University instructors' achievement goals differentially predict positive affect, attitudes towards help, and self-reported teaching quality, with effects invariant across status groups.¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? A structural equation model with paths from all ten goals to all outcomes fit very well and goals explained R² = .19–.57 of outcome variance, with distinct unique effects for all goals except task avoidance and learning avoidance. → Daumiller 2019 q3 i? The predictive effects of the goals on the outcomes did not differ across the three status groups (ΔCFI = .003, 2ΔLL(80) = 83.13, p = .38). → Daumiller 2019 (2)

Evidence¶

Daumiller 2019¶

Daumiller, M., Dickhäuser, O., & Dresel, M. (2019). University Instructors' Achievement Goals for Teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(1), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000271

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Structural equation modeling with item-parcel indicators in the 1,066-instructor sample showed "achievement goals explained substantial amounts of variance in the outcome variables (R² = .19–.57)"; all goals except task avoidance and learning avoidance had distinct unique effects.

"This model yielded a very good fit to the data ( df = 251, χ² = 483.2, CFI = .99, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .03, SRMR = .02). Achievement goals explained substantial amounts of variance in the outcome variables (R² = .19–.57)."

Daumiller 2019 (2)¶

Daumiller, M., Dickhäuser, O., & Dresel, M. (2019). University Instructors' Achievement Goals for Teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(1), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000271

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Comparing a model with freely varying regression paths against one with paths restricted across the three status groups showed no significant fit loss, so "the predictive effects of the different goals on the outcome variables were similar for the three sta- tus groups of instructors".

"Since the more restricted model did not describe the data significantly worse (ΔCFI = .003, ΔTLI = .001, 2ΔLL(80) = 83.13, p = .38), it can be assumed that the predictive effects of the different goals on the outcome variables were similar for the three sta- tus groups of instructors."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Achievement Goal Orientation — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• The ten-goal structure is completely invariant across instructor status groups, but groups differ in mean goal levels. — related
• Specific goals show distinct directional effects: mastery approach and relational goals predict positive affect, beneficial help attitudes, and teaching quality, while work avoidance and appearance avoidance goals predict poorer outcomes. — related
• Learning avoidance goals are separable from learning approach goals in university instructors. — related