Motivational processes that support arts participation: An examination of goal orientations and aspirations.

Abstract

In- and out-of-school participation in the arts has been shown to be positively associated with students’ academic and nonacademic outcomes. Despite this finding, little work has examined the motivational processes that underpin arts participation, either as separate types (e.g., active vs. receptive) or as an overarching factor. However, given the positive outcomes linked with arts participation, there may be yields in examining the motivational processes that foster arts participation over time. The present investigation drew on possible selves and growth-oriented conceptualizing to examine one such motivational process. Specifically, the investigation examined the role of growth goal orientations and arts aspirations, two core growth components of possible arts selves, in students’ curriculum-related, active, and receptive arts participation. Using longitudinal structural equation modeling, with a sample of N = 643 Australian middle and high school students, the investigation examined the extent to which students’ growth goal orientations predicted their arts aspirations at Time 1, and the extent to which both factors predicted gains in curriculum-related, active, and receptive arts participation one year later (Time 2). Findings indicated that growth goal orientations predicted arts aspirations, and arts aspirations predicted significant gains in arts participation. Taken together, these findings suggest that growth goal orientations and arts aspirations form a motivational process that supports increased curriculum-related, active, and receptive arts participation.

Assessing Instructional Cognitive Load in the Context of Students' Psychological Challenge and Threat Orientations: A Multi-Level Latent Profile Analysis of Students and Classrooms

“…According to Elliot, goals are a major means by which individuals' approach (and avoidance) orientations are manifested. Recent research has identified growth goals (i.e., self-improvement, or personal best goals) as one example of an approach motivation orientation (Martin and Liem, 2010 ; Elliot et al, 2011 , 2015 ; Martin and Elliot, 2016a , b ; Burns et al, 2018 , 2019 , 2020b ). We recognize mastery goals are also approach-oriented, but it has previously been argued that growth goals represent a particularly ambitious and challenge-oriented goal striving (in keeping with our intent to capture challenge orientation) and are shown to explain variance in engagement beyond the effects of mastery goals (Yu and Martin, 2014 ; Martin and Elliot, 2016a ).…”

High school students' out‐of‐school science participation: A latent class analysis and unique associations with science aspirations and achievement

“…Future research may consider building on this in two ways: first, researchers may consider examining if different profiles of participation exist across subdomains of science (e.g., physics, chemistry, and biology); second, researchers may consider examining if other such patterns of participation exist in other academic domains, such as English. Indeed, there is evidence for distinct patterns of active and receptive participation in arts education (Burns et al, 2020).…”

“…A second framework for distinction considers the level of interaction present in each activity, such that activities can involve low levels of interaction (i.e., receptive) or high levels of interaction (i.e., active). This conceptual framework (receptive vs. active) was initially developed and validated within arts education (Burns et al, 2020; Cuypers et al, 2012; Martin et al, 2013) and has clear alignments with multiple classification frameworks developed in science education (discussed below; Dabney et al, 2012; Dou et al, 2019; Nazier, 1993). Because nomenclature varies across these previously developed frameworks, a contribution of this study is the development of an integrated framework that offers conceptual clarity about how the level of interaction present in unstructured out‐of‐school science activities can be considered as either receptive or active.…”

“…As noted above, nomenclature of discussing the level of interaction within an unstructured activity has varied across prior research. Despite this, there are clear alignments between the description and categories of activities identified in science education research (Dabney et al, 2012; Dou et al, 2019; Nazier, 1993) and the well‐established labels of receptive and active developed in arts education (Burns et al, 2020; Cuypers et al, 2012; Martin et al, 2013). Nazier (1993) identified “hobbies” as a category of unstructured activities, which included activities such as “making and taking things apart” and “chemistry sets” (p. 322).…”

Editors’ introduction November 2020.

“…We kick off the special issue with two studies that explored the impact of motivations on arts participation, including ways to reengage individuals in arts activities. Burns and colleagues (2020) found that in a large sample of Australian middle and high school students, growth goal orientations predicted arts aspirations and that arts aspirations in turn predicted arts participation. They concluded that growth goal orientations and arts aspirations may function as the motivational bases for supporting increased curriculum-related arts participation.…”