Goal Orientation and the Aftermath of an Academic Failure

Hoyert, Mark Sudlow; O'Dell, Cynthia D.

doi:10.18848/1447-9494/cgp/v15i03/45663

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although many (e.g., Brophy 2004Brophy , 2005Daniels et al 2008;Harackiewicz et al 2002b;Wolters 2004) argue that multiple goals can be pursued simultaneously, the present results suggest that if students do hold multiple goals, one will dominate. This extends recent research by Hoyert and O'Dell (2008) who found that either mastery or performance goals, not a combination, dominated in determining students' academic performance following failure. The present research suggests a dominant goal following either failure or success.…”

Section: What Reasons Do College Students Report For Success (Or Failsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Some have failed to find a link between performance goals and academic performance (e.g., Greene and Miller 1996;Hoyert and O'Dell 2008;Navarro et al 2006). In contrast, Harackiewicz and colleagues (Harackiewicz et al 2002b) found that while performance goals may be linked to increased academic performance, only mastery goals were linked to continued interest in the area.…”

Section: Goals and Motivation For Academic Activitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Success and motivation among college students

Schweinle

Helming

2011

Soc Psychol Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present research explores college students' explanations of their success and failure in challenging activities and how it relates to students' efficacy, value, and engagement. The results suggest most students hold one primary reason for success during the challenging activity, including grade/extrinsic, mastery/intrinsic, amotivation/working, social, and performance. These task reasons for success, if assumed to be goals, were more numerous than those suggested by goal theory. Task reason for success was important for engagement, intrinsic value, difficulty compared to others, and effort. As expected, engagement and intrinsic value were highest for those with mastery reasons but lowest for those in amotivation or those who succeeded because they made the grade. Unexpectedly, success was more important for motivation and experience of the activity. These results suggest that it is important to examine not only student goals, but also whether or not students reach their goals.

show abstract

Section: What Reasons Do College Students Report For Success (Or Failsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Goals and Motivation For Academic Activitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Success and motivation among college students

Schweinle

Helming

2011

Soc Psychol Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Students' mindsets are influential because they affect a variety of other non-cognitive factors, such as the types of goals students set (Dweck & Leggett, 1988;Hoyert & O'Dell, 2008), how students attribute their successes and struggles (Dweck, 1999;Smiley et al, 2016), and how they cope with challenges they encounter (Heine et al, 2001). Given the far-reaching influence of mindsets, it is important to understand how and why students' mindsets develop and change over time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Growing a growth mindset: characterizing how and why undergraduate students’ mindsets change

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The extent to which students view their intelligence as improvable (i.e., their “mindset”) influences students’ thoughts, behaviors, and ultimately their academic success. Thus, understanding the development of students’ mindsets is of great interest to education scholars working to understand and promote student success. Recent evidence suggests that students’ mindsets continue to develop and change during their first year of college. We built on this work by characterizing how mindsets change and identifying the factors that may be influencing this change among upper-level STEM students. We surveyed 875 students in an organic chemistry course at four points throughout the semester and interviewed a subset of students about their mindsets and academic experiences. Results Latent growth modeling revealed that students tended to shift towards viewing intelligence as a stable trait (i.e., shifted towards a stronger fixed mindset and a weaker growth mindset). This trend was particularly strong for students who persistently struggled in the course. From qualitative analysis of students’ written survey responses and interview transcripts, we determined that students attribute their beliefs about intelligence to five factors: academic experiences, observing peers, deducing logically, taking societal cues, and formal learning. Conclusions Extensive prior research has focused on the influence of mindset on academic performance. Our results corroborate this relationship and further suggest that academic performance influences students’ mindsets. Thus, our results imply that mindset and academic performance constitute a positive feedback loop. Additionally, we identified factors that influence undergraduates’ mindset beliefs, which could be leveraged by researchers and practitioners to design more persuasive and effective mindset interventions to promote student success.

show abstract

“…While research has investigated mindset beliefs about a variety of human characteristics, this review will focus on students' mindset beliefs about their intellectual abilities, which we will refer to as “mindset beliefs” throughout for simplicity. Extensive research has illustrated how mindset beliefs operate as a meaning system that influences the types of goals students set, how they attribute, interpret, and respond to struggles, and whether they seek or avoid challenging tasks and learning opportunities (Dweck, 1999; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Heine et al., 2001; Hoyert & O’Dell, 2008; Smiley et al., 2016). Mindset beliefs influence students' social psychological experiences in the classroom.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theoretical and methodological directions in mindset intervention research

Canning

Limeri

2023

Social & Personality Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Growth mindset interventions directed at students aim to change students' beliefs about the malleability of ability. These interventions have had mixed results, with some showing impressive findings (e.g., improving grades and persistence in science and closing performance gaps), while other implementations have shown null findings. This heterogeneity suggests that growth mindset interventions should not be viewed as a sole solution for improving educational outcomes for students and that further research is needed to identify the contextual factors that influence their effectiveness. We propose new theoretical directions in mindset research that adopts an anti‐deficit model and moves away from focusing exclusively on students and their belief systems. Instead, we encourage a new wave of mindset research that considers the institutional, cultural, and contextual environment that either corroborates or negates students' mindset beliefs. We propose a new approach to mindset research that emphasizes innovative approaches to better understand the conditions under which mindset interventions are effective.

show abstract

Goal Orientation and the Aftermath of an Academic Failure

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Success and motivation among college students

Success and motivation among college students

Growing a growth mindset: characterizing how and why undergraduate students’ mindsets change

Theoretical and methodological directions in mindset intervention research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About