Chapter 7 General discussions, implications and limitations
General discussions
The aims of the present study were to investigate the measurement structure, predictive utility of the 2 × 2 achievement goal model with the AGQ Chinese version, and cross year stability of goal pursuit and in Taiwanese pre-university students learning Chinese. To my knowledge, this exploration of achievement goal pursuit in learning Chinese language arts is an initial attempt compared with the majority of previous studies were for university students and in math, science and English domains.
The general discussion is presented in the following.
The factorial and dimensional structures of AGQ-C
I examined the factorial structure of AGQ-C and found that four goals, mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals were distinct, perceived by Taiwanese students while learning Chinese. The factorial structure with four achievement goals had better-fit with the data than various dichotomous or trichotomous models.
Then I moved further toward an analysis of dimensional structure of AGQ-C. This attempt produced empirical evidence supports that four achievement goals indeed represents a combination of two underlying competence dimensions, valence and definition. As anticipated, the 12 items comprising AGQ-C largely reflect the conceptualization of the 2 × 2 achievement goal framework.
Every item contains two sources of achievement goals, one from the valence dimension (approach or avoidance) and the other from the definition dimension (mastery or performance). The dimensional goal structure, fitting the data and superior to other alternatives, posited that the valence of competence was crossed with the definition of competence, resulting in four separate goals. The valence dimension consisted of an approach factor and an avoidance factor only one of which was applicable to any given goal. Likewise, the definition dimension consisted of a mastery factor and a performance factor only one of which is applicable to any given goal. Taken together, the above factor analytic results and the internal consistencies provided strong support for AGQ-C.
The results of the second-order confirmatory factor analysis corroborated my expectation that
correlated with performance), whereas factors across dimensions were uncorrelated. It is also worth noting that Pearson correlations between some pairs of goal subscales were rather high (i.e., mastery-approach and performance-approach, mastery-approach and mastery-avoidance, mastery-avoidance and performance-avoidance). A consistent observation on the pattern of correlations shown in the Pearson correlation matrix and the second-order factor analysis is that goals sharing a common definition dimension appear to be more closely related than goals sharing a common valence dimension. These findings are in accordance with those of Elliot and McGregor (2001) based on AGQ.
The close relationship between mastery and performance was likely influenced by the fact that grades can be applicable to either mastery-based or performance-based goals depending on the nature of performance evaluation in the achievement setting (Elliot & McGregor, 2001), e.g., a task-based or normative grading structure. Most achievement goal theorists agree that mastery-based and performance-based goals focus on different types of competence (Dweck, 1986), but measures commonly contain content that seems applicable to both types of competence (Elliot & Murayama, 2008).
The current results were accorded with the Asian research findings of significantly positive correlations between mastery and performance goals in samples of Hong Kong (Chan, 2008) and Mainland China (Ng, 2000). These results bring out an issue that achievement goals may has a cultural root. It is plausible that a social endeavor emphasis in Chinese culture mingles the performance goals with master goals in which Confucius’s teachings encourage social goals of bringing honor, wealth, and status to one’s family by studying hard and obtaining professional knowledge. The enjoyment of learning is not contradictory to obtaining earthy goods, rather they are complementary.
The path coefficient invariance of the dimensional model
The results of path coefficient invariance showed that Taiwanese students seem to instantly perceive the “approach” end of the valence dimension as mastery-approach goals rather than as performance-approach goals. In other words, students predominantly consider that “approach” as to maintain a purpose of develop knowledge and skills, and the evaluation of success is linked to intrapersonal or task based criteria. A possible reason was that Taiwanese students are socialized to value effort (effort model) and to believe that hard-working facilitates outstanding attainment (Shih, 2005b; Chen, 2005; Hwang, 2008). They are encouraged to believe that as long as they study hard enough, their personal competence will certainly be improved (Hwang, 2008). In other words, they seem to be encouraged to endorse mastery-based goals and approach-based goals simultaneously. In 2
× 2 achievement goal model, presumably the mastery-approach and the performance-approach factors contribute equally to form the approach factor. However, it was less likely that Taiwan students automatically evoke approach-based processing toward performance-approach goals.
For the other end of valence dimension, “avoidance,” Taiwanese students seem to instantly recognize it as performance-avoidance goals rather than mastery-avoidance goals.
Performance-avoidance goals define competence in normative terms and are negatively valenced. The focus is on avoiding unfavorable judgments of competency and poor performance compared to others (Elliot & Church, 1997). There appears to be widespread agreement that performance-avoidance goals are deleterious forms of regulation (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). When considering the influence of Confucian cultural tradition, Taiwan students seemed to internalize a personal duty of making effort (mastery-based goals) for attaining achievement success (approach-based goals) to glory family and provide affluence life for family. In addition, I observe that Taiwanese parents may allow children to avoid comparing with peers (performance-avoidance orientation) instead of avoiding mastery lessons (mastery-avoidance orientation). It may be possible that the internalization lead Taiwanese students to recognize the avoidance dimension as performance-avoidance goals rather than mastery-avoidance goals.
Besides, Taiwanese students seem to immediately perceive the “performance” end of the definition dimension as performance-approach goals rather than performance-avoidance goals. They predominantly consider “performance” as positively valenced as individuals actively trying to outperform others and demonstrating their competence. Goal theorists (Harackiewicz & Elliot, 1998;
Kaplan & Middleton, 2002) have noted that the performance-based goal endorsement tends to be reflected in a competitive learning environment. Taiwanese education has been well known for the highly competitive atmosphere that results from the system of school entrance examinations (Shih, 2005a; Yang, 1988). In order to apply school entrance permission, Taiwanese students have to strive for outstanding achievement relative to others. Accordingly, Taiwanese students may regard the performance dimension as performance-approach goals rather than performance-avoidance goals in this performance oriented, competitive context.
In contrast, Taiwanese students surprisingly appear to instantly recognize “mastery” as mastery-avoidance goals rather than mastery-approach goals. In statistic terms, mastery-approach goals were connected with performance-approach goals to form a latent approach factor, but the variance of mastery-approach goals dominantly contribute to the approach factor. Therefore, little variance of mastery-approach goals was left to couple with mastery-avoidance goals for the formation of the latent
mastery factor. However, in previous dichotomous or trichotomous models, mastery-based goals are reviewed as the more adaptive one (Pintrich et al., 2003) and was applauded by motivation researchers.
For example, Elliot and Church (1997) stated, “The adoption of a mastery goal is presumed to lead to a mastery motivational pattern (e.g., a preference for moderately challenging tasks, persistence in the face of failure, and enhanced task enjoyment).” My findings suggest that in the sample of Taiwanese students, the concept of mastery could not be assumed to tend toward a positive valence. The results seemed to imply that students may be lack of intrinsic motivation to strive for personal competence development. As the result, I examined the profile of mastery-avoidance goals for a better clarification about this surprising result.
The stability in 2 × 2 achievement goal endorsement over time
I have conducted a longitudinal analysis of panel data and provided evidence for stability in each achievement goal over time. In terms of the structural stability, no significant decreases in model fit were observed when the weak invariance model constraints or the strong invariance model were added to configural invariance. In this study, a significant decrease in model fits was found when the strict invariance model constraints were added. Actually, strong measurement invariance is considered to be sufficient for the comparison of scores across time points (Sayer & Cumsille, 2001; Zimprich &
Mascherek, 2010). The results seemed consistent along with the findings of Fryer and Elliot (2007) and Conroy et al. (2003).
I have examined differential stability that concerns the preservation of an individual’s relative placement (rank order) within a group across time. Previously in a sample of American university students, Fryer and Elliot (2007) found the intercorrelations among four goals ranged from .57 to .75 across three time points (approximately 5 weeks apart in dealing with a sequence of tasks). In contrast, my results with Taiwan pre-university students showed that the intercorrelations among four goals ranged from .29 to .58 across one year. The low to middle magnitude of intercorrelations suggest relative placements of many students did change across one year, from 7th to 8th grade and from 10th to 11th grade. The mastery-avoidance goals seem to be the least stable than other three goals in the 2 × 2 framework. I attributed this to the considerable changing phase of life for pre-university students; also the time interval in my study is much longer (tasks variety thus larger) than that in Fryer and Elliot (2007).
From the findings of mean-level stability, only performance-approach goals increased significantly
from Time 1 to Time 2 in Taiwan pre-university students. Fry and Elliot’s (2007) results revealed the stability for performance–approach and mastery–avoidance goals but significant shifts over time for mastery–approach and performance–avoidance goals. In contrast, the current results indicated stability for mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, and mastery–avoidance goals, but significant increases over time for performance–approach goals. This result seemed to reflect the high pressure influence in Taiwanese competitive education context in which the 7th-grade participants have to apply high schools and 9th grade, universities.
The predictive utility of the 2 × 2 achievement goal model
In the examination of the predictive utility of the 2 × 2 achievement goal model, Chinese self-efficacy was regarded as the antecedent of achievement goals, which in turn were the proximal predictors of Chinese performance. I examined the mediating effect of achievement goals based on the factor and dimensional structures. When the factorial structure was applied, Chinese self-efficacy had strong positive effects both on mastery-approach goals and performance-approach goals while it exerted a weak negative effect on performance-avoidance goals. The result was in line with previous studies on the effects of self-efficacy and achievement goals in trichotomous model (e.g., Liem, Lau, &
Nie, 2008; Pajares et al., 2000; Pintrich et al., 2003). Chinese self-efficacy (as a belief about an individual’s capacity to understand and perform well in Chinese language acquisition) had no effect on mastery-avoidance goals (focusing on avoiding task-based or intrapersonal incompetence). Elliot and McGregor (2001) found that the pattern for mastery-avoidance goals was more negative than that for mastery-approach goals and more positive than that for performance-avoidance goals. Researchers (Bandura, 1986; Shunk, 1990) indicate that students with low subject self-efficacy tend to adopt avoidance goals while those who perceived themselves efficacious tend to adopt approach goals and participate in tasks at which they can succeed. Accordingly, self-efficacy had positive effects on two approach-based goals (mastery-approach and performance-approach), but had negative effects on performance-avoidance goals. The results seemed to reveal students with high/low self-efficacy do not tend to adopt mastery-avoidance goals. Elliot and McGregor (2001) attribute them to mixed conceptual profiles of mastery-avoidance goals, a combination of optimal and nonoptimal components: mastery and avoidance. Self-efficacy, one’s competence expectancies, may not evoke significant effects on mastery-avoidance because of the mixed conceptual profiles of mastery-avoidance goals per se. In addition, Taiwanese students no matter with high or low self-efficacy are encouraged to value effort
(mastering lessons as possible as they can). Therefore, the effects of self-efficacy on mastery-avoidance goals were not observed in my data. I suspects that mastery-avoidance goals may be impacted by some powerful external sources such as a classroom’s goal structure (Kaplan & Middleton, 2002; Urdan, 2004) or significant others’ expectations to students’ achievement success. Because mastery-avoidance goals are new additions to the model (Elliot & McGregor, 2001), further clarification of its conceptual definition and mediating effects between the other antecedents and various learning outcomes is indeed necessary.
Regarding the predictive utility of the factorial goal structure on Chinese performance, mastery-approach and performance-approach goals were positive predictors of Chinese performance while mastery-avoidance goals and performance-avoidance goals were negative predictors. The results of Cury et al. (2006) and Chan (2008) investigation of the achievement goals of younger students (from primary to high school) were consistent with the results that suggested both mastery-approach goals and performance-approach goals were positive predictors of grades while performance-avoidance goals, negative predictors. The results are also similar to Shih’s (2005a) findings in a sample of Taiwan elementary school students indicating that both mastery goals and performance-approach goals had positive impacts on grades. However, these results were in partial conflict with the findings of Elliot and McGregor (2001) and Elliot and Murayama (2008) in samples of American university students.
They found that either mastery-approach or mastery-avoidance goals had significant effect on academic performance in western college students. It is likely that Taiwanese pre-university school students’
achievement motivation influenced significantly by Confucian cultural tradition and education context.
They are expected to maintain approach-based goals to study hard for higher achievement (task mastery) and outperforming others (performance approach). Taiwanese students facing the competitive education context are expected to strive for success by simultaneously endorsing approach-based goals regardless of mastery or performance goals maintained. Accordingly, two approach-based goals (mastery-approach goals and performance approach goals) were positive predictors of Chinese performance. Besides, the findings from American university student data showed that mastery-based goals were not predictors of academic attainment. Compared to Taiwanese students facing the achievement competition, American university students have more self-determination to achievement attainment (mastery or performance), so their mastery goals reflect competence develop rather than competence demonstration.
When the dimensional goal structure was applied to the examination of the mediating effect of four factors along two competence dimensions, the data showed that Chinese self-efficacy had strong
positive effects on both the approach factor and the performance factor that in turn had positive proximal effects on Chinese performance. Chinese self-efficacy had a negative effect on the avoidance factor that in turn had a negative effect on Chinese performance. These findings are in accordance with the claims of social cognitive theorists (Bandura, 1986, 1993, 1997; Bandura, & Cervone, 1993; Shunk, 1981, 1990) that learners with high self-efficacy are more likely to form adaptive goals and consequently perform better, whereas learners with low self-efficacy tend to set maladaptive goals and perform poorly. However, self-efficacy could not predict the mastery factor that in turn had no impact on Chinese performance possibly because the mastery factor was actually mildly negatively valanced in my sample. Another probable reason was that Taiwanese students with high/ low academic self-efficacy may be impacted by Confucius thinking and significant others’ expectancies to value effort and strive for lesson mastery. Accordingly, the mastery factor (mostly reflected by mastery-avoidance goals) may not exert mediating effects between self-efficacy and Chinese performance. In terms of their mediating roles between motivational antecedent and learning performance, approach-avoidance factors along the valence dimension seem to be more successful than mastery-performance factors along the definition dimension with regard to Chinese language acquisition. The findings seemed to suggested that Taiwanese students tend to regard achievement goals as the valence orientation of competence (approach-avoidance dimensions) rather than the definition orientation of competence (mastery-performance dimensions).
Conclusions
To conclude, the analyses of factorial/dimensional structures and internal consistencies provided strong support for the 2 × 2 achievement goal framework in a sample of Taiwan pre-university school students. The 2 × 2 achievement goal structure of the achievement goal items was confirmed, and the four-factor goal structure was found to be a better fit to the data than a series of alternative models with dichotomous/trichotomous goal structures. The results further offered evidence for the two-dimensional structure posited by the 2 (definition) × 2 (valence) achievement goal model. With regard to the path coefficient invariance of the dimensional model, each pairs of goal has nonequivalent contribution to correspondent achievement goal dimensional factor. In other words, each dimensional factor was mainly derived from different achievement goals.
Measures of three stability indexes (structural, differential continuity, and mean-level stability) provided evidence for the stability of achievement goal endorsement over time in a panel sample of
Taiwan pre-university students. In terms of predictive utility, three of four achievement goals:
mastery-approach, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance were found to be effective mediators between Chinese self-efficacy and Chinese grades. When examining the mediating effects of the dimensional goal structure, the approach-avoidance factors along the valence dimension seemed to be more successful than the mastery-performance factors along the definition dimension.
Approach-based goals were observed for significant predictors of Chinese grades in Taiwanese students.
Taken together, my data strongly supports that the 2 × 2 achievement goal framework appears to be empirically as well as conceptually sound for Taiwanese students and have mediating utility on self-efficacy and Chinese grades.
Implications
My findings provide implications for achievement goal researchers and teachers in Taiwan context.
The results of the structural validity, stability and predictive utility yielded strong support for the AGQ-C, and the measure appears to be empirically as well as conceptually sound for Taiwanese students. For achievement goal researchers, the results demonstrated cross-cultural generalizability of the 2 × 2 achievement goal framework to Taiwanese pre-university students in learning Chinese while cultural differences have impacts on how students conceptualize approach-avoidance and mastery-performance. The results implied that approach-based goals (mastery-approach and performance-approach) and the approach factor were significant predictors of Chinese performance.
Self-efficacy had no effects on the mastery (dimensional) factor, which in turn had no effects on Chinese performance because the mastery factor was principally derived from the variance of mastery-avoidance goals. The existence of mastery-avoidance goals was confirmed by Taiwan primary to high school students though it is not associated with the precedent reason, Chinese self efficacy, and the outcome, Chinese performance.
Teachers are encouraged to emphasize approach-based goals in classes to facilitate adaptive learning behaviors and outcomes. This is because that the results showed that approach-based goals (mastery-approach and performance-approach) had positive effects on academic success. In order to improve students’ performance, teachers may inspire them to approach task mastery and good grade in supportive classrooms. The example statement to encourage the mastery-approach goals could be:
“You could improve. You have potential to reach the highest level of reading comprehension” or “You
can improve to reach the peak writing level of your record.” The typical statement to promote the performance-approach goals could be “You have language potential to rank the first in the class (or to
can improve to reach the peak writing level of your record.” The typical statement to promote the performance-approach goals could be “You have language potential to rank the first in the class (or to