Abstract
Students’ goal orientations are examined using two major frameworks for learning: achievement goal theory (AGT) and students’ approaches to learning (SAL). Previous student success research is extended, by examining goal constructs from the AGT framework to determine if they help explain the learning process in accounting. Data were gathered using an established instrument and used to examine how mastery and performance goals are related to students’ academic expectations, achievement, self-efficacy, and test anxiety. Cluster analysis was used to identify four motivation groupings (multiple-goal, mastery, performance, and low motivation). Pairwise comparisons of groups, for expected grades, self-efficacy, anxiety, final exam grade, and course grade, identified differences among some of the clusters. Results suggest that a combination of mastery and performance goal motivations, rather than a singular perspective, may provide better outcomes related to course grades, while reducing dysfunctional outcomes. Based on the results, suggestions are provided to help instructors influence student success.
Notes
1 For an extensive discussion of the terminology related to the motivation research literature, see Murphy and Alexander (Citation2000).
2 Some past research has distinguished between approach and avoidance goals only for performance (Diseth & Kobbeltvedt, Citation2010; Elliot, Citation1999; Elliot & Harackiewicz, Citation1996), employing a trichotomous framework that is made up of mastery goals, performance-approach goals, and performance-avoidance goals (Elliot & Church, Citation1997; Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich et al., Citation2002).
3 For more discussion of adaptive, or optimal, outcomes (such as greater motivation, more use of learning strategies, and better performance) and maladaptive, or less than optimal or even undesirable, outcomes, such as less motivation, more use of superficial strategies, and poorer performance, see Pintrich (Citation2000) and Wolters (Citation2004).
4 For discussions of the history, development, and conceptual framework for SAL, see Beattie et al. (Citation1997), Biggs (Citation1978, Citation1987), Biggs et al. (Citation2001), Marton and Säljö (Citation1976a, Citation1976b), Entwistle and Ramsden (Citation1983), Entwistle and Tait (Citation1990), Entwistle and Smith (Citation2002), Entwistle, Skinner, Entwistle, and Orr (Citation2000). See Duff and McKinstry (Citation2007) for a review of prior studies on SAL in an accounting context.
5 The introductory accounting course is the first in the accounting sequence at the university and is a prerequisite for all other accounting courses. Students in the introductory course have not typically had prior experience in the study of accounting, since accounting courses are not a usual component of a secondary school curriculum. The data set does not include a measure of accounting study at the secondary school level.
6 The MSLQ is an 81-item survey instrument that includes items used to measure study strategies and motivation. The scope of the current study was to examine the concept of motivation (and its impact on affect, achievement, and self-efficacy) and therefore included just the four motivation subscales discussed.
7 The GPA is an average of the following numerical representations of letter grades received for courses taken during prior semesters: 4 = A, 3 = B, 2 = C, 1 = D.
Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 3–53. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1019 Diseth, Å., & Kobbeltvedt, T. (2010). A mediation analysis of achievement motives, goals, learning strategies, and academic achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 671–687. doi: 10.1348/000709910X492432 Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 169–189. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3 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(3), 461–475. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.461 Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218–232. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218 Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Revision of achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 638–645. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.638 Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple-goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544–555. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.92.3.544 Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal orientations to predict students’ motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 236–250. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.236 Beattie, V., Collins, B., & Mclnnes, B. (1997). Deep and surface learning: A simple or simplistic dichotomy? Accounting Education: An International Journal, 6(1), 1–12. doi: 10.1080/096392897331587 Biggs, J. B. (1978). Individual and group differences in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 48, 266–279. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1978.tb03013.x Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn: Australian Council for Educational Research. Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133–149. doi: 10.1348/000709901158433 Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning – I: Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4–11. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x Marton, F., & Säaljö, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning – II: Outcome as a function of the learner's conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(2), 115–127. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02304.x Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm. Entwistle, N., & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education, 19, 169–194. doi: 10.1007/BF00137106 Entwistle, N. J., Skinner, D. J., Entwistle, D. M., & Orr, S. M. (2000). Conceptions and beliefs about ‘good teaching’: An integration of contrasting research areas. Higher Education Research and Development, 19(1), 5–26. doi: 10.1080/07294360050020444 Entwistle, N. J., Skinner, D. J., Entwistle, D. M., & Orr, S. M. (2000). Conceptions and beliefs about ‘good teaching’: An integration of contrasting research areas. Higher Education Research and Development, 19(1), 5–26. doi: 10.1080/07294360050020444 Duff, A., & McKinstry, S. (2007). Students’ approaches to learning. Issues in Accounting Education, 22(2), 183–214. doi: 10.2308/iace.2007.22.2.183