Journals / Participatory Educational Research / 2020 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 2

Achievement Goals and Learning Approaches in the Context of Social Studies Teaching: Comparative Analysis of 3x2 and 2x2 Models

Pages
1–18
Publication Date
2020-08-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Findings revealed the complex structure of achievement goals specific to the subject area.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This paper aims to determine the predictive relationships between achievement goals and learning approaches in the context of social studies teaching and to compare the goal orientation models ( 3x2, 2x2 ) in the context of their relationships with learning approaches.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study sample consists of 259 middle school students, who were selected by simple random sampling technique, studying in public schools in the central districts of Manisa, a province in the west of Turkey, in the 2018-2019. academic year.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Findings revealed the complex structure of achievement goals specific to the subject area.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2018-2019 Verileri
⚙️Variables:social studies · 3x2 achievement goals · 2x2 achievement goals

Abstract

This paper aims to determine the predictive relationships between achievement goals and learning approaches in the context of social studies teaching and to compare the goal orientation models ( 3x2, 2x2 ) in the context of their relationships with learning approaches. The study utilized the multi-factorial predictive correlational design. The study sample consists of 259 middle school students, who were selected by simple random sampling technique, studying in public schools in the central districts of Manisa, a province in the west of Turkey, in the 2018-2019. academic year. The data were collected by means of “ Social Studies Oriented Achievement Goal Scale” and “Social Studies Learning Approaches Scale ”. The study concludes that learning achievement goals positively predict deep learning approaches but negatively predict surface learning approaches. Also, performance-goal orientation negatively predicts deep learning approaches but positively predicts surface learning approaches. Compared to the 3x2 model, the 2x2 achievement goal model showed a better fit with the data in explaining the relationships between achievement goals and learning approaches. Findings revealed the complex structure of achievement goals specific to the subject area. The results of the research were discussed in the context of the effects of achievement goals on the learning process.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÜZTEMUR, S. (2020). Achievement Goals and Learning Approaches in the Context of Social Studies Teaching: Comparative Analysis of 3x2 and 2x2 Models. Participatory Educational Research, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 2, 1–18. https://ajindex.com/articles/239123

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Agbuga, B. (2014). 3x2 başarı hedef modeli ölçeğinin Türk lisans öğrencileri için geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Validity and reliability of 3 x 2 achievement goal model scale in turkish undergraduate students]. Hacettepe Journal of Sport Sciences, 25(3), 109–117.
  2. Akbulut, C. K., & Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, E. (2019). Turkish Adaptation of the 3 x 2 Goal Orientation Scale. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(3), 839-866. 10.14686/buefad.517750 Akin, A. (2006). 2x2 başarı yönelimleri ölçeği: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [The validity and reliability study of 2x2 achievement goal orientations scale]. Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12, 1-13.
  3. Akin, A. & Arslan, S. (2014). The relationships between achievement goal orientations and grit. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(175), 267-274.
  4. Arslan, S. & Akin, A. (2015). 2x2 başarı yönelimleri ölçeği (revize formu): geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [The validity and reliability study of 2x2 achievement goal orientations scale (revised form)]. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 5(1),7-15.
  5. Ames, C., (1992). Classrooms: goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261-271.
  6. Ames, C., & Ames, R. (1981). Competitive versus individualistic goal structures: The salience of past performance information for causal attributions and affect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(3), 411. Ames, C., & Archer, J., (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Student learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267.
  7. Archer, J. (1994). Achievement goals as a measure of motivation in university students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 430-446.
  8. Beckwith, J. B. (1991). Approaches to learning, their context and relationship to assessment performance. Higher education, 22(1), 17-30.
  9. Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. London: Open University Press.
  10. Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: RSPQ2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133–149.
  11. Biyikli, C. (2016). Öğrencilerin öğrenme yaklaşımları ile ders çalışma süreleri arasındaki ilişki [The relationship between university students’ approaches to learning and their time spared for studying]. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(3), 98-119. DOI: 10.17679/iuefd.17345407 Blankert T. & Hamstra M.R. (2017). Imagining success: Multiple achievement goals and the effectiveness