Applying the Goal Orientation: Explore Students Motivation, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Leadership and Team Management

Download Applying the Goal Orientation: Explore Students Motivation and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Leadership and Team Management in PDF only on Docsity! Vol. 31.1 Educational Research Quarterly Vol. 31, No. 1, Sep 2007 45 Applying Goal Orientation Theory in an Exploration of Student Motivations in the Domain of Educational Leadership Daniel L. McCollum Lawrence T. Kajs University of Houston-Clear Lake The purpose of this article is to explore the motivation of graduate students in an educational leadership preparation program. Motivation is a key element for academic and professional success because without it little learning or performance takes place. The goal orientation theory of motivation was examined in the context of the educational leadership domain. To evaluate the psychometric properties of a measure of goal orientations of future educational leaders, a factor analysis was performed and internal consistency calculated. The scale presents good factorial and discriminant validity evidence and fair to good internal consistency evidence. Due to the lack of research regarding the assessment and development of goal orientations in the educational leadership domain, this study provides a basis for further research. Little research exists on the motivations of graduate students enrolled in an educational leadership graduate program pursuing careers as school leaders (e.g., principals). These graduate students are typically classroom teachers who have voluntarily enrolled in a principal certification program to obtain state credentials required for principalship eligibility. To succeed in acquiring principal certification and subsequent school leadership positions, motivation is a necessity. Motivation is “an internal state that arouses, directs, and maintains behavior” (Woolfolk-Hoy & Hoy, 2006, p. 127). Without motivation, very little learning or performance occurs. The goal orientation theory of motivation provides a viable framework to study the aims of graduate students in the domain of educational leadership. Goal orientations are defined as “a set of behavioral intentions that determine how students approach and Educational Research Quarterly 2007 46 engage in learning activities” (Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988, p. 514). Goal orientations can further be described as a set of beliefs students have concerning their goals (i.e., a specific, desired product) that explain why the goal is important to them (Woolfolk-Hoy & Hoy, 2006). For example, if a student wants to obtain an A grade in class, is it because she wants to look better than her classmates do or is it so she can have mastered the course content? Goal orientations explain the why of students’ behaviors. Goal Orientation Dichotomy: Mastery and Performance Early theorists of goal orientations, such as Ames (1992), dichotomized mastery goal orientation and performance goal orientation. The mastery goal orientation is “a desire to develop competence and increase knowledge and understanding through effortful learning” (Murphy & Alexander, 2000, p. 28). The term mastery goal orientation can be used interchangeably with other concepts in the literature, specifically learning goal orientations (Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988) and task goal orientations (Nicholls, 1984). On the other hand, the performance goal orientation is “a desire to gain favorable judgments…of one’s competence” (Murphy & Alexander, p. 28). The term performance goal orientation is generally synonymous with self-enhancing goal orientation (Skaalvik, 1997) and ego-involved goal orientation (Nicholls). Each of the initially theorized goal orientations was linked to a variety of student characteristics and learning variables. Generally, the set of learner characteristics associated with the mastery goal orientation were considered positive in relation to student characteristics and performance. Mastery-oriented students tended to place high intrinsic value on learning (Butler, 1987; Covington, 1999) and were inclined to use deep information processing strategies, such as developing multiple examples of concepts (Ames, 1992). They were apt to be self-regulated, using self-monitoring and organizational strategies, as well as adaptive to failures on particular tasks. Mastery-oriented students tended to pursue challenging tasks (Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliot & Dweck, 1988). Moreover, they became engaged in chosen tasks, spending a great deal of time on them (Schunk, 1996). The Vol. 31.1 Educational Research Quarterly Vol. 31, No. 1, Sep 2007 49 failure (Elliot, 1999; Elliot & Church, 1997). Elliot et al. (1999) found performance-avoidance to be positively correlated with surface processing and disorganization, and negatively correlated with Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) scores, grade point average (GPA), deep processing, and exam performance. On the other hand, with the new approach-avoidance distinction, a performance-approach goal orientation was positively correlated with academic achievement (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001; Barron, Schwab, & Harackiewicz, 1999; Church et al., 2001; Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & McGregor, 1999, 2001; Harackiewicz, 2000, 2002). With the goal orientation trichotomy, it appeared that low achievement was associated with performance-avoidance goal orientations, whereas academic success was frequently correlated with performance-approach goal orientation, and sometimes associated with mastery goal orientations. The 2 x 2 Goal Orientation Model The next development in goal orientation theory was the creation of a 2 x 2 model of goal orientations (Elliot, 1999). Just as performance goal orientations were split with the approach-avoidance distinction, mastery goals were divided as well. Elliot (1999) posited that mastery-avoidance goal oriented individuals avoid “self-referential or task-referential incompetence” (p. 181). Mastery-avoidance orientation was contrasted to mastery approach orientation, such that mastery-avoidant individuals attempted to avoid losing competency, skill, and appreciation, rather than attempted to gain it. There is some evidence to suggest the validity and utility of the 2 x 2 model in accounting for variance in academic achievement (e.g., Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Goal Orientations in the Educational Leadership Domain Can the described goal orientation theory of motivation be generalized and applied to specific domains of educational learning and work performance? For instance, could this theory be Educational Research Quarterly 2007 50 generalized and applied to an educational leadership preparation program and carry on to the student’s future work performance as a campus principal? For example, does a performance-approach orientation in statistics classes, translate into having the same orientation in educational leadership classes? Will a mastery-approach oriented educational leadership student, be a mastery-approach oriented principal? If the answer to these questions is yes, then the goal orientation constructs are domain generalizable—one’s orientation in one area of learning or work performance would be the same in another area of learning or work performance. If the answer to these questions is no, then one could be performance-oriented in statistics and mastery-oriented in educational leadership. Although scarce evidence on the topic exists, Stodolsky, Salk, and Glessner (1991) point to differences in student perceptions based on differences in domains. Students' views of the classroom shift because of the subject matter being taught. That is, the content domain plays a role in determining students' affect, cognitions, and behavior, thus the domain may alter students' goal orientations. Furthermore, there is indication that goal orientations apply to work performance (Porath & Bateman, 2006), not only to instructional performance in the classroom. Bong (2001) found that performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals tend to translate across domains. There was a tendency for people who were performance-approach or performance-avoidance to remain that way in various areas of learning and performance. In contrast, mastery-approach goal orientations tended to change across domains. Thus, when a student is performance-approach or performance-avoidance oriented, she may hold the same orientation as a professional; this may not be so for the mastery-approach oriented person. This point is particularly noteworthy for educational leadership students who tend to be older students who hold mastery-approach orientations (Eppler & Harju, 1997). Purpose for Present Research Vol. 31.1 Educational Research Quarterly Vol. 31, No. 1, Sep 2007 51 The purpose for the present research is to identify the validity and internal consistency of a modified version of the Elliot and McGregor (2001) 2 x 2 goal orientation measure, which was an extension of an instrument created by Elliot and Church (1997) to measure the goal orientation trichotomy. The Elliot and McGregor measure was worded to address younger students studying science. The modified measure created in the present study was designed to measure the 2 x 2 goal orientations (i.e., mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, performance-avoidance) in the domain of educational leadership. It is hypothesized that through factor analysis these four goal orientations will be identified in this scale placing them in the educational leadership domain. Using correlations, the discriminant validity of the subscales will be sought, and Cronbach’s Alpha will be calculated to provide evidence of internal consistency. Descriptive statistics for each of the four subscales will be presented with the expectation that the older educational leadership students will be primarily mastery-approach oriented, consistent with the research of Eppler and Harju (1997). No prior investigation on the measurement of goal orientations in the area of educational leadership has been found in the literature. Therefore, this study can serve as a major contribution to the advancement of research on the measurement of the goal orientation theory of motivation in educational leadership development. Method Participants There were 310 participants, all of whom were graduate students in an educational leadership program in a mid-sized university located in the southwest region of the United States. There were 222 women and 88 men in the sample. The mean age was 34.12 (SD = 7.13). The sample was 51.6% Caucasian, 25.2% Hispanic, 20.9% African American, 1.3% Asian, and 1.0% other. The mean teaching experience was 7.42 years (SD = 4.92). The Educational Research Quarterly 2007 54 Table 1. Factor Analysis Item F1 F2 F3 F4 10. I am often concerned that I may not learn all that there is to learn in my educational leadership classes. .91 2. I worry that I may not learn all that I possibly could in my educational leadership classes. .88 6. Sometimes I'm afraid that I may not understand the content of my educational leadership classes as thoroughly as I'd like. .77 1. It is important for me to do better than other students in my educational leadership classes. .90 5. It is important for me to do well compared to other students in my educational leadership classes. .88 9. My goal in my educational leadership classes is to get a better grade than most of the other students. .84 8. My goal in my educational leadership classes is to avoid performing poorly. .92 4. I just want to avoid doing poorly in my educational leadership classes. .84 12. My fear of performing poorly in my educational leadership classes is often what motivates me. .42 3. I want to learn as much as possible from my educational leadership classes. .84 7. It is important for me to understand the content of my educational leadership courses as thoroughly as possible. .82 11. I desire to completely master the material presented in my educational leadership classes. .62 Table 2 shows the correlations between the factors, the means, standard deviations and (Cronbach's Alpha) of each subscale. Vol. 31.1 Educational Research Quarterly Vol. 31, No. 1, Sep 2007 55 Table 2. Correlation, Descriptive Statistics, and (Cronbach's Alpha) Factor M SD 1 2 3 4 1. MAv 4.00 1.72 (.82) .19** .17** .22** 2. PAp 4.37 1.65 - (.85) .14** .40** 3. PAv 4.20 1.75 - - (.71) .07 4. MAp 6.50 .64 - - - (.66) Note. MAv = mastery avoidance, PAp = performance approach, PAv = performance avoidance, MAp = mastery approach. The results indicated that the correlations are generally quite low. This suggests that the factors are distinct. The highest correlations are between Performance Approach and Mastery Approach, which suggests shared variability between these factors. Still the r = .40 is still low enough to warrant the conclusion that all factors are separate. Hence, discriminant validity evidence exists. The Cronbach’s Alphas can be described as ranging from fair (.66) to good (.85), making the instrument usable for further research. The subscale with the highest mean in this sample of educational leadership students was the mastery-approach orientation (M = 6.50, SD = .64) with mastery avoidance orientation having the lowest mean (M = 4.00, SD = 1.72). Discussion The results offer factorial and discriminant validity for the instrument, as well as internal consistency evidence. The motivational theory of goal orientations appears to transfer well into the educational leadership domain. These results suggest that the measure can serve as a valuable research tool in studying the motivation of graduate students who are participating in educational leadership programs, preparing for careers as school administrators (e.g., principals). Research results suggest that older graduate students, such as those often found in school leadership preparation programs, are more likely to be mastery-approach oriented, thus they are likely to possess desirable characteristics, Educational Research Quarterly 2007 56 like exerting effort and achieving success, which could help develop their school administrator efficacy (see McCollum, Kajs, & Minter, 2006). The instrument can have multiple valuable applications in an educational leadership preparation program. It can allow graduate students to identify and better understand the specific goal orientations they possess, including the various academic and professional consequences of these orientations. University personnel can use the measure to gauge educational leadership students’ types and levels of goal orientations to better comprehend their motivations, and when possible and necessary, reinforce goal orientations that will help them to become more efficacious and academically successful. The instrument is already being used with educational leadership students in the Collaborative Bilingual Administrator Training (CBAT) program at the University of Houston-Clear Lake (UHCL). The CBAT program at UHCL is a five-year federally funded grant project. The primary purpose of the CBAT project is to prepare certified bilingual school administrators to work in schools with high populations of English language learners. A set of measurement instruments both original and revised was developed to research the motivational characteristics (e.g., school administrator efficacy and educational leadership goal orientations) of these educational administration students. Considering the multiple values of the measurement instrument in the educational leadership domain, further research with this instrument should address the influence of context and culture on goal orientations as well as the translation of goal orientations from university preparation to workplace assignment. In addition, relationships to academic outcomes such as percepts of efficacy and GPA should be studied. In closing, because no prior research on the assessment and development of educational leadership goal orientations can be found, the measure can serve as a valuable resource and basis of information in studying the motivation of graduate students in school leadership preparation programs.