 0.6 | 3.5 | 35.3 | 60.6 | 0.83 |
Giving suggestions | 0.9 | 0.3 | 6.2 | 92.6 | - |
Emotional | Behavioral | Cognitive | |
---|---|---|---|
Behavioral | 0.222 ** | ||
Cognitive | 0.249 ** | 0.135 * | |
Agentic | 0.085 | 0.062 | 0.248 ** |
Items | Strongly Agree | Agree | Disagree | Strongly Disagree | Factor Loading |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mastery goals | |||||
Understanding as much as possible | 70.3 | 27.9 | 1.8 | 0.0 | 0.78 |
Understanding most of the content | 73.9 | 24.3 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 0.78 |
Reaching perfection | 15.9 | 39.8 | 33.9 | 10.3 | 0.61 |
Full understanding | 40.7 | 50.1 | 8.8 | 0.3 | 0.76 |
Performance goals | |||||
Better grades than others | 10.7 | 33.2 | 40.9 | 15.1 | 0.86 |
Better in comparison to others | 8.9 | 37.0 | 37.3 | 16.9 | 0.85 |
Not worse than the others | 40.2 | 42.6 | 10.9 | 6.2 | 0.76 |
Not worse than average | 43.9 | 42.4 | 8.6 | 5.0 | 0.83 |
Autonomy support | |||||
Interest in students’ learning | 19.3 | 52.7 | 25.3 | 2.7 | 0.77 |
Support when needed | 33.7 | 50.9 | 13.6 | 1.8 | 0.83 |
Clarification until students have understood | 29.8 | 45.2 | 22.3 | 2.7 | 0.83 |
Opportunities to express opinions | 54.3 | 38.9 | 6.5 | 0.3 | 0.57 |
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
---|---|---|---|
Cognitive | Behavioral | Emotional | |
Performance Goals | −0.039 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
Mastery Goals | 0.288 *** | 0.193 *** | 0.231 *** |
Male | 0.057 | 0.186 *** | −0.004 |
Age | 0.028 | 0.139 ** | 0.019 |
German Language | 0.073 | 0.038 | 0.048 |
Born in Germany | −0.041 | −0.004 | −0.007 |
Course 2 | −0.226 *** | 0.09 | 0.209 *** |
Course 3 | −0.102 | −0.127 * | 0.429 *** |
Course 4 | −0.026 | 0.224 *** | 0.434 *** |
Autonomy Support | 0.127 * | 0.108 * | 0.323 *** |
Adjusted R2 | 0.121 | 0.184 | 0.457 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Montenegro, A.; Schmidt, M. Achievement Goals, Student Engagement, and the Mediatory Role of Autonomy Support in Lecture-Based Courses. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 912. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090912
Montenegro A, Schmidt M. Achievement Goals, Student Engagement, and the Mediatory Role of Autonomy Support in Lecture-Based Courses. Education Sciences. 2023; 13(9):912. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090912
Chicago/Turabian StyleMontenegro, Aida, and Manuela Schmidt. 2023. "Achievement Goals, Student Engagement, and the Mediatory Role of Autonomy Support in Lecture-Based Courses" Education Sciences 13, no. 9: 912. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090912