Presentation at the Southwestern Educational Research Association conference, San Antonio, February 7, 2013.

1. Does Goal Orientation Predict Participation
in a Community College Honors Program?
Educational Psychology & Individual Differences
PhD Candidacy Project Proposal
Scott R. Furtwengler
Thursday, January 7, 2013

2. Outline
 Overview of the problem
 Purpose of the current study
 Brief overview of extant literature
 Methodology
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 Questions

3. Overview of the problem
 Mean differences between honors versus
traditional high ability students remain
largely unexplained.
 High ability, low SES students are not
participating in honors programs or
enrolling in selective institutions.

4. Purpose of the current study
 Research questions:
 Does the adoption of a specific
Achievement Goal Orientation among high
ability students have predictive accuracy in
predicting participation in a community
college honors program?

5. Overview of extant literature
 Post-secondary honors programs
 The community college context
 Achievement goal orientation

6. Honors Programs
 Cosgrove (2004): mean GPA
 Long & Lange (2002): conscientiousness,
openness to experience, GPA, ACT
 Rinn (2007): academic achievement and
higher academic self-concept
 Scager, Akkerman, Keesen, Mainhard,
Pilot, & Wubbels (2012): desire to learn,
drive to excel, creativity

7. Honors Programs
 Moon (2012):
 Perceived honors as extra work without
adequate benefit
 Were concerned about time commitments
and increased stress
 Lacked a clear understanding about the
program
 Lacked academic self-efficacy

8. Community College Context
 Byrne (1988): review of literature
 Long & Kurleander (2011): lower rates of
degree completion and college credits
earned
 Olivas (1975) & Outcalt (1999):
disproportion of underrepresented students

9. Achievement Goal Orientation
 Dweck (1986)
 Maehr (1983)
 Nicholls (1984)
 Mastery goals: developing competence
through task mastery
 Performance goals: developing
competence relative to others

10. Achievement Goal Orientation
 Elliot (1999)
 Elliot & Harackiewicz (1996)
 Pintrich (2000)
 Extended to a 2 x 2 model
 Definitions of competence: mastery &
performance
 Valences of competence: approach &
avoid

11. Achievement Goal Orientation
 Law, Elliot, & Murayama (2012)
 Performance-approach goals: high effort,
high persistence, high level of aspiration,
high academic performance
 Performance-avoid goals: disorganized
study strategies, high test anxiety, low
academic performance, low intrinsic
motivation
 Perceived competence is a moderator

12. Methodology
 Participants
 Instrument
 Procedure

13. Methodology: participants
 San Jacinto College is a community college with three
campuses in east and south Houston. Total unduplicated
enrollment for spring 2012 was 26, 465: 57% female,
33% White, 10% African American, 40% Hispanic, 5%
Asian, 1% Native American, 2% non-resident alien, 9%
not reported, < 1% Native Hawaiian). Targeted
participants include approximately 600 community
college students who earned a cumulative GPA of 3.25
on at least 12 college credit hours by the end of summer
semester 2012 and have chosen to participate in the
college’s honors program.

14. Methodology: participants
 Group: N = 398,120 honors, 278 non-honors
 Gender: 293 Female, 105 Male
 Ethnicity: 159 White or Caucasian, 116 Hispanic or
Latino Origin, 23 Black or African American, 37 Asian, 7
Native American or Alaskan, 19 International, and 37
Unknown or Not Reported
 Status: 383 Continuing, 15 FTIC

15. Methodology: instrument
 Achievement Goal Questionnaire – Revised or AGQ-R
(Elliott & Murayama, 2008), a 12-item survey, each item
consisting of a five-point summative response scale. The
structural validity of Elliott’s and Murayama’s revised
instrument stands up to rigorous scrutiny. They found the
four-factor structure to be a better fit to the data than
other three- and two-factor structures, with each of the
four factors exhibiting a high-degree of internal
consistency and reliability (Cronbach’s alphas: Mastery-
approach, .84; Mastery-avoidance, .88; Performance-
approach, .92; and Performance-avoidance, .94).

16. Methodology: instrument
 Their SEM analyses of the predictive utility of the
instrument were also strongly supportive, with
performance-approach significantly and positively
predicting exam performance (.36) and performance
avoidance goals significantly and negatively predicting
exam performance (-.33). In addition, their results show
mastery-approach goals emerging from the “need for
achievement” antecedent and performance-avoidance
goals emerging from the “fear of failure” antecedent.

17. Methodology: procedure
 1606 e-mail invitations to participate in the study were
sent to San Jacinto College students who had
successfully completed at least 12 hours of college-level
courses and had a cumulative grade point average of at
least 3.25. 400 students responded by completing the
instrument for a 25.91% response rate. 1 respondent
was excluded because he/she could not be identified. 1
eighteen-year-old, Hispanic female originally identified
as “honors” and “continuing” was excluded based on
0.66 GPA.

18. Results
 ANOVA: No statistically significant
difference in goal orientation between
groups, although honors students
maintained higher mean in Mastery-
Avoidance.
 Logistic Regression: No evidence of
predictive accuracy for goal orientation.

19. Discussion
 Limitations: sample size, community college
population (generalizability), lack of
awareness.
 Are community colleges effectively
identifying and serving the high-ability
students who are attending their
institutions?

20. Future research
 Explore other factors that might account for
differences in participation and academic
outcomes between the two groups:
academic self-concept, achievement goal
orientation, attributional style, expectancy-
values theory, parents’ level of education,
SES.
 Achievement Goal Orientation: co-
activation of performance valences.
Additional dimensions.

21. References
 Byrne, J. P. (1998). Honors Programs in Community Colleges: A Review of Recent Issues and
Literature.
 Cosgrove, J. R. (2004). The impact of honors programs on undergraduate academic
performance, retention, and graduation. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 45-
53.
 Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41,
1040-1048.
 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,
461– 475. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.461
 Law, W., Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2012). Perceived competence moderates the relation
between performance-approach and performance-avoid goals. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 104, 806-819.
 Long, E.C.J. & Lange S. (2002). An Exploratory Study: A Comparison of Honors & Non-Honors
Students. The National Honors Report, 23 (1): 20-30.
 Long, T. L & Kurleander, M. (2011). Do community college provide a viable pathway to a
baccalaureate degree? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 30-53.
 Maehr, M. L. (1983). On doing well in science: Why Johnny no longer excels, why Sarah never
did. In S. Paris, G. Olson, & H. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom
(pp. 179–210). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

22. References
 Moon, J. L., (2012). Honors and high-ability students: Factors that predict
academic efficacy, critical thinking skills, and academic goals. Graduate Theses
and Dissertations. Paper 12412.
 Olivas, M. A. (1975). A Statistical Portrait of Honors Programs in Two-Year
Colleges. (ED 221 257).
 Outcalt, C. L. (1999). The importance of community college honors programs.
New Directions for Community Colleges, 108, 59-68.
 Pintrich, P. R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in
motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25, 92–104.
 Rinn, A. N. (2007). Effects of programmatic selectivity on the academic
achievement, Academic self-concepts, and aspirations of gifted college students.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 232-245.
 Scager, K., Akkerman, S. F., Keesen, F., Mainhard, M. T., Pilot, A., & Wubbels, T.
(2012). Do honors students have more potential for excellence in their
professional lives? Higher Education, 64, 19-39. DOI 10.1007/s10734-011-9478-z

23. Questions?

24. Contact information
Scott R. Furtwengler
Honors Program, San Jacinto College
13735 Beamer Road
Houston, TX 77089
281-929-4614
scott.furtwengler@sjcd.edu
srfurtwengler@uh.edu