Achievement Goal Orientation Toward General Education Versus Overall Coursework

Author(s): B. J. Miller and Donna L. Sundre

Source: The Journal of General Education , 2008, Vol. 57, No. 3 (2008), pp. 152-169
Published by: Penn State University Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27798105

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Penn State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Journal of General Education

This content downloaded from

156.38.116.68 on Sat, 08 Oct 2022 11:54:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Achievement Goal Orientation
Toward General Education
Versus Overall Coursework

B. J. Miller and
Donna L. Sundre

The skills that employers value?teamwork, communication, problem solving,

social responsibility?are the very same skills articulated as the outcomes of
most general education programs (Association of American Colleges and
Universities, 2007; Jaschik, 2008). As well, these outcomes have value for other
higher education stakeholders such as graduate schools, lawmakers, and parents.
Given the importance of general education outcomes to external stakeholders,
we should also try to understand how college students themselves are oriented
toward achieving them.
Recent research at a midsized southeastern university suggests that students
may not place a high value on their general education courses. In one study
(Harmes & Miller, 2007), college sophomores participated in focus group dis
cussions regarding their general education experiences. Students felt that these
courses often did not promote higher-level engagement and did not provide
sufficient depth of coverage of the subject matter. Several students also expressed
disillusionment with a perceived low faculty commitment and dedication to
general education courses. In another study, Barron and his colleagues (Barron,
Finney, Davis, ?C Owens, 2003) assessed the achievement motivation of students
enrolling in the same introductory psychology courses for different purposes

jge: the journal of general education, Vol. 57, No. 3, 2008

Copyright ? 2008 The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

This content downloaded from

156.38.116.68 on Sat, 08 Oct 2022 11:54:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 (general education versus first prerequisite course for the psychology major).
They found that students reported a greater motivation to learn when the course
satisfied a requirement for the major rather than for general education. The pres
ent study answers a recent call in this journal (Glynn, Aultman, & Owens, 2005)
to adopt a broad perspective on student motivation. Using a conceptualization of
multiple and independent learning goals, we seek to further understand student
motivation toward general education by investigating achievement goals across
learning contexts and over time.
Achievement goals have been described and differentiated in the work of
motivation researchers such as Deci and Ryan (2000) and Pintrich and Schunk
(1996). More specifically, multiple goal orientations have been identified, and
the dichotomous distinction between mastery and performance learning goals
has been expanded by Elliot and colleagues (Elliot, 1999; Elliot & Church, 1997;
Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996) to include first a trichotomous framework and
later a 2 2 achievement motivation framework (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). The
four-factor conceptualization of achievement goals fully crosses the mastery/
performance dimension with an approach/avoidance dimension thereby defin
ing the following four goal orientations:

mastery approach?trying to attain competence relative to the task or

personal standards;
mastery avoidance?trying to avoid incompetence relative to the task or
personal standards;
performance approach?trying to attain competence relative to one s
peers; and
performance avoidance?trying to avoid incompetence relative to one's
peers.

In addition to the four goals delineated in the 2x2 framework, another goal ori
entation sheds light on student motivation toward college coursework; namely,
work avoidance (Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, Lehto, & Elliot, 1997; Pieper,
2003). Students who are work avoidant seek to minimize the effort required to
learn and perform in school.
The four-factor structure of the 2x2 achievement goal framework has been
investigated in the context of achievement orientation toward a specific college course
(Elliot & McGregor, 2001) and was replicated in the broader context of college course
work in general (Finney, Pieper, & Barron, 2004; Pieper, 2003). Work avoidance has
been studied both as a separate, unidimensional construct (Harackiewicz, Barron,
Tauer, Carter, & Elliot, 2000; Harackiewicz et al., 1997) and as a fifth orientation
integrated with the four goal orientations of the 2x2 framework (Pieper, 2003).

General Education Versus Overall Coursework 153

This content downloaded from

156.38.116.68 on Sat, 08 Oct 2022 11:54:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The current study was conducted in two phases, and its purpose was
twofold. First, we sought to replicate the achievement goal factor structure
in the context of general education courses. Second, we sought to investigate
differences in achievement motivation toward general education and overall
coursework over time. In Phase i, we used cross-sectional samples of first-year
students and sophomores. In Phase 2, we used a true longitudinal sample with
measurements taken at the beginning of the college career and during the sec
ond semester of sophomore year. We addressed the following research questions
in our study:

. Will the frequently observed 2x2 achievement goal motivation factor

structure replicate when students are asked about their attitudes toward
their general education classes?
2. Will the 2x2 factor structure replicate for both entering first-year
students and sophomores?
3. Will the four-item work avoidance scale be unidimensional for both
samples?
4. Do students hold different achievement motivations toward their general
education versus overall coursework?

5. Do achievement motivations toward general education and overall

coursework change over time?

Phase 1: Method
Instruments

Two questionnaires were used in the current study: the Attitude Toward Learn
ing and Performance in College This Semester (atl) and the Attitude Toward
Learning and Performance in General Education College Courses This Semes
ter (atl-GenEd). Sixteen items constitute the atl (Pieper, 2003). Twelve of
the items were adapted from the Achievement Goal Questionnaire (Elliot &
McGregor, 2001) and measure achievement goals according to the 2x2 frame
work. These items were revised to address goals at the broad level of semester
coursework rather than at the level of a specific course. The remaining four
items were previously used by Harackiewicz and her colleagues (Harackiewicz
et al., 1997; Harackiewicz et al., 2000) to measure work avoidance and were also
revised to address this construct at the level of semester coursework.
The atl-GenEd is a modified version of the atl. Specifically, each of the
sixteen items was revised to reflect a students goal orientation toward general
education coursework. For example, the atl mastery approach item "I want to

154 B. J. Miller and Donna L. Sundre

This content downloaded from

156.38.116.68 on Sat, 08 Oct 2022 11:54:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 learn as much as possible this semester" was changed to "I want to learn as much
as possible this semester in my general education courses" for the atl-GenEd.
Both paper-and-pencil instruments are scored using a seven-point response
scale, where denotes "Not at all true of me" and 7 denotes "Very true of me." The
atl is provided as Appendix A, and the atl-GenEd is provided as Appendix B.

Participants and Procedure

Students at a midsized southeastern university who participated in two

university-wide assessment days completed both the atl and the atl-GenEd.
Assessment days are held at this university for the purpose of gathering data
about student learning outcomes in general education. Students are tested on
two occasions?during freshman orientation before classes begin in the fall
semester and on a day in the spring semester when classes are canceled for the
purpose of testing. Fall semester testing is required of all entering first-year
students, and spring semester testing is required for students who have earned
forty-five to seventy credit hours. Students who fail to participate receive a hold
on their records and may not register for classes until they complete the testing.
Students are randomly assigned to testing rooms, and tests are administered
by proctors in a standardized fashion. For the assessment days included in this
study, the atl was administered at the beginning of the testing session, and the
atl-GenEd was administered near the end.
During the 2005 fall semester, 3,096 first-year students completed the atl,
and 1,206 first-year students completed the atl-GenEd. A total of 1,089 first
year students had complete data on both the atl and the atl-GenEd. During
the 2006 spring semester, 1,482 sophomores completed the atl, and 540 sopho
mores completed the atl-GenEd. A total of 185 sophomores had complete data
on both the atl and the atl-GenEd.

Data Analysis
Confirmatory Factor Analysis. LISREL 8.72 (J?reskog &? S?rbom, 1996) was used
to conduct confirmatory factor analyses (cfas) to assess the fit of two models
to the atl-GenEd data. The four-factor structure for achievement goals, using
twelve items, is depicted in Figure 1. A unidimensional, four-item model for
work avoidance was also tested (see Figure 2). The two models were tested in
both cohorts using all available data from the atl-GenEd, which resulted in
sample sizes of 1,206 for the first-year students and 540 for the sophomores.
In addition to the chi-square statistic, the following indexes were consid
ered in evaluating the fit of the models: the standardized root mean residual

General Education Versus Overall Coursework 155

This content downloaded from

156.38.116.68 on Sat, 08 Oct 2022 11:54:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
figure Four-factor achievement goal model for the Attitude Toward Learning and Per
formance in General Education College Courses This Semester, map = mastery approach,
mav = mastery avoidance, pap = performance approach, pav = performance avoidance.

f WAV J

13 16

\ \ \
figure 2 Unidimensional work avoidance (wav) model for the Attitu
and Performance in General Education College Courses This Semeste

(srmr), the root mean square error of approximation (

comparative fit index (cfi). According to guidelines provided
(1999), an srmr value of 0.08 or less, an rmsea value of 0.06
value of 0.95 or more together indicate adequate model fit.

Split-Plot Analyses of Variance. Five 2x2 split-plot analyses of

were conducted, one for each goal orientation: mastery appr
tery avoidance (mav), performance approach (pap), perfo
(pav), and work avoidance (wav). Context (atl and atl
within-subjects factor, and cohort (first-year students and
the between-subjects factor. The alpha level was adjusted to
control for experiment-wise error, and significant interaction
by examining the simple effects within cohort. These analys
using paired data on the atl and atl-GenEd, resulting in sam
for the first-year students and 185 for the sophomores.

156 B. J. Miller and Donna L. Sundre

This content downloaded from

156.38.116.68 on Sat, 08 Oct 2022 11:54:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Phase 1: Results
Model Fit

Applying the four-factor achievement goal model and the unidimensional work
avoidance model to the atl-GenEd resulted in good fit for both cohorts. Table
presents fit statistics for the two models in both cohorts.

Subscale Means and Reliabilities

With the exception of pav, all subscales demonstrated good reliability as

measured by Cronbachs coefficient alpha; however, the reliability of the
pav subscale was considered sufficient for the purposes of the current study.
Table 2 presents means, standard deviations, and reliabilities for all subscales
for both cohorts, map, mav, pap, and pav have a possible score range of 3 to
21, whereas wav has a possible range of 4 to 28. In general, first-year students
and sophomores reported similar motivation toward overall coursework; more
over, first-year students reported similar motivation toward general education
courses and overall coursework. Specifically, students had relatively high map,
moderate pap and pav, and low mav and wav toward overall coursework, and
first-year students had a similar pattern of motivation toward general education
coursework. However, sophomores had lower scores on all four achievement
goals toward general education but higher work avoidance toward general
education.

ANOVAs
Although all interactions were found to be statistically significant, effect size
measures indicated that only the map and wav interactions were of practical
importance. Table 3 presents F statistics, values, and effect sizes for the five
anovas. Figure 3a-b depicts the interactions for map and wav and is annotated
with effect sizes for simple effects within cohort.
First-year students reported only a slightly lower level of map toward their
general education courses as opposed to their coursework overall. By contrast,
sophomores reported much lower levels of map toward their general education
courses than toward overall coursework. This interaction pattern was reversed
for wav. That is, first-year students reported only a slightly higher level of wav
toward their general education courses, whereas sophomores reported much
higher levels of wav toward their general education courses than toward overall
coursework. The effect sizes for these simple effects within cohort, as measured by

General Education Versus Overall Coursework 157

This content downloaded from

156.38.116.68 on Sat, 08 Oct 2022 11:54:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ComparativeIndex
Fit .97 .98 .99
1.00

.05 .07 .00

.06
Root Mean Square
Error of

Approximation

Mean Residual .059 .041 .018

.004
Standardized Root
ohort for Attitude Toward Learning and Performance in General Education College Courses This Semester

.000 .000 .002 .748

note: Satorra-Bentler adjustments were applied to 2, root mean square error of approximation, and co

12.53
.58
269.44 100.70

Four-Factor Model (df= 48) One-Factor Model (df= 2)

Model and Cohort

First-year Students First-year Students

Sophomores

Sopho

This content downloaded from

156.38.116.68 on Sat, 08 Oct 2022 11:54:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
table 2 Subscale Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliabilities by Cohort

First-Year Students Sopho

ATL ATL-GenEd ATL
Subscale Statistic {N =3,096) 1,206) {N= 1,482)
Mastery Mean 17.62 16.88 16.55
Approach
SD 2.79 3.20 3.24
Alpha .73 .82 .81

Mastery Mean 12.71 11.95 11.71

Avoidance
SD 3.81 4.22 3.80

Alpha .74 .83 .76

Performance Mean 15.91 16.00 15.37
Approach
SD 3.91 4.10 4.35
Alpha .87 .91 .90
Performance Mean 14.18 14.45 13.07
Avoidance
SD 4.01 3.97 4.13
Alpha .61 .65 .65
Work Mean 10.50 11.43 12.33
Avoidance
SD 4.57 5.09 5.12

Alpha .79 .84

note: atl = Attitude Toward Learning and Performance in College This Semester,
atl-GenED = Attitude Toward Learning and Performance in General Education College
Courses This Semester.

Cohens ?/and interpreted as the difference in standard deviation units, indicated

that there is a large difference in these goal orientations at the second testing
occasion. These results suggest that there is a large change in map and wav over
time; however, this change was observed in a cross-sectional study. We were also
interested to discover if the effects would replicate in a true longitudinal study.

Phase 2: Method
The second phase of the study was conducted in an effort to replicate the anova
results from Phase using longitudinal, rather than cross-sectional, data. The

General Education Versus Overall Coursework 159

This content downloaded from

156.38.116.68 on Sat, 08 Oct 2022 11:54:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
table 3 Split-Plot Analysis of Variance Results for the Interaction Between Cohort and
Context by Subscale

Context Cohort

Subscale ^(1,1,272)
Mastery Approach 223.19 .000

Mastery Avoidance 12.85 .000

Performance Approach 38.80 .000

Performance Avoidance 10.89 .001

Work Avoidance 127.21 .000

four-factor structure for achievement goals and the unidimensionality of the

work avoidance construct have been verified in many contexts, including gen
eral education; therefore, cfas were not conducted during Phase 2.
The instruments described in Phase were administered again in a similar
assessment day setting. The 2005 sample of first-year students described in
Phase 1 was used as the Time 1 sample, and these same students participated in
their second assessment day in spring 2007 (Time 2). A total of 865 sophomores
had complete data on both the atl and the atl-GenEd on the spring testing
occasion. A total of 170 students completed both instruments on both occasions
and were included in the analyses for Phase 2.

Data Analysis: Repeated Measures

Five 2x2 wi thin-subjects an ovas were conducted, one for each goal orienta
tion. Context (atl and atl-GenEd) and occasion (Time 1 and Time 2) were
the wi thin-subjects factors. As in Phase 1, the alpha level was adjusted to 0.01
in order to control for experiment-wise error, and significant interactions were
followed up by examining the simple effects within occasion.

Phase 2: Results
Subscale Means and Reliabilities

Table 4 presents means, standard deviations, and reliabilities for all subscales
on both occasions. Consistent with Phase 1, students reported similar motiva
tion toward overall coursework on both testing occasions. Again, motivation
toward general education courses and overall coursework was about the same for

160 B. J. Miller and Donna L. Sundre

This content downloaded from

156.38.116.68 on Sat, 08 Oct 2022 11:54:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Context:
-ATL
- ?ATL-GenEd

First-year students Sophomores

a Cohort

Context:
-ATL
- ?ATL-GenEd

3-1-,-1
First-year students S
b Cohort

figure 3 (a) Mean mastery approach (map) scores by context and cohort; (b) mean work
avoidance (wav) scores by context and cohort. Key: atl = Attitude Toward Learning and
Performance in College This Semester, atl-GenEd = Attitude Toward Learning and Perfor
mance in General Education College Courses This Semester.

the first-year students. Specifically, students had relatively high map, moderate
pap and pav, and low mav and wav toward overall coursework, and first-year
students had a similar pattern of motivation toward general education course
work. On the second testing occasion, however, students had lower scores for
all four achievement goals toward general education but higher work avoidance
toward general education.

ANOVAs
The two-way interactions between context (atl and atl-GenEd) and occasion
(Time and Time 2) were found to be statistically significant for all but one
of the subscales. Consistent with Phase 1 findings, the largest effect sizes were

General Education Versus Overall Coursework 161

This content downloaded from

156.38.116.68 on Sat, 08 Oct 2022 11:54:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
table 4 Subscale Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliabilities by Occasion, = lyo

Time (First-Year
Students) Time 2 (Sophomores)
Subscale Statistic ATL ATL-GenEd ATL
Mastery Mean 17.61 16.92 16.01
Approach
SD 2.87 3.13 3.47
Alpha .73 .82 .81

Mastery Mean 13.01 12.66 11.70

Avoidance
SD 3.76 3.80 4.02

Alpha .74 .83 .76

Performance Mean 15.95 15.99 15.61
Approach
SD 4.27 4.13 4.31

Alpha .87 .91 .90

Performance Mean 14.45 14.53 13.18
Avoidance
SD 4.18 3.81 4.46

Alpha .61 .65 .65

Work Mean 10.29 11.24 12.54
Avoidance
SD 4.40 4.86 4.92
Alpha .79 .84 .84
note: atl = Attitude Toward Learning and Performance in Colley ;e This Semester; atl-GenED =
Attitude Toward Learning and Performance in General Education College Courses This Semester.

associated with the interactions for map and wav. Effect size measures indicated

that only the interactions for map and wav were of practical importance. Follow
up tests of simple effects within occasion yielded fairly large Cohens d effect
sizes for map and wav of o.86 and 0.63, respectively. Table 5 presents ^statistics,
values, and effect sizes for the significant results of the five anovas. Figure
4a-b depicts the interactions for pap and wav.
As in Phase 1, on the occasion of first-year testing, students reported similar
levels of map and wav toward their general education courses and their course
work overall. Specifically, students reported a high level of map and a low level
of wav during their first year. On the occasion of their second assessment, map
scores for these same students in both contexts were lower, but map toward

162 B. J. Miller and Donna L. Sundre

This content downloaded from

156.38.116.68 on Sat, 08 Oct 2022 11:54:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
table 5 Significant Within-Subjects Analysis of Variance Results by Subscale

Occasion Occasion Context

Subscale ^(1,169) ,F(1,169)

Mastery 152.64 .000

Approach
Mastery 18.42 .000
I Avoidance

Performance
18.68 .000
I Approach
Performance
23.85 .000 .12
I Avoidance

Work
18.42 .000
I Avoidance

general education courses decreased significantly more than map toward overall
coursework. Triis interaction pattern was just the opposite for wav. That is, wav
scores in both contexts were higher on the second testing occasion, but wav
toward general education courses increased significantly more than wav toward
overall coursework.

Discussion
This study provides strong support that the 2x2 achievement goal orientation
factor structure remains stable across education class level (entering first-year
students versus sophomores) and types of coursework queried (overall versus
general education). The psychometric properties of the scales were generally
quite good and are comparable to those reported by earlier researchers.
Interestingly, entering students across both phases of the study did not
report much difference in their achievement motivation for overall versus
general education coursework. One might argue that entering students do not
perceive a difference between general education courses and other courses, but it
should be noted that all students entering this institution are required to attend
summer visitation and a four-day orientation session prior to attending classes.
The general education program is described in great detail during these sessions,
and the dean of general education speaks at every summer visitation session.
Students also speak with their advisers and register for courses (many of which
will be general education) during the summer visitation day. This early exposure

General Education Versus Overall Coursework 163

This content downloaded from

156.38.116.68 on Sat, 08 Oct 2022 11:54:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Time 1 Time 2
Occasion

28

(0
24
o
h.
o 20
co Context:
>
< 16 d = .63 -ATL-GenEd
-ATL
c 12
co

Time 1 Time 2
Occasion
figure 4 (a) Mean mastery approach (map) scores by context and occasion; (b) mean
work avoidance (wav) scores by context and occasion. Key: atl = Attitude Toward Learning
and Performance in College This Semester, atl-GenEd = Attitude Toward Learning and
Performance in General Education College Courses This Semester.

to the general education program did not appear to contribute to differential

motivation levels toward these courses for the first-year students. Rather, entering
students seemed to be equally motivated toward all their courses. Specifically,
they had rather strong motivation to learn for the sake of learning (mastery
approach) and moderate levels of motivation to learn and perform in compari
son to their peers (performance goals), and they did not report trying to avoid
exerting effort on their coursework (work avoidance).
By the time students became second-semester sophomores, however, their
attitudes toward general education coursework as compared to their overall
coursework changed significantly. This change over time was observed for both
the Phase cross-sectional samples and the Phase 2 longitudinal sample. Students

164 B. J. Miller and Donna L. Sundre

This content downloaded from

156.38.116.68 on Sat, 08 Oct 2022 11:54:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
became only slightly less motivated to learn and perform well in their overall
coursework while becoming much less motivated to learn and perform in their
general education courses. In addition, students became only slightly more work
avoidant in their overall coursework while becoming much more work avoidant
in their general education coursework. These results suggest that sophomores
seek strategies to "just get by" in their general education courses (higher work
avoidance scores) and exhibit greater learning interest in their overall course
work (higher mastery approach scores) than in general education courses.

Conclusion
The overall findings of the two studies reported in this article provide an impor
tant perspective that should lead to new research and questions to engage all
of us who teach in the general education domains. First of all, these studies
provide very strong evidence that the atl instruments are excellent candidates
for studying student attitudes about learning in a variety of settings. The factor
structures of the instruments are stable across samples and contexts; the scales
have displayed more-than-adequate reliability; and the measures are sensitive
to change over time. All of these attributes are prerequisite to the conduct of
quality research. The psychometric quality of the instruments thus contributed
to our ability to discover more about student attitudes toward learning. We feel
confident that the atl instruments will continue to provide valuable informa
tion we can use to identify undesirable attitudes toward coursework as well as to
celebrate deeper learning orientations.
Many of the other study findings are distressing, yet when we share these
results with faculty and students across our campus, these results seem to support
widely held beliefs. The results of these studies confirm a disparity between the
importance colleges and external stakeholders place on general education out
comes and college students' motivations toward general education coursework.
Consistent with some previous findings at this university (Barron et al., 2003;
Harmes & Miller, 2007), the results were expected yet disheartening. Clearly,
students, particularly sophomores, have discrepant attitudes toward learning in
general education courses. They do not have the strong motivations to learn and
apply themselves in the general education context that we would hope them to
have. Future research could examine what can be done, both in the design of our
programs and within the general education classroom, to promote mastery goals
for our students. Further, qualitative approaches may be best suited to identify
the multiple factors that promote salubrious motivation in some contexts and
diminish it in others. Such research might provide insights into strategies that
could be employed to address this challenge.

General Education Versus Overall Coursework 165

This content downloaded from

156.38.116.68 on Sat, 08 Oct 2022 11:54:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Appendix A: Attitude Toward Learning and Performance
in College This Semester
The following statements concern your attitudes toward learning and perfor
mance in all of your college classes this semester. Please indicate how true each
statement is of you. If you think the statement is true of you, mark a 7. If a
statement is not at all true of you, mark a 1. If the statement is more or less true
of you, find the number between 7 and 1 that best describes you. There are no
right or wrong answers. Just answer as accurately as possible.

2345 67
Not at all true of me Very t

///////////////////////////////

. My goal this semester i

students.
2. I just want to avoid do
semester.

3. Completely mastering
this semester.

4. I really dont want to work hard in my classes this semester.

5. Im afraid that I may not understand the content of my classes as
thoroughly as I'd like.
6. It is important for me to do well compared to other students.
7. I want to learn as much as possible this semester.
8. The fear of performing poorly this semester is what motivates me.
9. I want to do as little work as possible this semester.
10. The most important thing for me this semester is to understand the
content in my courses as thoroughly as possible.
11. I worry that I may not learn all that I possibly could this semester.
12. I want to do better than other students this semester.

13. I want to get through my courses by doing the least amount of work
possible.
14. I am definitely concerned that I may not learn all that I can this semester.
15. My goal this semester is to avoid performing poorly compared to
other students.
16. I look forward to working really hard this semester in my coursework.

166 B. J. Miller and Donna L. Sundre

This content downloaded from

156.38.116.68 on Sat, 08 Oct 2022 11:54:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Appendix : Attitude Toward Learning and Performance
in General Education College Courses This Semester
The following statements concern your attitudes toward learning and perfor
mance in your General Education college classes this semester. Please indicate how
true each statement is of you. If you think the statement is true of you, mark
yourself a 7. If a statement is not at all true of you, mark a 1. If the statement is
more or less true of you, find the number between 1 and 7 that best describes you.
There are no right or wrong answers. Just answer as accurately as possible.

1234567
Not at all true of me V

///////////////////////////

. My goal this semeste

students in my Gene
2. I just want to avoid
General Education co
3. Completely master
is important to me th
4. I really dont want
semester.

5. I'm afraid that I m

Education courses as
6. It is important for
General Education c
7. I want to learn as m
Education courses.
8. The fear of perform
Education courses.
9. I want to do as litt
courses this semester

10. The most importan

content in my Gener
11. I worry that I may
my General Educati
12. I want to do bette
courses this semester

General Educatio

This content downloaded from

156.38.116.68 on Sat, 08 Oct 2022 11:54:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 13. I want to get through my General Education courses by doing the
least amount of work possible.
14. I am definitely concerned that I may not learn all that I can this
semester in my General Education courses.
15. My goal this semester is to avoid performing poorly in my General
Education courses compared to other students.
16. I look forward to working really hard this semester in my General
Education coursework.

References
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2007). College learning for the new
global century. Retrieved February 20, 2008, from http://www.aacu.org/advocacy/leap/
documents/GlobalCentury_final.pdf.
Barron, K., Finney, S., Davis, S., & Owens, K. (2003, April). Achievement goal pursuit: Are
different goals activated and more beneficial in different types of academic situations? Paper
presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Deci, R. M., & Ryan, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions
and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2$, 54?67.
Elliot, A. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational
Psychologist, 34, 169-89.
Elliot, A., & Church, M. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achieve
ment motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-32.
Elliot, A., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and
intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
70, 461-75
Elliot, A., & McGregor, H. (2001). A 2 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, #0(3)> 501-19.
Finney S. ]., Pieper, S. L., &c Barron, . E. (2004). Examining the psychometric properties
of the Achievement Goal Questionnaire in a general academic context. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 64(1), 365-83.
Glynn, S., Aultman, L., &; Owens, A. (2005). Motivation to learn in general education
programs. Journal of Higher Education, 54,150?70.
Harackiewicz, J., Barron, K., Carter, S., Lehto, A., & Elliot, A. (1997). Predictors and conse
quences of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest and making
the grade. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1284-95.
Harackiewicz, J., Barron, K., Tauer, J., Carter, S., & Elliot, A. (2000). Short-term and long
term consequences of achievement goals: Predicting interest and performance over time.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 316-30.
Harmes, J. C, & Miller, B. J. (2007, October). What do college students think about general
education and assessment? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northeastern
Educational Research Association, Rocky Hill, CT.

168 . J. Miller and Donna L. Sundre

This content downloaded from

156.38.116.68 on Sat, 08 Oct 2022 11:54:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Jaschik, S. (2008, January 23). Mixed grades for grads and assessment. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved
February 20, 2008, from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/01/23/employers.
Pieper, S. (2003). Refining and extending the 2x2 achievement goal framework: Another look
at work-avoidance (Doctoral dissertation, James Madison University, 2003). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 64, 443 6A.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

General Education Versus Overall Coursework 169

This content downloaded from

156.38.116.68 on Sat, 08 Oct 2022 11:54:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms