Through the Eyes of the Beholder: Students' Descriptions of Mastery and Performance-Focused Learning Environments

• In Event: Beyond Thematic Coding: Applications of Qualitative Methods to Advance Motivation Studies

Abstract

This study examines whether the theoretical and empirically tested constructs subsumed within achievement goal theory (AGT) align with culturally diverse students’ qualitative understanding of these constructs and their conceptions of what constitutes mastery- and performance- focused learning environments. Central to AGT is the meaning and definition of academic success. Thus mastery-oriented success is defined as self-improvement and intellectual development; whereas performance-oriented success is defined as self-enhancement and demonstrating ability (performance-approach ) or as self-protection and hiding low ability (performance-avoid) (Pintrich, 2000). Mastery- and performance- goals are also reflected in school policies and teacher practices. The major distinction between mastery- and performance-focused environments is the emphasis on task improvement and critical thinking versus demonstrating competence via interpersonal comparison. Academic and psychosocial outcomes associated with achievement goals—personal and contextual—are based on extensive objective and empirically tested quantitative research. The implicit assumption underlying much of this work is that there exists a shared understanding of these constructs and their defining features (Zusho & Clayton, 2011). However, conceptions of mastery, performance-approach, and performance-avoid goals are culturally grounded in the Western individualistic belief characterized as egocentric, independent, and autonomous (Kumar & Maehr, 2011). It is possible that the meaning of these constructs and the interpretations of their defining contextual features (e.g., nature of task, promoting autonomy, engaging in social/normative comparisons, and emphasizing improvement) vary for students from sociocentric interdependent cultures where success is often perceived as fulfilling the expectations of significant others. Other historical (e.g. immigration), cultural (e.g. maintaining a positive group identity) and social (e.g. discrimination) forces may also influence students’ interpretations of what constitutes mastery- and performance-focused environments. Hence, we utilize focus-group interviews to probe the explanations and descriptions provided by culturally diverse students to general questions regarding school environment and teachers and more specific questions related to their understanding of AGT personal and contextual constructs.

A random sample of 369 8th grade students (females = 50.6%) from 12 culturally diverse middle schools participated in 63 focus-group interviews, averaging five interviews per school. The sample was stratified by ethnicity (Arab/Arab-American, Chaldean, African-American and European-American), gender, primary language spoken at home, and length of stay in the country (to identify students who had resided ≤ 3 years in the U.S). The groups reflected the ethnic diversity within each school and ranged in size from five to nine students/ group (Morgan, 1996).

Analyses of immigrant Arab students’ interviews using NVivo8 suggest that the distinction between mastery and performance practices was blurred as they perceived teachers’ support for completing assignments without consequences such as lowered grades (focus on improvement) and imposition teacher designed rules (decreased autonomy) both as opportunities for intellectual growth. Contrarily, but aligned with existing AGT literature, non-immigrant students in the same school perceived teacher-imposed rules as controlling. The final paper will include analyses of interviews focusing on shared and unshared descriptions of supportive/unsupportive learning environments by culturally diverse student groups within the same school contexts and the extent to which these descriptions align with theoretically defined mastery- and performance-focused learning environments.

Authors

• Nancy Seay, University of Toledo

• Revathy Kumar, University of Toledo

• jimmie jones, University of Toledo