University Student’s Academic Goals When Working in Teams: Questionnaire on Academic Goals in Teamwork, 3 × 2 Model

Abstract

Group work is a very common practice in higher education when it comes to developing key competences for students’ personal and professional growth. The goals that students pursue when working in teams determine how they organize and regulate their behavior and how they approach the tasks. The academic goals are a relevant variable that can condition the success of the group, as they guide and direct the students toward involvement in the task, the effort they make, and the desire to increase their academic competence, and their learning. Thus, the need arises to create new evaluation instruments to help us understand the importance of academic goals when students work as a team. The purpose of this paper is to corroborate the construct validity of the questionnaire on teamwork learning goals (QTLG) based on the achievement goal questionnaire (3 × 2 AGQ) of Elliot et al. (2011) in the context of teamwork, and to determine if the model 3 × 2 offers a better fit to the data than other models, such as: 2 × 2; Trichotomous; Definition; Valence, among others. The results obtained from a sample of 700 students from 6 Spanish universities confirm that, in the context of teamwork, the 3 × 2 model fits the data better than the rest of the models subjected to confirmatory analysis, with contrasting evidence of validity and reliability. Therefore, we considered it a useful instrument for studying motivation in the group work context. The QTLG has practical applications, allowing us to explore in detail the academic goals of university students.

The 3 × 2 Achievement Goals in the Education, Sport, and Occupation Literatures: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

“…Random-effects individual correlates for the 3 × 2 achievement goals collapsed into approach and avoidance goals by the positive emotions, negative emotions, learning strategies, motivation, and performance. Studies contributing to each correlate analyses are as follows: positive emotions approach and avoidance [26,27,39,43,48,61,63,64,66,76,78], negative emotions approach and avoidance [26,27,43,[61][62][63]66,74], learning strategies approach [18,19,26,27,44,45,51,56,58,71,74,75], learning strategies avoidance [18,19,26,27,44,45,51,56,58,74,75], motivation approach [19,21,39,42,[45]…”

“…The 3 × 2 model's applicability fostered the creation of a number and wide variety of scales. In the educational domain exists the Social Studies Oriented Achievement Goal Scale [16], the Pictorial Achievement Goal Measurement for Kindergarteners [17], Questionnaire on Teamwork Learning Goals [18], and the 3 × 2 Achievement Goal Questionnaire for Teachers [19,20]. In the sport domain, variations include the 3 × 2 Achievement Goal Questionnaire (AGQ) for Sport [21], AGQ for Physical Education [22], and AGQ for Recreational Sport [23].…”

Examining Approach and Avoidance Valences of the 3 X 2 Achievement Goal Types on an Engineering Student Sample: A Validity Approach

“…The correlations observed between these factors in our sample lie on the upper end of what has been reported in past studies, similar to Johnson and Kestler (2013) and Lower and Turner (2016) ; whereas Elliot et al (2011) and Diseth (2015) reported more distinctive goal valences in their studies. The approach taken by León-del-Barco et al (2019) to use second-order factors for achievement goal orientations, may be useful to explain variation in responses on valenced questions in other work.…”

“…A few studies have examined the validity of the 3 × 2 model of the AGQ, and compared it against alternative conceptualizations of achievement goal orientation ( Elliot et al, 2011 ; Diseth, 2015 ; Lower and Turner, 2016 ; León-del-Barco et al, 2019 ). These studies reported finding better structural validity support for the 3 × 2 AGO framework than its alternatives.…”

Investigating the Discriminant Utility of Task-Based and Self-Based Goals in 3 × 2 Achievement Goal Model for Kindergarteners

“…The construct and criterion-related validities of the 3 × 2 achievement goal measurement were preliminary demonstrated on a university education level [ 16 ]. After that, supportive evidence related to the construct and criterion-related validity toward 3 × 2 achievement goal theory was sequentially proposed based on school-aged students across countries and subject domains (e.g., engineering and physical education) [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ].…”