You are here:

A citizen science approach to measuring students’ achievement goals
ARTICLE

, , , , , University of Vienna, Austria

International Journal of Educational Research Volume 95, Number 1, ISSN 0883-0355 Publisher: Elsevier Ltd

Abstract

The concept of citizen science in scientific research brings researchers and laypersons together to work on research projects. Using an achievement goal theory framework, the present study employs a citizen science approach in which researchers and students collaboratively developed items assessing students’ achievement goals (mastery-approach, normative and appearance performance-approach, normative and appearance performance-avoidance goals). The newly developed scales were tested in two large studies carried out in Austria and the United Kingdom. All scales exhibited good psychometric properties (validity, reliability). Measurement invariance across the investigated subjects (mathematics and German in Austria and mathematics and English in the United Kingdom) and the two countries was established. Moreover, we investigated relations to implicit theories, self-efficacy, reference norms, and adaptive reactions to errors.

Citation

Lüftenegger, M., Bardach, L., Bergsmann, E., Schober, B. & Spiel, C. (2019). A citizen science approach to measuring students’ achievement goals. International Journal of Educational Research, 95(1), 36-51. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved August 9, 2024 from .

This record was imported from International Journal of Educational Research on April 7, 2019. International Journal of Educational Research is a publication of Elsevier.

Full text is availabe on Science Direct: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.03.003

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Ames, C. (1984). Achievement attributions and self-instructions under competitive and individualistic goal structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, pp. 478-487.
  2. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, pp. 261-271.
  3. Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, pp. 260-267.
  4. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
  5. Baranik, L.E., Stanley, L.J., Bynum, B.H., & Lance, C.E. (2010). Examining the construct validity of mastery-avoidance achievement goals: A meta-analysis. Human Performance, 23, pp. 265-282.
  6. Bardach, L., Lüftenegger, M., Yanagida, T., Spiel, C., & Schober, B. (2019). The role of within-class consensus on mastery goal structures in predicting socio-emotional outcomes. The British Journal of Educational Psychology.
  7. Bergsmann, E.M., Lüftenegger, M., Jöstl, G., Schober, B., & Spiel, C. (2013). The role of classroom structure in fostering students’ school functioning: A comprehensive and application-oriented approach. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, pp. 131-138.
  8. Bong, M. (2001). Between- and within-domain relations of academic motivation among middle and high school students: Self-efficacy, task-value, and achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, pp. 23-34.
  9. Bong, M. (2009). Age-related differences in achievement goal differentiation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, pp. 879-896.
  10. Bong, M., Woo, Y., & Shin, J. (2013). Do students distinguish between different types of performance goals?. Journal of Experimental Education, 81, pp. 464-489.
  11. Bonney, R., Ballard, H., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Phillips, T., Shirk, J., (2009). Public participation in scientific research: Defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education. Washington, DC: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE).
  12. Burnette, J.L., O’Boyle, E.H., VanEpps, E.M., Pollack, J.M., & Finkel, E.J. (2013). Mind-sets matter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation. Psychological Bulletin, 139, pp. 655-701.
  13. Chen, F.F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, pp. 464-504.
  14. Chen, J.A., & Pajares, F. (2010). Implicit theories of ability of Grade 6 science students: Relation to epistemological beliefs and academic motivation and achievement in science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, pp. 75-87.
  15. Cheung, G.W., & Rensvold, R.B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, pp. 233-255.
  16. Clark, L.A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, pp. 309-319.
  17. Clery, D. (2013). Galaxy zoo volunteers share pain and glory of research. Science, 333(6039), pp. 173-175.
  18. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  19. Dinger, F.C., Dickhäuser, O., Spinath, B., & Steinmayr, R. (2013). Antecedents and consequences of students’ achievement goals: A mediation analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 28, pp. 90-101.
  20. Dresel, M., Schober, B., Ziegler, A., Grassinger, R., & Steuer, G. (2013). Affektiv-motivational adaptive und handlungsadaptive Reaktionen auf Fehler im Lernprozess [Affective-motivational adaptive and action adaptive reactions on errors in learning processes]. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogische Psychologie, 27, pp. 255-271.
  21. Duda, J.L., & Nicholls, J.G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, pp. 290-299.
  22. Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. The American Psychologist, 41, pp. 1040-1048.
  23. Dweck, C.S., & Leggett, E.L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, p. 256.
  24. Edwards, O.V. (2014). Differentiating performance approach goals and their unique effects. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2, pp. 134-145.
  25. Elliot, A.J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. Handbook of competence and motivation, pp. 52-72. New York: The Guilford Press.
  26. Elliot, A.J., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, pp. 461-475.
  27. Elliot, A.J., & McGregor, H.A. (2001). A 2x2 goal achievement framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, pp. 501-519.
  28. Elliot, A.J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique, illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, pp. 613-628.
  29. Elliot, A.J., & Thrash, T.M. (2001). Achievement goals and the hierarchical model of achievement motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 13, pp. 139-156.
  30. Elliot, A.J., Murayama, K., & Pekrun, R. (2011). A 3 × 2 achievement goal model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, pp. 632-648.
  31. Flake, J.K., Pek, J., & Hehman, E. (2017). Construct validation in social and personality research: Current practice and recommendations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, pp. 370-378.
  32. Grassinger, R., & Dresel, M. (2017). Who learns from errors on a class test? Antecedents and profiles of adaptive reactions to errors in a failure situation. Learning and Individual Differences, 53, pp. 61-68.
  33. Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, pp. 1-55.
  34. Huang, C. (2016). Achievement goals and self-efficacy: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 19, pp. 119-137.
  35. Huang, C. (2011). Achievement goals and achievement emotions: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 23, pp. 359-388.
  36. Huang, C. (2011). Discriminant and criterion-related validity of achievement goals in predicting academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, pp. 48-73.
  37. Hulleman, C.S., Schrager, S.M., Bodmann, S.M., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (2010). A meta-analytic review of achievement goal measures: Different labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar labels?. Psychological Bulletin, 136, pp. 422-449.
  38. Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M.L. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, pp. 141-184.
  39. Karabenick, S.A., Woolley, M.E., Friedel, J.M., Ammon, B.V., Blazevski, J., Bonney, C.R., (2007). Cognitive processing of self-report items in educational research: Do they think what we mean?. Educational Psychologist, 42, pp. 139-151.
  40. Khajavy, G.H., Bardach, L., Hamedi, S.M., & Lüftenegger, M. (2018). Broadening the nomological network of classroom goal structures using doubly latent multilevel modeling. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 52, pp. 62-73.
  41. King, R.B. (2016). Is a performance- avoidance achievement goal always maladaptive? Not necessarily for collectivists. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, pp. 190-195.
  42. Klug, J., Lüftenegger, M., Bergsmann, E., Spiel, C., & Schober, B. (2016). Secondary school students’ LLL competencies, and their relation with classroom structure and achievement. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, p. 680.
  43. Koskey, K.L.K., Karabenick, S.A., Woolley, M.E., Bonney, C.R., & Dever, B.V. (2010). Cognitive validity of students’ self-reports of classroom mastery goal structure: What students are thinking and why it matters. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, pp. 254-263.
  44. Lee, M., & Bong, M. (2016). In their own words: Reasons underlying the achievement striving of students in schools. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, pp. 274-294.
  45. Little, T.D., Slegers, D.W., & Card, N.A. (2006). A non-arbitrary method of identifying and scaling latent variables in SEM and MACS models. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13, pp. 59-72.
  46. Lüftenegger, M., & Chen, J.A. (2017). Conceptual issues and assessment of implicit theories. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 225, pp. 99-106.
  47. Lüftenegger, M., Kollmayer, M., Bergsmann, E., Jöstl, G., Spiel, C., & Schober, B. (2015). Mathematically gifted students and high achievement: the role of motivation and classroom structure. High Ability Studies, 26, pp. 227-243.
  48. Lüftenegger, M., Schober, B., van de Schoot, R., Wagner, P., Finsterwald, M., & Spiel, C. (2012). Lifelong learning as a goal - do autonomy and self-regulation in school result in well prepared pupils?. Learning and Instruction, 22, pp. 27-36.
  49. Lüftenegger, M., Tran, U.S., Bardach, L., Schober, B., & Spiel, C. (2017). Measuring a mastery goal structure using the TARGET framework. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 225, pp. 64-75.
  50. Middleton, M.J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, pp. 710-718.
  51. Midgley, C., Maehr, M.L., Hruda, L.Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K.E., (2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales (PALS). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
  52. Miller-Rushing, A., Primack, R., & Bonney, R. (2012). The history of public participation in ecological research. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10, pp. 285-290.
  53. Moller, A.C., & Elliot, A.J. (2006). The 2x2 achievement goal framework: An overview of empirical research. Focus on educational psychology, pp. 307-326. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
  54. Muthén, B.O., & Muthén, L.K. (2015). Mplus (Version 7. 4). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
  55. Nicholls, J.G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, pp. 328-346.
  56. Payne, S.C., Youngcourt, S.S., & Beaubien, J.M. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, pp. 128-150.
  57. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY: International University Press.
  58. Pintrich, P.R., Conley, A.M., & Kempler, T.M. (2003). Current issues in achievement goal theory and research. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, pp. 319-337.
  59. Prainsack, B. (2011). Voting with their mice: Personal genome testing and the “Participatory turn” in disease research. Accountability in Research, 18, pp. 132-147.
  60. Rheinberg, F. (1983). Achievement evaluation: A fundamental difference and its motivational consequences. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 9, pp. 185-194.
  61. Riesch, H. (2015). Citizen science. International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, pp. 631-636. Oxford: Elsevier.
  62. Ruiz-Primo, M.A., Shavelson, R.J., Li, M., & Schultz, S.E. (2001). On the validity of cognitive interpretations of scores from alternative concept-mapping techniques. Educational Assessment, 7, pp. 99-141.
  63. Schober, B., Brandt, L., Kollmayer, M., & Spiel, C. (2016). Overcoming the ivory tower: Transfer and societal responsibility as crucial aspects of the Bildung-Psychology approach. The European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13, pp. 636-651.
  64. Schöne, C., Dickhäuser, O., Spinath, B., & Stiensmeier-Pelster, J. (2004). Zielorientierung und Bezugsnormorientierung: Zum Zusammenhang zweier Konzepte [Goal orientation and reference-norm orientation: Two related constructs?]. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogische Psychologie, 18, pp. 93-99.
  65. Schriesheim, C.A., Powers, K.J., Scandura, T.A., Gardiner, C.C., & Lankau, M.J. (1993). Improving construct measurement in management research: Comments and a quantitative approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper-and-Pencil survey-type instruments. Journal of Management, 19, pp. 385-417.
  66. Senko, C., & Dawson, B. (2017). Performance-approach goal effects depend on how they are defined: Meta-analytic evidence from multiple educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109, pp. 574-598.
  67. Senko, C., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (2002). Performance goals: The moderating roles of context and achievement orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, pp. 603-610.
  68. Senko, C., & Tropiano, K.L. (2016). Comparing three models of achievement goals: Goal orientations, goal standards, and goal complexes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, pp. 1178-1192.
  69. Senko, C., Hulleman, C.S., & Harackiewicz, J. (2011). Achievement goal theory at the crossroads: Old controversies, current challenges, and new directions. Educational Psychologist, 46, pp. 26-47.
  70. Shirk, J., Ballard, H., Wilderman, C., Phillips, T., Wiggins, A., Jordan, R., (2012). Public participation in scientific research: A framework for deliberate design. Ecology and Society, 17(2), p. 29.
  71. Spiel, C., Schober, B., Jöstl, G., & Bergsmann, E. (2013). Kompetenzen zum Lebenslangen Lernen: Die gemeinsame Sicht von SchülerInnen und WissenschaftlerInnen [Students’ and Scientists’ Joint Perspectives on lifelong learning competencies]. Wien: Universität Wien.
  72. Spinath, B., Stiensmeier-Pelster, J., Schöne, C., & Dickhäuser, O. (2002). Die Skalen zur Erfassung von Lern- und Leistungsmotivation (SELLMO) [Scales for the assessment of learning and performance motivation (SELLMO)]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
  73. Steuer, G., Rosentritt-Brunn, G., & Dresel, M. (2013). Dealing with errors in mathematics classrooms: Structure and relevance of perceived error climate. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, pp. 196-210.
  74. Toogood, M. (2013). Engaging publics: Biodiversity data collection and the geographies of citizen science: Engaging publics. Geography Compass, 7(9), pp. 611-621.
  75. Tulis, M., Steuer, G., & Dresel, M. (2016). Learning from errors: A model of individual processes. Frontline Learning Research, 4(2), pp. 12-26.
  76. Tulis, M., Steuer, G., & Dresel, M. (2018). Positive beliefs about errors as an important element of adaptive individual dealing with errors during academic learning. Educational Psychology, 38, pp. 139-158.
  77. Tuss, P. (1996). From student to scientist: An experiential approach to science education. Science Communication, 17, pp. 443-481.
  78. Urdan, T., & Mestas, M. (2006). The goals behind performance goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, pp. 354-365.
  79. Van de Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. The European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, pp. 486-492.
  80. Van de Vijver, F., & Hambleton, R.K. (1996). Translating tests. European Psychologist, 1, pp. 89-99.
  81. Wagner, P., Schober, B., Gradinger, P., Reimann, R., & Spiel, C. (2010). E-Learning unterstützte Förderung von selbstreguliertem Lernen an der Universität [E-Learning-supported encouragement of self-regulated learning at the university]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 24, pp. 289-303.
  82. Warburton, V., & Spray, S. (2014). Appearance- and competition-focused performance goals: Examining their links with performance in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 20, pp. 305-318.
  83. Woolley, M.E., Bowen, G.L., & Bowen, N.K. (2004). Cognitive pretesting and the developmental validity of child self-report instruments: Theory and applications. Research on Social Work Practice, 14, pp. 191-200.
  84. Ziegler, A., Dresel, M., Schober, B., & Stoeger, H. (2005). Ulm motivational test battery (UMTB): Documentation of items and scales (Ulm educational psychological research report, No. 15). Ulm: Ulm University, Department of Educational Psychology.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References