Dominant achievement goals across tracks in high school

Abstract

The dominant achievement goals (DAGs) of 7008 students in the third grade of Dutch secondary education (US grade 9) were investigated, based on Elliot & McGregors' 2 × 2 framework (2001), in relation to track-level and motivational variables. We found the mastery-approach goal and the performance-approach goal, generally considered adaptive, to be more prominent among students in lower tracks. In contrast, avoidance goals were more common in higher tracks. Most notably, in the highest track, the mastery-avoidance goal was the most prominent. Additionally, we found that students with a dominant performanceapproach goal scored highest on almost all motivational variables examined; students without a DAG scored mostly second highest. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Dominant achievement goals and academic outcomes across tracks in high school

“…An alternative approach is to identify a person's dominant achievement goal (DAG), because in a specific context, persons tend to prefer one particular achievement goal over the other goals (Van Yperen, 2006). Generally, about 85% of the secondary school students have a DAG (Scheltinga et al, 2015). It has been found that individuals with different DAGs have distinct profiles which, generally, are in line with the extant empirical data concerning the traditional achievement goal approach (e.g.…”

“…In the context of the Dutch secondary educational system with five ordered tracks, Scheltinga et al (2015) found a remarkably regular shift in prevalence pattern of the DAGs across tracks; both approach goals and the group without a DAG did become less, while both avoidance goals did become more prevalent in higher tracks, respectively. In addition, the changes along the valence dimension were far more pronounced than those along the definition dimension; the prevalence of the approach and of the performance goals decreased to 44.4% and 7.6%, respectively.…”

“…Further details regarding our instrument are given in the method section below. Van Yperen and Orehek (2013) and Scheltinga et al (2015). However, in only one publication results concerning the association between DAG and academic outcomes were presented.…”

“…This is remarkable because tracking is a common feature of secondary and tertiary education systems in many countries, such as the systems of France, Germany, the Netherlands and the Russian Federation. Scheltinga, Kuyper, Timmermans, and van der Werf (2015) found systematic differences in DAG adoption at different tracks, which might result in systematic differences in academic outcomes as well. It may very well be that the adaptive value of achievement goals varies with ability level and therefore varies across tracks, which, of course, could have implications for educational practice.…”

“…However, studies on the relations between educational tracks and achievement goals are scarce. To our knowledge, Paulick (2011), Paulick, Watermann, andNückles (2013) and Scheltinga et al (2015) are the only publications on this subject. In the context of the German educational system with three ordered tracks, Paulick (2011) and Paulick et al (2013) using a three-goal model (i.e.…”