2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijer.2013.03.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Predictive relationships between adult students’ achievement goal orientations, course evaluations, and performance

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 79 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These included work avoidance (e.g., trying to avoid effort and preferring easy assignments) and academic alienation (e.g., trying to disregard rules and expectations by "goofing off" and "beating the system"), which empirically often merged into one, (work) avoidance orientation. Note that such goals have often been disregarded in contemporary research based on the argument that they rather represent the absence of an achievement goal than the presence of one (Elliot & Thrash, 2001), yet the research clearly suggests that they indeed belong to the goals students themselves identify and subscribe to in achievement contexts (Dowson & McInerney, 2001;Lemos, 1996;Pulkka & Niemivirta, 2015).…”
Section: Different Classes Of Goals and Goal Orientationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These included work avoidance (e.g., trying to avoid effort and preferring easy assignments) and academic alienation (e.g., trying to disregard rules and expectations by "goofing off" and "beating the system"), which empirically often merged into one, (work) avoidance orientation. Note that such goals have often been disregarded in contemporary research based on the argument that they rather represent the absence of an achievement goal than the presence of one (Elliot & Thrash, 2001), yet the research clearly suggests that they indeed belong to the goals students themselves identify and subscribe to in achievement contexts (Dowson & McInerney, 2001;Lemos, 1996;Pulkka & Niemivirta, 2015).…”
Section: Different Classes Of Goals and Goal Orientationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Then again, this effect does not necessarily extend to specific task performances. In fact, if students' mastery tendencies and task characteristics do not match (e.g., the task seems irrelevant for learning or focuses on trivialities), such tendencies may even turn out to be counterproductive (Pulkka & Niemivirta, 2015; see also Senko, Hama, & Belmonte, 2013).…”
Section: Profile Differences In Relation To Achievementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, Chang and Smith () have argued that students' course satisfaction should be taken into account by instructors because attitudes are often prerequisite of success. Pulkka and Niemivirta () also claimed that course satisfaction may be related to grade as a function of course characteristics or students' assessment viewpoints. Therefore, it can be inferred that course satisfaction might have a positive association to learning outcome directly or indirectly.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Achievement goal theory focuses on the types of goals (purpose or reasons) (Ames, 1992;Pintrich, 2000) that dictate achievement-related behaviours. However, students in higher education hold low achievement goals (Bernardo & Ismail, 2010;Chen, 2015) to avoid challenges (Pulkka & Niemivirta, 2015). Prior research also found that such students tend to engage in task-avoidance (David, 2012;Gillet, Lafrenière, Huyghebaert, & Fouquereau, 2015;Stoeber, Haskew, & Scott, 2015) and self-avoidance goals (Stoeber et al, 2015) compared to task and self-approach goals.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%