Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
Motivation AERA 2009
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Motivation AERA 2009

  • 367 views
Published

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
367
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. 1

  • 2. During
the
past
50
years,
considerable
research
has
focused
on
the
effects
of
goals
on
 mo;va;on.
Within
the
school
achievement
literature,
three
levels
of
analysis
have
 been
especially
emphasized.
At
the
individual
level,
research
has
contrasted
 mo;va;onal
paAerns
associated
with
various
dimensions
of
students’
individual
 goals,
including
goal
orienta;ons,
expecta;ons,
origins,
and
content.
At
the
classroom
 level,
research
on
classroom
goal
structures
has
examined
how
features
of
the
 learning
environment
can
significantly
influence
students’
personal
goal
orienta;ons
 and
associated
mo;va;onal
paAerns.
Finally,
researchers
have
also
examined
how
 school‐level
goal
structures
influence
students’
personal
goals
and
mo;va;on
in
 those
seIngs.

 2

  • 3. Less
well
understood
is
how
the
rela%onal
dimension
of
students’
goals
affects
mo;va;on.
 The
rela;onal
dimension
focuses
on
how
student’s
individual
goals
may
be
differen;aly
 linked
to
peers’
goals.
Thus,
the
rela;onal
dimension
of
students’
goals
exists
between
 students
rather
than
within
(e.g.,
goal
orienta;ons)
or
in
the
larger
classroom
or
school
 contexts.

 According
to
social
interdependence
theory,
the
rela;onal
dimension
of
students’
goals
may
 be
differen;ated
in
terms
of
how
each
individual’s
goal
aAainment
is
affected
by
the
ac;ons
 of
others.
Specifically,
students’
goals
may
be
pos%vely
interdependent
(i.e.,
linked
by
 coopera;ve
goal
structures),
such
that
individual’s
perceive
that
they
can
reach
their
goals
if
 and
only
if
the
other
individuals
with
whom
they
are
coopera;vely
linked
also
reach
their
 goals.
Students’
goals
may
also
be
nega%vely
interdependent
(i.e.,
linked
by
compe;;ve
goal
 structures),
such
that
individuals
perceive
that
they
can
obtain
their
goals
if
and
only
if
the
 other
individuals
with
whom
they
are
compe;;vely
linked
fail
to
obtain
their
goals.
Finally,
 students’
goals
may
also
be
independent
(i.e.,
no
interdependence
or
linked
by
individualis;c
 goal
structures),
such
that
individuals
perceive
that
they
can
reach
their
goal
regardless
of
 whether
other
individuals
aAain
or
do
not
aAain
their
goals.
 The
basic
premise
of
social
interdependence
theory
is
that
the
way
in
which
interdependence
 is
structured
determines
how
individuals
interact
which,
in
turn,
determines
outcomes.
Thus,
 when
individuals’
goals
are
structured
coopera;vely
(posi;ve
interdependence),
individuals
 will
tend
to
promote
the
success
of
others
(e.g.,
mutual
help
and
assistance,
sharing
 resources
and
informa;on,
and
ac;ng
in
trustworthy
and
trus;ng
ways).
Compe;;ve
goal
 structures
in
contrast
result
in
opposi;onal
interac;on
paAerns
(e.g.,
obstruc;ng
others’
goal
 achievement
efforts,
hiding
resources
and
informa;on
from
each
other,
and
ac;ng
in
 distrusRul
and
distrus;ng
ways).
Finally,
the
absence
of
goal
structures
(no
interdependence)
 results
in
the
absence
of
interac;on.

 3

  • 4. The
basic
premise
of
this
study
is
that
the
extent
to
which
mo;va;on
is
posi;vely
or
 nega;vely
associated
with
achievement
depends
on
the
way
peers’
achievement
 goals
are
linked
(or
structured).
Following
social
interdependence
theory,
the
 argument
is
made
that
coopera;ve
and
compe;;ve
goal
structures
differen;ally
 affect
the
rela;on
between
mo;va;on
and,
the
former
crea;ng
the
condi;ons
under
 which
one
enhances
the
other,
the
laAer
crea;ng
the
condi;ons
under
which
one
 obstructs
the
other.

 Social
interdependence
theory
predicts
that
coopera;ve
goal
structures
will
result
in
 higher
achievement
than
will
compe;;ve
or
individualis;c
goal
structures.
Because
 coopera;ve
goal
structures
tend
to
result
in
promo;ve
interac;on
(thus
providing
the
 assistance,
informa;on,
and
resources
needed
to
achieve
their
mutual
goals),
 whereas
compe;;ve
and
individualis;c
goal
structures
result
in
opposi;onal
or
no
 interac;on,
respec;vely,
it
may
be
expected
that
coopera;ve
goal
structures
will
 result
in
higher
achievement
than
will
compe;;ve
or
individualis;c.

 Social
interdependence
theory
also
predicts
that
coopera;ve
goal
structures
will
 promote
greater
mo;va;on
than
compe;;ve
or
individualis;c
goal
structures.
 According
to
Deutsch’s
original
theorizing,
when
individual
goals
are
structured
 coopera;vely,
success
in
achieving
one’s
goals
will
result
in
a
posi;ve
cathexis
(i.e.,
 emo;onal
investment)
toward
other
dimensions
of
the
psychological
field.
Thus,
 coopera;ve
goal
structures
will
be
associated
with
more
posi;ve
aItudes
toward
the
 achievement
objec;ve
(e.g.,
subject
maAer
in
educa;onal
seIngs)
and
an
increase
in
 self‐efficacy.
Contras;ng
these
outcomes,
when
individual
goals
are
structured
 compe;;vely,
failure
to
achieve
one’s
goals
will
result
in
a
nega;ve
cathexis
toward
 other
dimensions
of
the
psychological
field
such
as
dislike
for
subject
maAer
and
 more
nega;ve
feelings
of
self‐efficacy.
Finally,
when
goals
are
structures
 individualis;cally,
the
feelings
generated
by
success
or
failure
to
achieve
one’s
goals
 tend
not
to
transfer
to
other
psychological
dimensions.

 4

  • 5. 5

  • 6. 6

  • 7. Hedges
gU
provides
less
biased
ES
es;mates
by
correc;ng
for
the
slight
 overes;ma;on
of
the
popula;on
ES
for
small
samples.
 Models
fiAed
in
HLM
have
the
general
form

 7

  • 8. 8

  • 9. 9

  • 10. 10

  • 11. 11

  • 12. 12

  • 13. 13

  • 14. 14