FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2767372281> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2767372281 abstract "Optimizing Learning Environments: An Individual Difference Approach to Learning and Transfer Daniel M. Belenky (dmb83@pitt.edu) Timothy J. Nokes (nokes@pitt.edu) Learning Research and Development Center University of Pittsburgh, 3939 O’Hara Street Pittsburgh, PA 15260 manipulations of task goals through instructions can change the ways students learn, similar to the effect of task structure. If directly manipulating task goals produces similar effects, it would offer a more direct way of encouraging students towards desired learning outcomes (whether towards transfer or skill). However, it is possible that achievement goals within a learning activity are not under conscious control, and task structure has more influence on how a student engages than instructions that attempt to prompt a particular achievement goal. It is also possible that task structure and task goals operate independently, leading to a three-way interaction in the adoption of achievement goals based on students’ prior dispositions. This study explores these possibilities. Abstract Prior work has found that the type of learning activity (direct instruction or invention) interacts with achievement goals (mastery or performance-oriented) such that invention tasks can help facilitate mastery goal adoption and knowledge transfer (Belenky & Nokes, 2009). In the current study, we investigated how robust the effect is, and whether explicit manipulations of the task goals can produce a similar effect. We conducted an experiment with 98 college students in which achievement goals were measured, while task goals and task structure were manipulated between subjects. Results indicated that task structure was generally a more effective way of influencing which achievement goals are adopted within a learning activity. However, task goals that promoted an evaluative context interfered with transfer for mastery- oriented learners from invention activities. The results are interpreted in relation to theories of regulatory fit and multiple goal hierarchies. Background Research on achievement goals has focused on two main aims; classifying what the goals are and then correlating those with predictors and outcomes. The prevailing classification is a 2 x 2 framework that has been well- validated (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). This framework separates the evaluative criterion (mastery or performance) from the valence (approach or avoidance), which results in four separable goals (mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, performance-avoidance). Mastery goals refer to ones in which a person is basing his evaluation on the skill or competence he is trying to develop (that is, in comparison to an expectation or prior ability), while performance goals refer to evaluating oneself based on a normative standard (that is, in comparison to others). Approach goals refer to seeking out positive outcomes, while avoidance goals refer to averting negative ones. For example, a mastery-approach goal is one in which a person is seeking to improve his ability or knowledge, based on an internally-referenced criterion (“My aim is to completely master the material in this class”), while a performance- avoidance goal is one in which a person is seeking to not look bad compared to others (“My aim is to avoid doing worse than other students;” see Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Students can have different levels of each of these goals, and studies have validated that these four goals are separate factors (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Because we are most interested in studying how different paths of successful learning affect what knowledge is gained, our work focuses on mastery-approach and performance-approach goals. Mastery-approach (MAP) goals have been correlated with a host of positive outcomes, such as intrinsic motivation, interest, better self-regulation, and deeper strategy use. Keywords: learning; transfer; skill acquisition; motivation; achievement goals. Student’s achievement goals have a large influence on their behaviors and experiences in academic settings. The literature surrounding Achievement Goal theory shows that these goals lead to very different patterns of affect, interest and achievement (e.g., Harackiewicz et al., 2005). However, this literature has not focused on how the goals influence what is learned. That is, although “achievement” is frequently measured as an outcome, it is almost always done at a coarse-grain level, such as final grades in a course. It is not clear how different achievement goals (mastery versus performance) are related to different kinds of learning, such as learning procedural skills, simple facts, or conceptual knowledge. To begin to address this gap, Belenky & Nokes (2009) examined how achievement goals impact the type of knowledge gained from different kinds of instruction. That study found that mastery-oriented learners do better on transfer measures, regardless of whether the mastery- orientation came from a stable predisposition or whether the open-ended structure of an “invention” task led to mastery- oriented feelings and goals in the specific context. Conversely, performance-oriented learners did better on skill acquisition when the instruction seemed to match their goals, by presenting a well-structured, simple task through direct instruction. This initial work has provided evidence that task structure interacts with existing achievement goals to influence learning. In the current work we examine whether direct" @default.
• W2767372281 created "2017-11-17" @default.
• W2767372281 creator A5004832106 @default.
• W2767372281 creator A5043352196 @default.
• W2767372281 date "2010-01-01" @default.
• W2767372281 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2767372281 title "Optimizing Learning Environments: An Individual Difference Approach to Learning and Transfer" @default.
• W2767372281 cites W1590295719 @default.
• W2767372281 cites W1660388999 @default.
• W2767372281 cites W171873011 @default.
• W2767372281 cites W1967940801 @default.
• W2767372281 cites W2012987867 @default.
• W2767372281 cites W2013811491 @default.
• W2767372281 cites W2022837716 @default.
• W2767372281 cites W2062672338 @default.
• W2767372281 cites W2090550551 @default.
• W2767372281 cites W2113101808 @default.
• W2767372281 cites W2127956021 @default.
• W2767372281 cites W2138064441 @default.
• W2767372281 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W2767372281 type Work @default.
• W2767372281 sameAs 2767372281 @default.
• W2767372281 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2767372281 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2767372281 hasAuthorship W2767372281A5004832106 @default.
• W2767372281 hasAuthorship W2767372281A5043352196 @default.
• W2767372281 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2767372281 hasConcept C138496976 @default.
• W2767372281 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W2767372281 hasConcept C150899416 @default.
• W2767372281 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2767372281 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2767372281 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W2767372281 hasConcept C201995342 @default.
• W2767372281 hasConcept C2775924081 @default.
• W2767372281 hasConcept C2777938197 @default.
• W2767372281 hasConcept C2780451532 @default.
• W2767372281 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2767372281 hasConceptScore W2767372281C127413603 @default.
• W2767372281 hasConceptScore W2767372281C138496976 @default.
• W2767372281 hasConceptScore W2767372281C145420912 @default.
• W2767372281 hasConceptScore W2767372281C150899416 @default.
• W2767372281 hasConceptScore W2767372281C154945302 @default.
• W2767372281 hasConceptScore W2767372281C15744967 @default.
• W2767372281 hasConceptScore W2767372281C180747234 @default.
• W2767372281 hasConceptScore W2767372281C201995342 @default.
• W2767372281 hasConceptScore W2767372281C2775924081 @default.
• W2767372281 hasConceptScore W2767372281C2777938197 @default.
• W2767372281 hasConceptScore W2767372281C2780451532 @default.
• W2767372281 hasConceptScore W2767372281C41008148 @default.
• W2767372281 hasIssue "32" @default.
• W2767372281 hasLocation W27673722811 @default.
• W2767372281 hasOpenAccess W2767372281 @default.
• W2767372281 hasPrimaryLocation W27673722811 @default.
• W2767372281 hasRelatedWork W1540048246 @default.
• W2767372281 hasRelatedWork W196950795 @default.
• W2767372281 hasRelatedWork W1992384355 @default.
• W2767372281 hasRelatedWork W1993890877 @default.
• W2767372281 hasRelatedWork W2001470078 @default.
• W2767372281 hasRelatedWork W2016297636 @default.
• W2767372281 hasRelatedWork W2021810679 @default.
• W2767372281 hasRelatedWork W2090380538 @default.
• W2767372281 hasRelatedWork W2104655511 @default.
• W2767372281 hasRelatedWork W2116590970 @default.
• W2767372281 hasRelatedWork W2130252003 @default.
• W2767372281 hasRelatedWork W2485755700 @default.
• W2767372281 hasRelatedWork W2527962539 @default.
• W2767372281 hasRelatedWork W2601140655 @default.
• W2767372281 hasRelatedWork W2797107241 @default.
• W2767372281 hasRelatedWork W2921600345 @default.
• W2767372281 hasRelatedWork W3125984530 @default.
• W2767372281 hasRelatedWork W3154035284 @default.
• W2767372281 hasRelatedWork W3163745145 @default.
• W2767372281 hasRelatedWork W3176104026 @default.
• W2767372281 hasVolume "32" @default.
• W2767372281 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2767372281 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2767372281 magId "2767372281" @default.
• W2767372281 workType "article" @default.