Links between students' achievement goal orientations and learning tactics were investigated using software (gStudy) that supports a variety of learning tactics and strategies. An achievement goal questionnaire was administered to 307 students enrolled in an introductory educational psychology course. Data tracing study tactics were logged for 80 of these students who prepared for a test by studying a textbook chapter presented as a multimedia document. Using correlations and canonical correlations, we found relationships between goal orientations and activity traces indicating different forms of cognitive engagement. Notably, mastery goal orientation (approach or avoidance) was negatively related to amount of highlighting, a study tactic that is theorized to be less effective than summarizing and other forms of elaborative annotation for assembling and integrating knowledge.
DuncanT. G., & McKeachieW. J. (2005). The making of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational Psychologist, 40, 117–128.
3.
DweckC. S., & LeggettE. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
4.
ElliotA. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169–189.
5.
ElliotA. J., & ChurchM. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218–232.
6.
ElliotA. J., & HarackiewiczJ. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 549–563.
7.
ElliotA. J., & McGregorH. A., (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519.
8.
ElliotA. J.McGregorH. A. & GableS. L. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam performance: A mediational analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 549–563.
9.
EntwistleN., & McCuneV. (2004). The conceptual bases of study strategy inventories in higher education. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 325–346.
10.
FoosP. W. (1995). The effect of variations in text summarization opportunities on test performance. Journal of Experimental Education, 63, 89–95.
11.
GorrellJ.TricouC., & GrahamA. (1991). Children's short- and long-term retention of science concepts via self-generated examples. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 5, 100–108.
12.
HadwinA. F., & WinneP. H. (1996). Study strategies have meager support:A review with recommendations for implementation. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 692–715.
13.
HarackiewiczJ. M.BaronK. E.TauerJ. M.CarterS. M., & ElliotA. J. (2000). Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement goals: Predicting interest and performance over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 316–330.
14.
HuffmanL. E., & SpiresH. A. (1994). Effects of explicit instruction in notetaking on sixth graders' lecture comprehension and attitudes toward notetaking. Reading Improvement, 31, 72–76
15.
IgoL. B.BruningR., & McCruddenM. T. (2005). Exploring differences in students' copy-and-paste decision making and processing: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 103–116.
16.
Jamieson-NoelD. L., & WinneP. H. (2003). Comparing self-reports to traces of studying behavior as representations of students' studying and achievement. German Journal of Educational Psychology [Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie], 17, 159–171.
17.
KierwaK. A.DuBoisN. F.ChristianD.McShaneA.MeyerhofferM., & RoskelleyD. (1991). Notetaking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 240–245.
18.
MartonF., & SäljöR. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I. Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.
19.
MarxenD. E. (1996). Why reading and underlining a passage is a less effective strategy than simply rereading the passage. Reading Improvement, 33, 88–96.
20.
MayerR. E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 357–371.
21.
NussbaumE. M., & SinatraG. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384–395.
22.
PintrichP. R. (1995). Understanding self-regulated learning. In PintrichP. R. (Ed.), Understanding self-regulated learning (pp. 3–12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23.
PintrichP. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In BoekaertsM.PintrichP. R., & ZeidnerM. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego: Academic Press.
24.
RavindranB.GreeneB. A., & DeBackerT. K. (2005). Predicting preservice teachers' cognitive engagement with goals and epistemological beliefs. Journal of Educational Research, 98, 222–232.
TabachnickB. G. & FidellL. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
27.
WinneP. H. (1992). State-of-the-art instructional computing systems that afford instruction and bootstrap research. In JonesM. & WinneP. H. (Eds.), Adaptive learning environments: Foundations and frontiers (pp. 349–380). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
28.
WinneP. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. In ZimmermanB. J. & SchunkD. H. (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 153–189). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29.
WinneP. H. (2006). How software technologies can improve research on learning and bolster school reform. Educational Psychologist, 41, 5–17.
30.
WinneP. H., & HadwinA. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In HackerD. J.DunloskyJ., & GraesserA. C. (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31.
WinneP. H., & Jamieson-NoelD. L. (2002). Exploring students' calibration of self-reports about study tactics and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 551–572.
32.
WinneP. H., & Jamieson-NoelD. L. (2003). Self-regulating studying by objectives for learning: Students' reports compared to a model. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 259–276.
33.
WinneP. H., & PerryN. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In BoekaertsM.PintrichP., & ZeidnerM. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–566). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
34.
WinneP. H.HadwinA. F.NesbitJ. C.KumarV., & BeaudoinL. (2005). gStudy: A toolkit for developing computer-supported tutorials and researching learning strategies and instruction (version 2.0) [computer program]. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.
35.
WinneP. H.Jamieson-NoelD. L., & MuisK. (2002). Methodological issues and advances in researching tactics, strategies, and self-regulated learning. In PintrichP. R. & MaehrM. L. (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: New directions in measures and methods (Vol. 12, pp. 121–155). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
36.
WoolfolkA. E.WinneP. H., & PerryN. E. (2003). Educational psychology (2nd Canadian ed.). Toronto, ON: Pearson.
37.
ZimmermanB. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In ZimmermanB. J. & SchunkD. H. (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 1–37). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
