Lecture 8: Achievement, Motivation, and Schools Flashcards Preview

PSY311H1F: Social Development with H. Kil > Lecture 8: Achievement, Motivation, and Schools > Flashcards

Flashcards in Lecture 8: Achievement, Motivation, and Schools Deck (20):
1

Stipek et al. (1992) [8]

(hint: evaluating self-performance)

  • 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

need for achievement (n Ach) [3]

  • 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

Thematic Apperception Test [3]

  • 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

self-determination theory (SDT) [5]

  • 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

Eccles’ expectancy value theory [11]

  • 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

attribution theory: attributions [8]

  • 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

attribution theory: classifications [7]

  • 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

mindset theory [3]

  • Implicit theory → conception of ability or intelligence
  • Entity/Fixed vs. Incremental/Growth orientations

A image thumb
9

learned helplessness theory: mastery orientation [4]

  • 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

learned helplessness theory: helplessness orientation [4]

  • 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

Aunola et al. (2000) [3]

(hint: parenting + mastery)

  • 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

praise and learned helpnessness orientation (LHO) [13]

  • 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

Gunderson et al. [11]

(hint: praise + motivation)

  • 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

Kamins & Dweck [6]

(hint: person praise)

  • 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

role of teachers on motivation [13]

  • 5 teacher attributes for teacher quality
    • 1. Experience
    • 2. Preparation programs, degrees
    • 3. Type of certification
    • 4. Specific coursework (e.g. how teachers make tests)
    • 5. 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

16

role of peers on motivation [7]

  • Peer ability heterogeneity → lower achievement for whole class (especially for math)
    • B/c it’s difficult for teacher to create assignments that appropriately address the individual abilities of everyone in the class (appropriately challenging, etc.)
  • Peer achievement beneficial (but conditional)
    • e.g. If 60% of kids in a class are high achieving, tend to bring up grades of the other 40%; so long as ratio of high achieving kids is high
  • Confirmed: good peer relationships → (++)corr. w/ achievement, especially math
    • Peer pressure? Or motivation?
    • (talking about kids with non-delinquent behaviour)

17

peers + motivation: co-ed vs. single-sex schools [11]

  • Girls in math classes with boys tend to do worse than girls who are in single-sex math classes, and can even surpass boys’ performance
    • Goes back to Eccles’ theory
  • Young Women’s Leadership School, built in Harlem under the No Child Left Behind policy of the Obama administration
    • Attended by 95% black and Latino girls
    • Delinquent behaviours tended to disappear
    • Usually single-sex schools are high SES, but this one was underprivileged
    • Children tended to be more likely to get into universities than Hispanic/Black students in other public schools
  • Single-sex schools, something about presence of females that help children perform well (for both girls mainly)
    • When you have 50%+ girls in a classroom, the class tends to do better at both math and languages
    • Benefits not always seen for boys
  • Recent large-scale study on peer quality by gender interaction: high achieving, non-delinquent females → whole class does better; low achieving, delinquent females → doesn’t help anybody

18

role of schools on motivation [5]

  • Class size (<20): small classes → benefit all kinds of children in all locations of schools
  • Location / SES: Low SES → low quality of instruction + achievement due to low levels of resources and larger structure of society
  • School climate – safe and orderly → better achievement
    • How do students perceive their wellbeing at school?
  • School cohesion (related to school climate): based on social environment that the children are going to school in; e.g. school spirit, no cliques → more cohesion

19

schools + motivation: alternative schooling [7]

  • Alternative schools (Montessori) – mixed reports
    • Tend to have higher school cohesion + climate
    • Tend to test higher on intrinsic motivation
  • Homeschooling (vs. unschooling: being educated as human beings, emotional and social learning, rather than traditional education/books learning; children do what they want; arts-focussed)
    • Unschooling → lower levels of achievement but higher levels of motivation
    • Homeschooling → perform better on social + emotional outcomes vs. kids in public schools; less psychopathological problems; better academically (but this depends on the parents)
      • As adults → civic + community engagement

20

Duncan & Brooks-Gunn (2000) [6]

(hint: welfare + children)

  • Pathways through which income may affect children
  • Home environment → learning activities inside home mediate link between income + child achievement vs. activities outside home (museums, libraries)
  • Quality of child care → high-quality + developmentally appropriate child care in toddler + preschool years (+)corr. w/ social, emotional, linguistic competence for low + middle-class children
  • Perceived economic pressure → job stability, increased stress + conflict
  • Parental mental health + parent-child relationships→ lower income (+)corr. w/ irritability, depressive symptoms + impaired parent-child interactions, fewer home learning experiences
  • Neighborhood residence → poorer neighborhoods (+)corr. w/ crime, lack of community cohesion + fewer resources for child development