Lecture 8: Achievement, Motivation, and Schools Flashcards
1
Q
Stipek et al. (1992) [8]
(hint: evaluating self-performance)
A
- 3 stages for evaluating self-performance; reactions to successes and failures throughout life
- 1) Joy in mastery (< 2 y.o.) → babies get happy when they can master small challenges (e.g. holding onto a toy)
- Not interested in gaining approval (i.e. not externally oriented)
- Not very bothered if they can’t master something
- 2) Approval Seeking (2-3 y.o.) → toddlers look to parents for recognition + approval
- Recognize positive/negative faces as approval/disapproval
- Expect negative reactions towards failures
- 3) Use of own standards based on previous experiences with caregivers (3+ y.o.) + react more independently towards success+failure
2
Q
need for achievement (n Ach) [3]
A
- Learned motivation to compete/strive for success, used when an ideal standard already exists for comparison (around 3 y.o.)
- High in n Ach: sense of pride and self-fulfillment about own achievements → set higher and higher standards, want to work harder, be more successful
- Comes from the idea that the need to achieve is a drive that needs to be satisfied
3
Q
Thematic Apperception Test [3]
A
- Presents emotionally ambiguous pictures for 30s + asks Ps to describe what’s happening in 4mins
- Underlying motivations and drives can be found in narratives
- However, assumes that child is projecting themselves into the situation
4
Q
self-determination theory (SDT) [5]
A
- Compiles striving for success vs. avoiding negative consequences on a scale
- Intrinsic motivation, satisfying personal needs; vs. extrinsic motivation, earning external rewards
- external/extrinsic → identified → introjected → internalized
- Children with intrinsic motivations tend to work harder + better
- Embodied through willingness to accept challenges and continually set higher standards
5
Q
Eccles’ expectancy value theory [11]
A
- Cultural milleu + socializers’ beliefs/behaviours + attitudes, temperaments, talents + previous achievement-related experiences → how child feels about self/what they think others feel about them + how they interpret society’s messages, effort to achieve goals
- Main endpoints: expectations of success, achievement-related choices
- Subjective task value:
- Attainment value → immediate reward
- Utility value → how useful will the skill be at helping me achieve intermediate/long term goals
- (Cost) → how much will I have to give up to participate in this activity?
- Free Time Spent; higher intrinsic value for having a skill is related to having high-value, low-cost decisions
- Expectations of success tend to have:
- Multifaceted influences; different kinds of socializers’ + cultural beliefs → values
- e.g. Boy’s physical play more important than girls’ physical play
- Role of stereotypes? → previous example
6
Q
attribution theory: attributions [8]
A
- Attribution → a construction of reality
- Internal/external attributions to success/failure influenced by:
- Ability* → if you think you’re really good at doing something
- Effort* → how much effort you’re going to put in
- Task difficulty → how difficult was the task in the first place? How well do other people generally do on this task?
- Luck? Bad weather?
- Also social information, feedback, etc. from Eccles’ model
- *Found consistently across cultures to influence attribution
7
Q
attribution theory: classifications [7]
A
- Attributions classified along (and also affect associated):
- Locus of control – external / internal (more self esteem/pride for more internal attributions for success)
- Stability / Globality of the experience – over time and situations (hopelessness if these two factors are low)
- If you’ve consistently experienced something, you’ll feel like it’s a stable aspect of your being, and it’s global in the domain
- e.g. You’ve always done well in psychology courses, so you expect to do well in future psychology courses, and probably do well in school overall
- Controllability – (guilt, anger, gratitude, pity if you can’t control the situation)
- More controllability probably increases effort + perceived ability
8
Q
mindset theory [3]
A
- Implicit theory → conception of ability or intelligence
- Entity/Fixed vs. Incremental/Growth orientations
9
Q
learned helplessness theory: mastery orientation [4]
A
- Mastery orientation (incremental/growth mindsets)
- Greater persistence, achievement
- Failure → process-focused (not focussing on failure itself, but how they got to that failure), effort based: change how they approach in future
- Constructive learning behaviours → positive self-assessments over time
10
Q
learned helplessness theory: helplessness orientation [4]
A
- Learned helplessness orientation (extrinsic focus)
- Negative affect, goal-oriented, dysfunctional learning strategies
- Avoidance, less effort, self-handicapping
- Failure → decreasing performance over time; ability-based interpretation (fixed ability over time, “I’m just like this”)
11
Q
Aunola et al. (2000) [3]
(hint: parenting + mastery)
A
- Parenting and mastery orientation
- Measured failure expectations; task-irrelevant behaviour (doing something else after failure); passivity (lack of active attempts to succeed); self-enhancing attributions
- Mastery orientation: less failure expectations, less task-irrelevant behaviours, less passitivity, more internal attributions for success and not failure (why they have more positive affect)
12
Q
praise and learned helpnessness orientation (LHO) [13]
A
- Praise highly correlated with LHO
- Person praise*: trait-based global assessment for successes
- e.g. Good girl; You’re so smart
- Leads to helpless reaction to setbacks b/c fixed mindset
- Process praise*: effort based specific assessment, strategy on task
- e.g. You’re doing a good job; Good work
- Mastery reaction to setbacks; incremental mindset
- *Largest predictors of mastery/helplessness during setbacks
- Outcome praise: outcome based, product of action
- e.g. That’s a great picture; There you go
- Other praise (not looked at a lot): general positive valence
- e.g. Nice; Wow
- Generally demonstrated by parents
13
Q
Gunderson et al. [11]
(hint: praise + motivation)
A
- Large longitudinal study over 15 years, measuring many factors
- As children got older (14 mo/s to 38 mo/s): process praise > person praise
- Boys were given more process praise than girls in general
- Boys and girls given same amount of person + other praise
- What’s the impact of the praise on childrens’ motivation? Cumulative score of:
- Social moral value domains (idea of being good), fixed or malleable?
- Intelligence; how well they’re doing and how much they’re trying
- When process praise is used → higher tendency to believe in incremental values/growth mindsets for both social-moral values + intelligence
- Less process praise → fixed beliefs
- Tie this back to Eccles’ theory → boys given more process praise + process praise leads to growth mindsets → boys are more likely to have a belief that they should try for more and achieve more
- If we raise kids like this, it’s going to influence how they view society and how they parent and continue to perpetuate these cultural stereotypes
14
Q
Kamins & Dweck [6]
(hint: person praise)
A
- Criticism (same kinds as praise)
- Focussed on kindergarteners, did different tasks in a lab
- Told to work hard on something and given feedback by other children
- Generally speaking, person criticism was lowest while process criticism is highest
- More likely to have positive self-assessments and persist
- Person praise + criticism not conducive to promoting highest level of motivation
15
Q
role of teachers on motivation [13]
A
- 5 teacher attributes for teacher quality
- Experience
- Preparation programs, degrees
- Type of certification
- Specific coursework (e.g. how teachers make tests)
- Teachers’ test scores; higher literacy + verbal test scores → higher student test scores (but not in math)
- Lots of mixed effects with ethnic comparisons
- Attributes of teachers that impact their teaching quality tend to focus on Caucasian + mid-to-high SES children
- Black + Latino children → suffer more regardless of whether children has high test scores, more certifications and qualifications
- i.e. No matter how much teachers are taught to repress knowledge of stereotypes, it’s hard for them to suppress it enough to provide equitable learning environments
- Zone of proximal development (for parents) related to autonomy support (for teachers)
- Teacher quality and peer quality – linked?
- Generally, higher teacher quality → higher peer quality, + vice versa
