(445f) Student Goal Orientation and Structure in a Problem-Solving Course

According to achievement goal theory [1], students in a course can perceive four goal structures. When performing a task in that course they can adopt one of four corresponding goal orientations. Their perception of the course goal structure can influence the goal orientation they adopt. The four types of goals are mastery approach, mastery avoidance, performance approach and performance avoidance. Student adoption of a mastery approach goal orientation has been associated with adaptive learning strategies. For this reason, instructors attempt to create a mastery approach goal structure in their courses.

For present purposes, a problem-solving course is one where the instructor presents theory, derives equations, and shows how to use the theory and equations to solve problems. The learning objectives then are for students to be able to use the theory and equations to solve similar problems. In this study, the instructor in a problem-solving chemical engineering course changed aspects of the course delivery, particularly the manner in which homework was administered, in attempt to create a mastery approach course goal structure. These changes occurred in a required, junior-level course on kinetics and reaction engineering.

A particular focus of the changes related to homework problems. A student holding a mastery approach goal orientation seeks to know and understand how to solve each assigned problem. In contrast the goal of a student with a performance approach orientation is to get the correct answer for each assigned problem. The latter orientation can lead to strategies wherein the correct answer is obtained without substantially developing the ability to solve the problems independently.

Two more drastic changes in the course delivery were associated with homework assignments. First, homework assignments were graded exclusively on the basis of the effort put forth toward solving the problem irrespective of whether a correct answer was obtained. Second, the solution to each homework assignment was given to the students at the time the problem was assigned. Each problem statement said that the purpose of the assignment was for the student to gauge their ability to solve the problem under exam-like circumstances. It instructed the students to try to solve the problem referring only to an equation summary that would also be available when they were taking exams. It suggested that while solving the problem, they should only consult the provided solution if they became stuck and could not make progress. It encouraged them to compare their solution to the one that was provided after they had completed the solution with the intention identifying any lack of understanding or misconceptions they might hold so that they could be addressed.

The study sought answers to two questions: What goal structure and goal orientation did students perceive/hold at the start of this course? Did students' perception of the course goal structure or the goal orientation they adopted change as the course progressed? The approach involved administering three anonymous surveys. One was administered at the start of the course, one at the middle of the 15 week semester, and one at the end of the course.

The survey questions were taken, with very minor modification, from the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS). It consisted of 28 PALS items and one original item. The PALS items have been used in many prior studies. The form scales to measure three of the four (all but mastery avoidance) types of goal orientations and goal structures held or perceived by the respondents. Summary statistics were generated and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed for each of the individual surveys.

The surveys indicate that at the start of the course approximately twice as many students perceived a mastery course goal structure and held a mastery goal orientation as did performance approach goal structure and orientation. There was very little change across the three surveys, but the number of responses was small (43, 40 and 34 for the start, middle, and end of semester surveys, respectively). Because the surveys were anonymous, it was not possible to examine changes at the individual student level. The CFA analysis did not yield models with a good fit.

This work was preliminary, and the results were unexpected. A number of changes are planned before the next offering of the course.

[1] Bardach, Lisa, Sophie Oczlon, Jakob Pietschnig, and Marko Lüftenegger. "Has Achievement Goal Theory Been Right? A Meta-Analysis of the Relation between Goal Structures and Personal Achievement Goals." _Journal of Educational Psychology_ 112, no. 6 (2020): 1197--1220.

[2] Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., Gheen, M., et al. "Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales." University of Michigan, 2000.