Males' academic motivation: doing a personal best.

Abstract

This paper surveys an understanding of academic motivation. From a motivational goal theory perspective, it is argued that males may be more likely to pursue performance approach goals rather than task mastery goals. Performance approach goals are considered to be effective learning goals that can be as effective motivators towards high achievement outcomes. The Personal Best is one performance goal approach that may be used in high school learning environments to enhance boys" performance.

Introduction

In many western countries the interest and 'hype' about sport and Olympic team selection is growing. At the same time, academic motivation is an ongoing problem, and often adolescent boys bear the brunt of this malaise (Warrington & Younger, 2000). The declining success of boys in relation to girls starts early in school life and pertains to most subject areas including reading, mathematics and sciences (Cresswell, Rowe, & Withers, 2002). This paper does not start from a position that one gender is 'better' or even 'more suited' to learning. It may be, however, that the motivation needs of boys can be better addressed.

This paper unwraps some of the constructs of academic motivation and focuses on adolescent learning. It attempts to synthesise what we know about academic motivation with respect to males and to highlight what we need to understand better. The 2004 Olympiad has come and gone. How many times did competitors and sports-casters praise an athlete for achieving a 'Personal Best' even when not winning the gold medal? Specifically, it is argued that the athletes' understanding of 'Personal Best' (PB) offers an appropriate means of motivating learning, and that the PB has potential to challenge the motivation needs of boys and young men. This paper tries to accomplish three main goals. Firstly, the paper charts our present understanding of academic motivation. Secondly, the extent to which the needs of males have become silent or transparent is demonstrated. Thirdly, some approaches to increase the motivational repertoire of teachers are advanced. This article seeks to encourage teachers to see and reflect upon the differences in the learners before them and to the address the challenge of promoting the development of well-adjusted, successful, effective learners.

Present View of Academic Motivation

The nature of academic motivation in classrooms has stimulated research over the last thirty years. Most of this research has been designed to understand motivation to achieve in coeducational settings using a range of models of motivation. Little research to date has been done in boys' single sex classrooms. The following argument attempts to allow our understanding of academic motivation to add value to the dialogue of learning approaches in high school education.

Achievement motivation is one of the major motivation models. Achievement motivation specifically refers to the motivation that individuals have to succeed. Theories of achievement motivation include self-determination theory (Deci, 1980) , expectancy-value theory (Feather, 1982),attribution theory (Dweck & Elliot, 1983) and self-worth theory (Covington, 1984). Goal orientation theory was developed to focus on achievement behaviour in classrooms (Ames, 1992) and is recognised as a useful theoretical approach to the understanding of student motivation in classrooms (Appelhans & Schmeck, 2002; Ferrer-Caja & Weiss, 2002; Tavani & Losh, 2003). Goal theory assumes that the classroom behaviours of students are purposeful. Goal theory seeks to explain why students engage in achievement-related behaviour and the meanings they ascribe to that behaviour (Patrick, et al, 2001). Earlier theories focused on characteristics of personality traits or classroom environmental factors as determinants of motivation. Goal theory recognises that both environmental and individual factors contribute to a student's motivation (Urdan, Kneisel, & Mason, 1999). Research indicates that students pursue both academic and social goals in classroom settings: the pursuit of social goals, of social responsibility, social status and social relationships, influence students' classroom behaviour, academic achievement and motivation (Juvonen & Wentzel, 1996).

Achievement goal orientation describes student achievement behaviour as directed towards the academic goals of either mastery or performance (Nicholls, 1989). Mastery goals are described in terms of learning for the sake of internal and intrinsic rewards. Pursuing mastery goals is associated with high levels of cognitive engagement and intrinsic motivation (Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988), and is positively related to deep processing, persistence and effort (Elliot, 1999). Performance goals are associated with students' desires to compare themselves with others, to perform relative to their peers (Meece, 1991) and to receive external reinforcement and rewards whether learning has been achieved or not (Meece et al., 1988).

Later work on performance goal orientations has discerned two different types of performance goal orientations. These types are approach and avoidance (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). Performance approach goals are associated with high levels of personal aspiration, absorption during the task, challenge related effects while studying, high achievement of outcomes and intrinsic motivation (Elliot, 1999). Performance avoidance goals are linked to negative processes and outcomes indicated by low levels of task engagement, shallow processing, reluctance to seek help, procrastination, disorganisation, poor performance, desire to avoid evaluation and reduced intrinsic motivation (Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999). The work of Elliott (1999) and Elliott et al (1999) has opened up significant new approaches to the ways one can understand performance oriented goals. Up until this work, performance oriented goals were generally associated with peer comparisons, competition, gradings and results of assessments being published and linked to a pejorative construction of performance goals. Thus competitiveness in learning became to be increasingly constructed as a negative practice in classrooms and collaborative processes, almost by default, became the norm of good practice in classrooms.

Academic goals and gender differences

There is some research that suggests that boys are more likely to pursue performance goals than mastery goals. While boys are more likely to pursue performance approach goals than girls, Middleton and Midgley (1997) found that each gender has similar recourse to performance avoidance goal strategies. Boys are more likely than girls to attribute failure to bad luck or other external factors rather than their own lack of ability, and boys" self-worth is more resilient in contexts that emphasise competitive behaviours where boys are more likely to maintain academic motivation and to attribute their successes to internal factors like ability and effort (Eccles, Alder, & Meece, 1984). When researching high achieving male and female students, Dai (2000) found that the high achieving boys were more likely than high achieving girls to perceive themselves as academically strong, to seek a position of superiority and to be more socially aggressive in favourable learning contexts. In English and Mathematics boys have higher levels of performance orientation and appear to be more concerned than girls to demonstrate high ability relative to others. That said, in this same sample girls performed significantly better in the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) exams (Rogers, et al., 2001).

These studies are some of the few that relate goal orientation with gender differences in mixed classroom samples. Given the contextual nature of the study of learning motivation, and indeed that of classroom learning itself, these studies do not consider gender effects in single sex learning environment. How has this situation come about? Gilligan (1982) has warned us that it is possible to inadvertently presume that findings from a gendered sample can be applied to the whole population. Referring to Kohlberg's stages of moral development theories, she points out that the samples of boys used to generate Kohlberg's findings misrepresented the moral development of young women because they were not part of the sample (Gilligan, 1982). Similarly, it is argued that academic motivation of boys may be less than properly described by investigating coeducational classrooms. Boys' academic motivation may be better researched in boys" classrooms.

Contextual and personal goals

Researchers using goal orientation theory have usually considered academic goals to be either personal trait like characteristics of individual students (Dweck & Leggett, 1988) or as contextual and therefore relating to environmental aspects of classrooms and school situations (Ames, 1992). It is apparent that the interaction between personal and contextual goals and the impact this interaction has upon students and academic achievement must be addressed The interaction between contextual goals and personal goals influences student performance, attitudes to learning and academic outcomes (Eccles & Midgley, 1989). Contextual variables and gender may interact. This could mean that gender differences in motivation would reflect the classroom contexts as each gender perceives them.

It has been argued that a contextualised or 'situative' approach to motivational research is required to develop our understandings of student motivation (Anderman & Anderman, 2000). Goals emanating from and endorsed by school and classroom contexts can influence the nature of goals students experiencing such contexts pursue (Mansfield, 2002). Contextual goals do have meaning that is constructed by individual students, however, for contextual goals to influence the behaviour of students "environmental cues must be experienced and goals adopted into the child's way of thinking" (Newman, 1998).

Classroom contexts can endorse and legitimate task or performance achievement goals (Ames & Archer, 1988). Classrooms can communicate task mastery emphasis--focusing on effort and understanding--through the provision of challenging tasks, negotiated student control and choice of learning tasks, evaluation with regard to personal improvement, recognition of effort and progress, opportunities for cooperative learning and peer interaction and flexible time requirements for task completion (Anderman, 1999). Similarly, performance goal orientations--focusing on demonstrating ability relative to others--can be communicated through evaluation practices involving peer comparisons, public displays of grades and scores, ability groupings and rigid time constraints for the completion of tasks (Ames, 1992). Classroom structures which promote performance goals can encourage students to focus on how others perceive their abilities and encourage students to select strategies to appear able, or at least to avoid appearing unable (Covington, 1992). Student perceptions of classroom contexts do predict student behaviours. Midgley and Urdan (2001) report that perceptions of a performance classroom goal structure can predict the use of self-handicapping strategies, independent of students' personal goals. Such student strategies are designed to rationalise possible poor performance and are used by students to preserve their self-worth while not admitting a lack of ability.

Mindful of Gilligan's (1982) critique of research done with gendered samples, this paper suggests that single sex learning environments are not adequately described by research conducted in coeducational classrooms. The research surveyed has been instructive in developing models of coeducational classrooms and powerful in advancing our understanding of mixed gender learning. That said, research based in co-educational classrooms may inadequately describe the contextual and situational aspects of single gender classrooms.

Motivation of males

This section draws on recent research of boys' classrooms (Vallance & Mansfield, 2003). The theoretical distinctions now discerned in performance oriented goal theory resolve performance goals into approach goals and avoidance goals. Performance goal orientations are not all bad. Performance goal orientations, associated with competitive behaviours, are frequently downplayed in modern learning situations, yet this general view that competitive behaviours are not helpful to learning may not be well grounded. It has been reported that, since performance goals have some positive effects, a mix of achievement goal strategies may be the better approach to tap the positive potentials of both types: mastery and performance approach motivation styles. (Harackiewicz, Barron, & Elliot, 1998).

It is not uncommon for researchers to report that males are more likely to employ performance goals in learning environments (Patrick, Ryan, & Pintrich, 1999). Furthermore, Barker, McInerney and Dowson (2002) have recently demonstrated that performance goal orientations lead to better learning in younger students. Elliot hypotheses that performance approach orientations may be as "fundamentally appetitive and challenge-based and posited to produce processes and outcomes similar to those yielded by mastery goals" (Elliot, 1999). In a laboratory based hierarchical model with undergraduates, mastery and performance goals were linked to intrinsic motivation and graded performance. Gender had significant effects in this model. Females were more likely to report mastery goals. Females high in achievement motivation were more likely to employ performance avoidance goals whereas males with low achievement motivation were more likely to employ performance avoidance goals (Elliott & Church, 1997).

Classroom contextual variables also predict mastery, performance approach and performance avoidance goals. Working with undergraduate samples, they have shown that lecture engagement positively predicts mastery goals, an evaluation focus positively predicts both performance approach and performance avoidance goals and that harsh evaluation encourages performance avoidance and discourages mastery goals. Harsh evaluation and an evaluation focus negatively impacted intrinsic motivation and lecture engagement positively predicted intrinsic motivation (Church, Elliot and Gable, 2001). It is proposed that a large number of male students do employ performance approach goals. While these might be seen to 'fit' a more competitive or masculine spirit, such goals in themselves have been demonstrated to be productive of highly efficient learning. Thus performance oriented goals are not always "second best' and as such could be reinforced and encouraged. It is performance avoidance goals that should be discouraged and further developed into more suitable approaches to learning.

Cooperative and competitive attitudes can be moderated by contexts. Firstly, the type of learning environment can ameliorate the learning approaches of students. Secondly, older students are more likely to be competitive and that "cooperation and competition are social skills which have their appropriate settings, and fostering one does not necessarily imply crippling the other'" (Johnson, Johnson and Anderson, 1978). The competition to which they refer is like the performance-approach tasks of other authors noted above. Hence, it is useful to ask: in what ways can we use this approach-performance orientation to enhance the motivation of males in academic learning?

As educators we can look at whether we have thrown the baby out with the bath water in terms of competition. Clearly, competition is not all bad. Competition can be pejoratively constructed as "putting the others down so that I can come to the top'. Competition can also be seen as directed towards the self--"I will do my best"; "I will improve on my last best performance". This approach of the 'personal best' or PB is well known to coaches of many sports. Athletes of national level can be frequently heard to say "I did a PB" or equivalent as their ratification of their effort and performance on the day, even if they did not come first. A PB is still a win! The PB allows each student to compete and succeed against personal markers of success. A recent internet search using google.com for "personal best" and motivation' found "about 13000 articles" (25 August, 2004). These articles dealt with both sport and learning performances. Teachers might be able to apply the same approaches to academic learning that our successful sport coaches employ. Athletes use the competitive spirit, as well as the challenge of their sport to motivate their efforts. Adolescent sport-oriented boys report that the competitive aspects of their game are motivating (Pugh et al., 2000). High achieving boys report that competitive aspects of their peer relationships encourage increased motivation in academic as well as non academic pursuits (Lee, 2002).

Teamwork is another approach to harness approach performance orientation. Teams can be formed in learning tasks that allow cooperative and collaborative approaches within the team. This will meet the learning motivation needs of many students. The competitive aspects of teams can address some of the motivation needs of other students. While the teamwork strategy might be seen as oriented towards sports, this need not be so. Learning teams can be used as approaches to the whole curriculum (Havarnek & Browdwin, 1998) and as class strategies (Vermette, 1995). While some may perceive these approaches to be feminist strategies (Walker, 1996) they need not be so exclusively. It may be that some forms of direct competition can be selectively introduced. Realistically, most students already see that the grade distribution mechanisms operate to ration possible grades and hence from our own assessment policies a competitive element is introduced.

Conclusion

Every teacher understands that motivation lies at the heart of students' engagement with learning tasks. At the same time, teachers are aware that not all students are equally motivated to learn. Students are motivated in different ways and these differences often correlate with learning styles and efficiencies. That said, it has been argued that task mastery goals are not the sole means of achieving highly focused, efficient learning. Approach performance goal orientation is also conducive to high efficiency learning. This article is not suggesting that performance avoidance goals be encouraged in any way amongst learners. The paper has indicated some of the differences that exist between the motivational strategies of males and females. Whether these differences arise from affect, environment or biology does not concern us here. What is of concern is that the differences do exist. If we accept that differences of academic motivation exist between males and females, we need to plan our teaching and learning strategies to accommodate and utilise these differences. In this manner, educators can better develop optimal learning environments for all students.

The contribution of Dr Caroline Mansfield for her input to the achievement goal orientation description is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267.

Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. Student perceptions in the classroom, 327-348. Hillsdale, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers

Anderman, L. H., & Anderman, E. M. (2000). Considering contexts in educational psychology: introduction to the special issue. Educational Psychologist, 35, 67-68.

Anderman, L. H. (1999). Classroom goal orientation, school belonging and social goals as predictors of students' positive and negative affect following the transition to middle school. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32, 89-103.

Appelhans, B. M., & Schmeck, R. R. (2002) Learning Styles and Approach Versus Avoidant Coping During Academic Exam Preparation. College Student Journal, 36, 157-160.

Barker, K. L., McInemey, D. M., & Dowson, M. (2002). Performance Approach, Performance Avoidance and Depth of Information Processing: A fresh look at relations between students' academic motivation and cognition. Educational Psychology, 22, 571-590.

Church, M. A., Elliott, A. J., & Gable, S. L. (2001). Perceptions of Classroom Environment, Achievement Goals, and Achievement Outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 43-54.

Covington, M. V. (1984). The self-worth theory of achievement motivation :Findings and implications. The Elementary School Journal, 85, 5-20.

Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cresswell, J., Rowe, K., & Withers, G. (2002). Boys in Schools and Society. New Jersey. Merrill Prince Hall.

Dai, D. Y. (2000). To be or not to be (challenged), that is the question: Task and ego orientations among high-ability, high-achieving adolescents. Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 311.

Deci, E. L. (1980). The psychology of self-determination. Lexington, MA: D_C_Heath

Dweck, C. S., & Elliot, S. (1983). Achievement motivation. Handbook of Child Psychology, 4, pp.643-691.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.

Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage/environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for early adolescents. Research on Motivation in Education, 3, 139-186.

Eccles, J. S., Alder, T., & Meece, J. L. (1984). Sex differences in achievement: A test of alternate theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 26-43.

Elliott, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A Hierarchical Model of Approach and Avoidance Achievement Motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-232.

Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461-475.

Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam performance: a mediational analysis.. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91,549-563.

Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169-189.

Feather, N. (1982). Expectations and actions. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Ferrer-Caja, E., & Weiss, M. R. (2002) Cross-Validation of a Model of Intrinsic Motivation with Students Enrolled in High School Elective courses. Journal of Experimental Education, 71,41-65.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Harackiewicz, J., Barron, K. E., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Rethinking Achievement Goals: When are they adaptive for College students and why?. Educational Psychologist, 33, 1-21.

Havarnek, J. E., & Browdwin, M. G. (1998). Restructuring Universities and Colleges: The Student-Focused Paradigm.. Education Digest, 119, 115-120.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Anderson, D. (1978). Student Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Attitudes, and Attitudes Toward Schooling. The Journal of Psychology, 100, 183-199.

Juvonen, J. W., & Wentzel, K.R. (1996). Social Motivation: Understanding children's school adjustment. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, Seon-Young (2002), The Effects of Peers on the Academic and Creative Talent Development of a Gifted Adolescent Male. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14, 19-29.

Mansfield, C. F. (2002). The Influence of Students' Contextual Perceptions on Motivational Goal Pursuit in the First Year of Middle School. PhD thesis, Faculty of Education, Edith Cowan University, Perth.

Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students' Goal Orientations and Cognitive Engagement in Classroom Activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514-523.

Meece, J. L. (1991). The Classroom Context and Students: Motivational Goals. Motivation and Achievement, 7, 261-285.

Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the Demonstration of Lack of Ability: an underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710-718.

Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (2001). Academic Self-handicapping and Achievement Goals: A further examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 61-75.

Newman, R. S. (1998). Students: help seeking during problem solving : influences of personal and contextual achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 644-658.

Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The Competitive Ethos and Democratic Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., Ryan, A. M., Edelin, K. C., & Midgley, C. (2001). Teachers' Communication of Goal Orientations in Four Fifth Grade Classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 102, 35-58.

Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The Differential Impact of Extrinsic and Mastery Goal Orientations on Males' and Females' Self-Regulated Learning. Learning & Individual differences, 11,153-171.

Pugh, S., Wolff, R., DeFrancesco, C., Gilley, W., & Heitman, R. (2000). A Case Study of Elite Male Youth Baseball Athletes' Perception of the Youth Sports Experience. Education, 120, p773-783.

Rogers, C. G., Galloway, D., Armstrong, D, & Leo, E. (2001). Gender Differences in Motivational Style. European Education, 32, 79-93.

Tavani, C. M. & Losh, S. C. (2003). Motivation, Self-confidence, and Expectations as Predictors of the Academic Performances among our High School Students. Child Study Journal, 33, 141-151.

Urdan, T. C., Kneisel, L., & Mason, V. (1999). Interpreting Messages about Motivation in the Classroom : Examining the effects of achievement goal structures. Advances in motivation and achievement, 11, 123-158.

Vallance, R. J., & Mansfield, C. F. (2003). Empirical Study of Boys' Academic Motivation. In W. R. F. Waugh (Ed.), Advances in Educational Psychology. New York: Nova Scotia Press.

Vennette, P. J. (1995). Cooperative learning teams: Eight suggestions for the novice user. Clearing House, 685,278-282.

Walker, A. J. (1996). Cooperative learning in the college classroom. Family Relations, 45, 327-336. Warrington, M., & Younger, M. (2000) The Other side of the Gender Gap. Gender and Education, 12,493-508.

Roger J Vallance, The University of Notre Dame Australia

Dr Vallance is Director of Research Training and responsible for undergraduate and postgraduate research training.