Elliot 2008 Goal Orientations

This article was downloaded by: [Ingenta Content Distribution Psy Press Titles]
On: 25 October 2009

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 911796916]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Educational Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713415498
Goal orientations in Russian university students: from mastery to performance?

Richard Remedios a; Zoya Kiseleva b; Joe Elliott a
a
School of Education, Durham University, Durham, UK b Institute of English Languages, St. Petersburg
University of Economics and Finance, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
Online Publication Date: 01 October 2008
To cite this Article Remedios, Richard, Kiseleva, Zoya and Elliott, Joe(2008)'Goal orientations in Russian university students: from
mastery to performance?',Educational Psychology,28:6,677 691

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/01443410802200257
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410802200257
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Vol. 28, No. 6, October 2008, 677691
Goal orientations in Russian university students: from mastery to

performance?
Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution Psy Press Titles] At: 11:33 25 October 2009
Richard Remediosa*, Zoya Kiselevab and Joe Elliotta

a
School of Education, Durham University, Durham, UK; bInstitute of English Languages,
St. Petersburg University of Economics and Finance, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
(Received 24 August 2007; final version received 14 May 2008)

Taylor and Francis
CEDP_A_320192.sgm
Educational
10.1080/01443410802200257
0144-3410
Original
Taylor
02008
00
richard.remedios@durham.ac.uk
RichardRemedios
000002008
&Article
Francis
(print)/1469-5820
Psychology
Ltd
(online)
Research in the UK has shown that students start their university career with the goal of
mastering their subject, but this focus shifts as they progress through their degree
program. Studies have suggested that unlike students in the UK, Russian students
continue to take a strong mastery approach to their work. The main aim of this study was
to assess whether the effects observed in UK studies could be found in a Russian context.
In a cross-sectional study, 618 students across four years of a degree program in a
Russian university completed an achievement-goal questionnaire. Results revealed
patterns similar to the studies in the UK; Russian students levels of mastery were
significantly lower after Year 1. The results are discussed in terms of potential changes
in Russian culture. Methodological issues relating to the relative failure of some
questionnaire items to validate fully within their hypothesised constructs are also
discussed.
Keywords: goal theory; motivation; Russia; performance avoidance; construct validity
Introduction
Achievement-goal theorists suggest that individuals can approach tasks with one of two
broad goals: to understand and master the task (a mastery approach) or to try to perform well
and display ability to others (a performance approach). While there has been considerable
research into the types of factors that influence the goals that students adopt and the types
of outcomes that goals predict, a less-researched question is: To what extent are these goals
different in different years of study? In the present paper, we focus upon such differences
in university students. In two studies of undergraduate students in a UK university, Lieberman and Remedios (2007) found that levels of mastery were significantly higher in Year 1
relative to other years, while levels of performance were significantly lower. These effects
were consistent across age and subject type.
Like most studies in the field of goal theory, the study by Lieberman and Remedios
(2007) was restricted to a UK population. Several authors have suggested that students goals
when studying within highly individualistic and competitive Western cultures (such as the
UK and USA) may be dissimilar to those in contexts that embrace collaborative and collectivist values. For example, in a series of both quantitative and qualitative analyses, Elliott
and colleagues (Elliott, Hufton, Hildreth, & Illushin, 1999; Elliot, Hufton, Illushin, &
Lauchlan, 2001; Elliott, Hufton, Illushin, & Willis, 2001; Elliott, Hufton, Willis, & Illushin,
*Corresponding author. Email: richard.remedios@durham.ac.uk
ISSN 0144-3410 print/ISSN 1469-5820 online
2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/01443410802200257
http://www.informaworld.com
678
R. Remedios et al.
2005; Hufton, Elliott, & Illushin, 2002) reported differences between the educational
attitudes and behaviours of Russian schoolchildren and US/English students. In particular,
the Russian schoolchildren tended to value education far more as an intrinsic end in itself,
whereas the Anglo-American students emphasised its instrumental function in terms of
improved income and career opportunities in adulthood. These findings partially replicate
findings from Ryan et al.s (1999) questionnaire-based study of undergraduate students. In
this latter study, an item concerning aspiration for intellectual and aesthetic growth formed
part of a construct defined as an intrinsic life goal. Analyses revealed that Russian male
students ranked intrinsic values significantly higher than American male and female
students. Taken together, the studies of school-age children by Elliott and colleagues and
the undergraduate study by Ryan et al. (1999) suggest that Russian culture may influence
students goals for studying in ways very different to Western societies. In terms of the
mastery/performance dichotomy, the evidence suggests that, contrary to the findings by
Lieberman and Remedios (2007), Russian students would be more likely to maintain a
mastery focus.
However, Russia is a country in a phase of rapid transition. In the period during, and
immediately following the collapse of, the Soviet Union, high-achieving Russian students
took pride in their mastery of academic subjects, were largely admired by their peers,
and saw the primary purpose of education as enabling them to become cultured individuals (Elliott et al., 1999; Hufton et al., 2002) but the economic turbulence during
the mid to late 1990s led to a perceived weakening of the prestige and value of education.
Recent reviews (Elliott et al., 2005; Elliott & Tudge, 2007) have discussed the impact
of globalising (Western) influences upon Russian education, and in particular the consequence of significant growth in individualism and instrumentalism. Such factors have led
many students to believe that they must take responsibility to find ways to thrive in a highly
economically competitive society. Although students could see that some highly educated
individuals had thrived in the new Russia, more striking was the miserable position of
much of the impoverished intelligentsia (Ryvkina, 2007). Observing the growing disparity
between the new wealthy (education had often not been a key factor in their success) and
the impoverished majority (among this group, university professors and schoolteachers), the
importance of education as an end in itself began to be rejected by students who, questioning the relevance of traditional academic schooling (Iartsev, 2000), saw other skills, such as
entrepreneurialism, resourcefulness, and the use of personal contacts, as more important for
securing their future wellbeing.
More recently, Russian students have appeared to regain a belief in the power of education. However, the reasons for this appear to be primarily economic (Lisauskene, 2007;
Vishnevskii & Shapko, 2007); the value of education as a means of individual growth has
become largely subordinated to its role as an economic commodity (Andreev, 2003;
Chuprov & Zubok, 1997).
In line with globalisation theory (e.g., Inglehart & Welzel, 2005), Russian students
values, both social and educational, appear to be increasingly similar to those of their peers
in Western societies. A significant rise in instrumentality and materialism, together with
national and regional initiatives in devising and operating influential testing and examination procedures, is likely to result in a greater student emphasis upon performativity and a
reduction of interest in deeper forms of learning. It is unclear, however, to what extent the
attitudes and orientations of Russian students would, in general, result in similar findings to
those obtained for British students by Lieberman and Remedios (2007). The present study
represents an attempt to explore this question.
679
Goal theory
Goal theorists suggest that individuals approach achievement-related tasks with two broad
aims: a desire to learn and master a task (mastery approach) and a desire to demonstrate ability (performance approach). Although there have been several interpretations and differing
constructs used to describe mastery and performance approaches (e.g., Ames, 1992; Elliot
& Church, 1997; Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1994, 1996; Maehr &
Midgely, 1991, 1996; Nicholls, 1984; Thorkildsen & Nicholls, 1998), the underlying
premise has remained essentially the same (for reviews, see Elliot, 2005; Pintrich, 2003).
More recently, goal theorists have incorporated two forms of performance goal: approach
and avoidance. Approach forms are defined as the desire to demonstrate ability, while avoidance forms are characterised by a desire to avoid appearing less capable than ones peers
(Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1994, 1996). More recently, Elliot and
McGregor (2001) have added a fourth construct: mastery avoidance, characterised by a
worry of not being able to learn or understand all there is to know.
As theorists turned to examine the operation of goals in classrooms, researchers began
to examine the factors that influenced goals (Harackiewicz & Barron, 2000; also see reviews
by Elliot, 2005; Pintrich, 2003) and the types of effects goals had on ongoing motivation and
academic performance (Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter, & Elliot, 2000; Harackiewicz,
Barron, Tauer, & Elliot, 2002). However, a less researched issue has been whether students
change their goals as they progress in their degree program.
Lieberman and Remedios (2007) examined this issue in two multiple cross-sectional
studies. In the first study, 672 students from all four years of a psychology degree program
were given the 18-item, three-construct achievement goal questionnaire devised by Elliot
and Church (1997) at registration for their classes. Lieberman and Remedios added questions related to pre-course expectations, and found that, relative to first-year students,
second-year students were significantly less mastery orientated, had significantly lower
interest and enjoyment expectations for their studies, and were significantly more performance orientated. However, the effect sizes were small to medium, some dependent
measures were not significant (e.g., performance avoidance), and the study solely looked at
students studying psychology. In their second study, Lieberman and Remedios examined
whether the move towards more grade-related goals was consistent across subjects other
than psychology. This study included a random sample of all students studying at the university (n = 1972) and employed the updated, 12-item, four-construct version of the achievement goal questionnaire devised by Elliot and McGregor (2001). The results revealed
the same pattern in subjects categorised as arts (e.g., English, languages), sciences (e.g.,
psychology, biology, mathematics), and other subjects such as joint degrees. Even when
a sample of students studying nursing (seemingly a highly vocational subject) were specifically analysed, the same pattern emerged, but with even larger effect sizes, found across all
dependent measures except the avoidance constructs. As some of the first-year students in
the first study were by now in their fourth year, a longitudinal analysis could be conducted.
This revealed the same pattern of findings, again with increased effect sizes and nonsignificance for the avoidance constructs.
In short, the evidence consistently showed that, compared to those in their first year at
university, students in subsequent years appeared to focus less on academic mastery and to
place greater emphasis upon grades. While it is difficult to offer conclusions about change
on the basis of cross-sectional studies, the effect sizes in the within-subjects longitudinal
analysis of the students who were now in their fourth year in the Lieberman and Remedios
study (2007) suggest that the between-subjects (cross-sectional) analysis actually underplays
680
R. Remedios et al.
the potential conclusion of a change in approach rather than just a between-groups difference. Whichever way the analysis is interpreted, the picture derived is in accordance with
the suggestion that real-world pressures might influence student achievement goals towards
greater performativity.
The Russian experience
In Russian society from Tsarist times, through the Soviet period, and certainly continuing
into the 1990s, a strong emphasis was placed upon the inculcation of academic knowledge
and the development of the cultured individual. This was shown in a series of studies in
which Elliott and colleagues (Elliott et al., 1999; Elliott, Hufton, Illushin, & Lauchlan,
2001; Elliott et al., 2005; Hufton et al., 2002) found that Russian school students emphasised learning (and being cultured) as the ultimate goal of education. Observation of classroom environments has also indicated significant differences from Western contexts in
terms of behaviour and peer influences (see also Alexander, 2001). Drawing upon the ideas
of the philosopher Anton Makarenko, recognition of the importance of a powerful childrens collective in bringing about growth in social and moral development was translated
into a set of classroom processes that maximised positive peer influences towards learning
and engagement (Elliott, 2007). Thus, unlike Western classrooms where scholarly eagerness and enthusiasm are often scorned and, on occasions, ultimately inhibited by peers,
within the Russian context, erudition has traditionally been a source of peer respect and
admiration. However, rapid social and economic transformation appears to be undermining
such values, and it is possible that an increasing shift towards materialism and
individualism is rendering the intrinsic value of learning less meaningful, with more
competitive and performative educational contexts resulting (Elliott & Tudge, 2007).
Applying this analysis to goal theory, one might anticipate that Russian students would
be more likely than their Western peers to endorse and maintain a mastery orientation
throughout their university courses. However, such a prediction may be offset by the rapid
changes described above, particularly as students progress through their university education and the economic realities of adult life in Russia become increasingly salient. Given the
changes in Russian culture, we were eager to ascertain whether the student orientations
observed in the UK studies would be found in a Russian context.
Applying goal instruments in non-Western contexts
Although the achievement goals assessment instrument developed by Elliot and McGregor
(2001) has been used successfully in many Western studies, it was unclear how well this
instrument would perform in the Russian context. Goal theorists have used different techniques in recent studies. For example, in their study of avoidance goals across three
cultures (the USA, South Korea, and Russia), Elliot, Chirkov, Kim, and Sheldon (2001)
asked participants to list eight goals they typically strive for in daily life and then used
trained coders to rate the statements. Participants goals were determined based on the
coding given by the raters (for full details of the procedure, see Elliot, Sheldon, & Church,
1997; Emmons, 1986). While such a procedure is potentially robust, it is time-consuming.
The potential strength of the 12-item goal instrument developed by Elliot and McGregor
(2001) is its parsimony. The instrument measures four constructs: mastery approach,
mastery avoidance, performance approach, and performance avoidance. Each construct is
assessed by three items. Having such a concise instrument can be extremely useful when it
comes to administration. For example, short questionnaires naturally take less time to
681
complete and in classroom studies where teachers have planned their seminars/classes/
lectures, allocating time for completion of questionnaires can be problematic, particularly
when the questionnaires are lengthy and time-consuming. However, such instruments are
only useful if they validate successfully; thus, one purpose of this study was to examine
whether the 12-item version would perform within acceptable statistical limits in the
Russian context.
Developing hypotheses for how well the instrument would perform can only be speculative. Urdan (2004) reported reliability alphas above .82 for the performance approach
and performance avoidance constructs measured by the Patterns of Adaptive Learning
Styles (PALS; Midgley et al., 2000) questionnaires presented in Spanish and English. This
suggests that goal measures in English can be translated into other languages without necessarily leading to a decline in reliability. The success of a Russian version of a measure of
intrinsic and extrinsic goal constructs in the study by Ryan et al. (1999) is cause for further
optimism that Western instruments may translate well into Russian contexts.
The current study

The main research question addressed in this study was whether students across different
years of their degree program in Russia would evidence differences in goals similar to those
observed in the UK by Lieberman and Remedios (2007). A second underlying question was
whether the 12-item achievement goal questionnaire would perform well in the Russian
context.
Methods
Participants
The study took place in the Institute of Foreign Languages at St. Petersburg State University of Economics and Finance. Students enrolling here are perceived to be academically
strong in relation to their peers in other Russian higher education institutions. The
academic requirements to enter Hertzen University are higher than those of most other
higher education institutions in Russia. All students taking part in the English studies
course for business were asked to participate (n = 618). The gender split was 227 males and
390 females (one student did not indicate gender). All students present for one or both of
their first two classes agreed to complete the questionnaires. In the second class, only
students absent from the first class were given a questionnaire. The number absent on these
occasions was small; although the faculty staff were unable to confirm the exact number of
students registered on the course, the return rate was certainly in excess of 90% for first and
second years. There were 244 first years, 145 second years, 141 third years, and 88 fourth
years participating.
Procedure
The study took place in the first week of the academic year, as it was anticipated that a
high proportion of students would attend on these days. Students completed the questionnaires while attending their normal classes. Instructions, explanations, and responses to
students questions were provided by a Russian member of the research team with the
English-speaking first author also in attendance. The whole process took approximately 15
minutes.
682
R. Remedios et al.
Sampling procedure
The decision to sample students from a single faculty was based on our desire to maximise
the return rate from a defined group. Previous research undertaken by the first author had
suggested that visiting classes and asking students to complete questionnaires resulted in a
far higher return rate than asking teachers, who already had considerable demands on their
teaching, to distribute questionnaires. In this study, the return rate was 100%; no student
refused to complete a questionnaire. There was little theoretical reason to suspect that the
goals of students in this faculty would be different to those in other faculties, especially
given the findings by Lieberman and Remedios (2007) that goals of UK students did not
differ by course type.
Dependent measure
We employed a Russian version of the achievement goal questionnaire devised by Elliot
and McGregor (2001), with supplementary questions devised and used by Lieberman and
Remedios (2007). Students responded on a seven-point Likert scale. They were asked:
Please indicate your level of agreement where a score of 1 represents not true of me and
7 represents very true of me. The actual wordings of the questions can be found in
Table 1. In addition to the items from the achievement motivation questionnaire (Elliot &
McGregor, 2001), two questions examined students expectations for their courses: On the
whole, I expect my courses this semester to be very interesting and On the whole, I expect
my courses this semester to be very enjoyable. A final statement read:
Table 1. Loadings for the four-factor solution for Elliot and McGregors (2001) 12-item
achievement motivation questionnaire.
Component
1
Statement
It is important to me to be better than other students.
It is important for me to do well compared to others in my courses.
My goal in this course is to get a better grade than most of the other
students.
I want to learn as much as possible from all my courses.
I desire to completely master the material presented in my courses.
It is important for me to understand the content of my courses as
thoroughly as possible.
I am often concerned that I may not learn all there is to learn in this
class.
Sometimes Im afraid that I may not understand the content of this
course as thoroughly as Id like.
I worry that I may not learn all that I possibly could in my classes.
My goal in this course is to avoid performing poorly.
My fear of performing poorly is often what motivates me.
I just want to avoid doing poorly in my courses.
P-AP M-AP
.87
.90
.73
M-AV
P-AV
.41
.78
.79
.83
.61
.77
.83
.74
.79
.71
Note: Primary loadings are shown in bold; secondary loadings are shown only if they were greater than .30.
P-AP = performance approach; M-AP = mastery approach; M-AV = mastery avoidance; P-AV = performance
avoidance.
683
For university courses, one possible goal is to understand the material; another is to get a good
grade. What is the relative importance of each to you? Specifically, where on the following
scale would you locate your feeling, between being primarily concerned with grades at one
extreme (the right) and primarily concerned with understanding at the other (the left). Circle as
appropriate.
Students were also asked to indicate their age, their gender, their year of study, and which
courses they were studying.
The questionnaire was translated into Russian by a native Russian speaker (the second
author), who teaches English at the same university. This was overseen and discussed with
two other native Russian speakers at a specially convened meeting in the UK. The Russian
version was then taken back to Russia and back-translated into English by a colleague at the
Russian University who was blind to the purpose and nature of the study. This final version
was used in the study. The timescale for the translation and back translation was one week.
Results
The analysis proceeded in two stages. The first analysis sought to validate the achievement
goal questionnaire. In a similar fashion to the Elliot and McGregor (2001) study, the items
were submitted to principal components analysis with varimax and oblique rotations. This
analysis revealed four components with eigenvalues over 1; these accounted for 66.6% of
the total variance. The eigenvalues and variance accounted for by each component were as
follows: Component 1, = 3.05 (25.4%); Component 2, = 2.1 (17.6%); Component 3,
= 1.6 (13.3%); and Component 4, = 1.2 (10.3%). The primary and secondary loadings
appear in Table 1.
In common with Elliot and Church (1997), we employed two criteria in assessing the
applicability of the factors: the primary loading had to be at least .4, and the difference between
the primary and secondary loading (and thus the discriminant value of the item) had to be
at least .4. The loadings detailed in Table 1 reveal that 11 of the 12 items fell into appropriate
components. The performance approach item that had a high primary loading of .73 but a
secondary loading of .41was removed from the analysis because the secondary loading was
too high to be confident that this item only belonged to one construct. Cronbach reliabilities
for each construct were as follows: performance approach, .81 (two items); mastery approach,
.75 (three items); performance avoidance, .64, (three items); and mastery avoidance, .61 (three
items). These reliabilities are medium (.70.80) to low (.60.70). Because such reliabilities
are generally easier to find when there are more items per scale, the raw correlations were
examined. These appear in Table 2.
Table 2 reveals that the items within the hypothesised constructs correlated more highly
with each other than with other items, suggesting they did share commonalities. The decision
was made to take all four constructs through to the next stage of the analysis.
In the second stage of the analysis, the mean ratings for the seven main dependent variables mastery approach, mastery avoidance, performance approach, performance avoidance, expected interest, expected enjoyment, and responses to the single mastery vs. grades
question were submitted to a one-way ANOVA to determine whether there were differences
in goals or motivation depending on which year students were in. Post-hoc comparisons were
carried out using the Tukey test. The means for each dependent variable, the results of the
one-way ANOVA, and the effect size for the one-way ANOVA (using partial 2) appear in
Table 3.
The data in Table 3 show that the one-way ANOVA was significant for all measures except
performance approach. Olejnik and Algina (2000) suggest that effect size is particularly
.288(**)
.000
.325(**)
.000
.058
.152
.100(*)
.012
.118(**)
.003
.128(**)
.001
.235(**)
.000
.296(**)
.000
.176(**)
.000
.240(**)
.000
.176(**)
.000
P-AV1
.456(**)
.000
.120(**)
.003
.219(**)
.000
.257(**)
.000
.014
.730
.115(**)
.004
.336(**)
.000
.042
.297
.080(*)
.048
.017
.670
P-AV2
.136(**)
.001
.193(**)
.000
.129(**)
.001
.024
.548
.048
.234
.289(**)
.000
.013
.744
.070
.084
.019
.640
P-AV3
.422(**)
.000
.253(**)
.000
.101(*)
.012
.108(**)
.007
.023
.575
.233(**)
.000
.115(**)
.004
.204(**)
.000
M-AV1
.358(**)
.000
.044
.274
.013
.743
.084(*)
.037
.016
.697
.073
.067
.006
.891
M-AV2
M-AV3
.078
.052
.162(**)
.000
.158(**)
.000
.179(**)
.000
.240(**)
.000
.158(**)
.000
Inter-item correlations for the 12-item goal orientation questionnaire.
.683(**)
.000
.477(**)
.000
.197(**)
.000
.107(**)
.008
.161(**)
.000
P-AP1
.645(**)
.000
.247(**)
.000
.169(**)
.000
.212(**)
.000
P-AP2
Note: Groups of bold table cells are within-construct correlations; r = correlation co-efficient; all n > 615.
**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed); *correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed).
M-AV = mastery avoidance; P-AV = performance avoidance; P-AP = performance approach; MAP = mastery approach.
P-AV2
r
P-AV3
r
M-AV1
r
M-AV2
r
M-AV3
r
P-AP1
r
PAP2
r
P-AP3
r
M-AP1
r
MAP2
r
M-AP3
r
Table 2.
P-AP3
.172(**)
.000
.188(**)
.000
.162(**)
.000
.435(**)
.000
.526(**)
.000
MAP1
.535(**)
.000
M-AP2
684
R. Remedios et al.
685
Table 3. Means, standard deviations (in parentheses), p values, and effect sizes for the seven
dependent measures in the study.
Interest
Enjoyment
Single question
Mastery approach
Performance approach
Performance avoidance
Mastery avoidance
1
(n 244)
2
(n 145)
3
(n 141)
4
(n 88)
6.13a
(1.13)
5.98a
(1.12)
3.08a
(1.50)
6.20a
(.85)
4.70a
(1.61)
4.94a
(1.32)
3.93a
(1.34)
5.99a
(1.32)
5.73ab
(1.40)
2.92ab
(1.51)
5.90b
(.94)
4.74a
(1.71)
4.53b
(1.46)
3.95ab
(1.42)
6.28ab
(.99)
5.99ab
(1.05)
2.55bc
(1.52)
5.68b
(1.10)
4.44a
(1.53)
4.00c
(1.36)
3.63ab
(1.28)
5.84b
(1.46)
5.45c
(1.58)
2.49bc
(1.52)
5.69b
(1.07)
4.47a
(1.59)
3.98c
(1.48)
3.43b
(1.32)
F value
2.93
.033
.02
4.70
.003
.02
5.38
.001
.03
10.65
.000
.05
1.27
.282
.01
17.33
.000
.08
4.27
.005
.02
Note: Means sharing the same subscript letter are not significantly different (e.g., a is not significantly different
from ab as they share the a subscript, but a is significantly different from c).
important when sample sizes are large because small differences can still prove to be significant, and recommend using partial 2 to measure the size of the treatment effect. Cohen
(1988) suggests that values of .01, .06, and .14 be used to indicate small, medium, and large
effects. Thus, most of the effects were either small or medium.
Post-hoc comparison revealed that, in most cases, Year 1 ratings were significantly
different from Year 4. In most cases, this was a negative finding (e.g., for interest, enjoyment, and mastery approach). In contrast, and more optimistically, both performance and
mastery avoidance scores were significantly lower in Year 4 relative to Year 1, and so were
responses to the single question where understanding was at the lower end of the scale.
Discussion
The primary aim of this study was to investigate whether Russian students motivation for
studying differed depending on where they were in their degree program. A secondary aim
of the study was to ascertain whether a motivational instrument primarily used in American
and Western European settings would be appropriate for a Russian population. Given the
relevance of the secondary aim to the primary, it is this secondary issue that we turn to first.
Performance of achievement motivation instrument
Analysis of the findings in Table 1 and 2 suggests that the instrument, although passing the
criteria for acceptance in factor analysis, did not perform particularly well for some
constructs when submitted to reliability analyses. For example, Cronbach reliability coefficients for the avoidance constructs were .64 for performance avoidance (3-items) and .61
for mastery avoidance (three items). Generally, constructs with reliabilities greater than .70
are deemed to be appropriate for subsequent analysis. In the present study, the avoidance
constructs were only used because the items for the avoidance scales were highly intercorrelated. One of the approach items also did not perform particularly well. The statement
686
R. Remedios et al.
My goal in this course is to get a better grade than most of the other students loaded on
mastery avoidance as well as its theoretical home, performance approach. As noted above,
this item was therefore removed in the subsequent analysis.
Thus, having assessed whether the achievement motivation questionnaire is appropriate
for a setting other than America and Western Europe, we can conclude that it performed
well for mastery approach and performance approach (once the spurious item had been
removed from the latter) and adequately for the avoidance constructs.
Differences in motivation
Having established that the questionnaire items were adequate for subsequent analysis, the
primary question addressed whether the motivation of students in Russia varied across
different years of study. The results in Table 3 reveal two findings. First, for mastery
approach, interest, and enjoyment, students in the first year were significantly more positive
towards their studies than those in their final year. This pattern was similar to the findings
of Lieberman and Remedios (2007). However, for the avoidance constructs and responses
to the single statement directly pitting grades against understanding, the evidence provided
the opposite picture; students were significantly less avoidance-orientated in later years, and
focused more on understanding than grades.
Taking the findings that supported those by Remedios and Lieberman (2007), the key
issue here is that these findings were opposite to the original hypothesis. The work by
Elliott and colleagues and the study by Ryan et al. (1999) led us to suspect that Russian
students would be consistently mastery-focused. If Russian pupils really did value understanding of their subject above competition and comparison, we would expect mastery
ratings to be relatively stable and hopefully increase across all four years of study. This was
not the case; instead, following the pattern observed in the UK studies by Lieberman and
Remedios (2007), there was consistent decline through all four years. This was also true for
the measures of enjoyment (although the difference was only just significant) and interest
(although here the difference was non-significant). It seems that despite the emphasis on
learning and mastery typically found within Russian culture, for the population sampled in
this study, at least some of this interest, enjoyment, and desire to learn diminished after
Year 1.
The second hypothesis was based on the claim that the increasing shift towards materialism and individualism in Russian culture may be rendering the intrinsic value of learning
less meaningful, with more competitive and performative educational contexts resulting
(Elliott & Tudge, 2007). Lieberman and Remedios (2007) suggest that one possible reason
for the difference in goals across year cohorts is that students in later years of study realise
that the best option is to focus on grades. As a result, rather than changing approaches
because they want to, they change approaches because this is deemed pragmatically useful.
The finding common to both this Russian study and earlier UK studies is that levels of
mastery approach remain relatively high (ratings in the range 6.25.2); it is the drop in
ratings across the year groups that is of note. The suggestion that Russian students also
adopt a pragmatic approach to their learning does not necessarily imply that they no longer
value learning as an intrinsic end in itself; rather, it could simply suggest that they too
recognise the importance of performance to future success.
Elliott et al. (2005) reported that concerns had been expressed by many Russian
commentators that students were becoming increasingly instrumental, materialistic, and
individualistic. Such a scenario would help to explain our finding that this sample of
Russian students adopted a more pragmatic approach to their studies over time. The Year
687
1Year 2, Year 2Year 3, and Year 2Year 4 findings from the current study, therefore,
point to a cultural shift, away from mastery. Of course, this claim needs a baseline
measure in order fully to support claims for a longitudinal shift but, as mentioned earlier
in this paper, the only longitudinal analysis from the Lieberman and Remedios (2007)
study showed the largest effect sizes. It is possible that using group averages (betweensubjects comparisons) rather than individual (within-subjects comparisons) may actually
mask a far stronger effect. At the very least, the similarity in patterns of ratings between
the UK studies by Lieberman and Remedios (2007) and the current study strongly
suggests that despite apparent fundamental differences in culture, attitudes to studying
may be less heterogeneous between Western and Russian populations than previously
thought.
The positive findings: explanations and caveats
The results from the analysis offered several potentially positive features of students motivation. Students were more interested in understanding in Years 3 and 4 than in Year 1 a
finding replicated for mastery avoidance. The ratings were significantly lower for performance avoidance in Year 2 than in Year 1, and also significantly lower again in Year 3 as
compared to Year 2. There was also a non-significant decline in performance approach
between Years 2 and 3.
Why should one set of measures reveal one pattern of results and the other the
opposite? One reason may be that the sample in the current study was made up of year
groups that could be seen as distinct; students in their first and second years studied the
same introductory courses (i.e., general courses related to economics), while in third and
fourth year, students specialised in various aspects of management (e.g., tourism, statistics,
accountancy). This suggests that any changes from Year 1 to Year 3 were a function of
the move from mandatory and broad courses (Years 1 and 2) to courses more suited
to students career trajectories. This potential confound was addressed in the study by
Lieberman and Remedios (2007), who found that when a specific sample of students taking
a vocational course (nursing) was singled out for analysis, the drop in average ratings
between Years 1 and 2 was still observed. So, even if the confound in the current study is
relevant, the findings are still the opposite to what happened to students approaches to
learning in the latter years of studying in the study by Lieberman and Remedios (2007). In
other words, it could be argued that in the Russian context any early Year 1Year 2
declines in motivation can be recovered when students start to concentrate on occupational
specialisms.
However, the only way to address the confound of Year 3 and 4 students in the Russian
sample fully would be to restrict the analysis to Year 1 and Year 2. To do this, an independent samples t test comparing student ratings between Years 1 and 2 was completed. This
analysis revealed that differences were only significant for mastery approach (t[384] = 3.23,
p < .01, 2 = .02) and performance avoidance (t[384] = 2.77, p < .01, 2 = .02). For expected
enjoyment, the results were nearly significant (t[383] = 1.89, p = .06, 2 = .01), while
expected interest followed a downward, albeit non-significant, trend.1 So, from the more
appropriate Year 1 vs. Year 2 analysis, the findings for mastery and enjoyment are contrary
to hypothesis and there is trend evidence that interest may also be declining.
To sum up, while there is evidence of a positive approach to studying in latter years
of studying, we have to be circumspect about this conclusion given the potential confound
in this study. Once we allow for the confound, a more pessimistic picture of students
approaches to studying emerges.
688
R. Remedios et al.
Avoidance orientations in the Russian context

The preceding analyses leave one potentially positive finding unaddressed. How can we
explain the Russian data concerning performance avoidance? Is it that Russian students
really are less concerned about performing poorly after Year 1? Here, again, we prefer to
adopt a more circumspect analysis of the findings, and in particular wish to question the
construct validity of the items in the avoidance dimensions.
To explain further, when translating the questionnaire into Russian, there was considerable
debate about the meaning of the phrase performing poorly, with even the native Russian
members of the research team arguing about this term. The crux of the disagreement is that,
for Russian students, performing poorly is not solely restricted to grade performance. Good
performance is also determined by the students classroom activity, including such nongraded elements as the ability to respond to teachers questions. Given that virtually all
students develop their confidence in speaking in tutorials as they progress through their degree
program (i.e., few students actually get worse), it is understandable that students avoidance
orientations would decrease rather than increase. In other words, is it reasonable to suspect
that students, on average, would lose their confidence to speak in class or would one anticipate
that they would improve as they progressed through their degree? We strongly suspect the
latter, and suggest that this more appropriately explains the change in performance avoidance.
It would be an over-reaction to conclude from this that avoidance constructs should be
ignored, especially given that in previous studies the avoidance items did appear in their
hypothesised constructs. Furthermore, the data in the studies by Elliot and Church (1997),
Elliot and McGregor (2001), and Harackiewicz and colleagues (2000, 2002) are unequivocal. For US students, these avoidance constructs emerge powerfully and with considerable
reliability. However, a more detailed item analysis is needed of the items that make up the
avoidance constructs in contexts outside of the USA.
In Elliot et al.s (2001) examination of avoidance goals in the Russian context, it was
theorised that in collectivist cultures (such as Russia) avoidance goals may be more prevalent
and salient because individuals want to avoid upsetting members of their community. In this
sense, one would expect participants to be particularly sensitive to the avoidance items.
However, the desire not to demonstrate low ability may not just be explained in personal
terms (cf. Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Nicholls, 1984; for reviews see Elliot, 2005; Pintrich
et al., 2003) but also in terms of ones in-group; a desire not to perform poorly may arise
from the effect ones performance may have on the perception of ones peers. Although theories of performance avoidance are worded to emphasise avoiding demonstrating low ability
to peers (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996), it is interesting to note that none of the performance
avoidance items in the three-item construct (see Table 1) actually emphasise this peer
comparison.
Evidence from the current study and research by Elliot et al. (2001) suggests that the
avoidance construct may need refining, especially in the Russian context. In their study of
three cultures North American, Estonian, and Russian Realo and Allik (1999) suggested
that the collectivism component of the individualism/collectivism dichotomy can be further
divided into three types of collectivism: family, companionship, and patriotism. They
reported differences in these types of collectivism for their Russian samples (RussianEstonians and Russian-Moscovites). Such findings suggest that there may be different types
of avoidance constructs that need to be operationalised differently from the items currently
used in the Elliot and McGregor (2001) instrument.
To summarise, although we found evidence that students in Russia became less
avoidance-orientated, and endeavoured to offer a potential explanation for this finding, we
689
suspect that the items within the avoidance construct may need reworking in the Russian
context: to take account of the different interpretations of performing poorly; to emphasise
the element of peer comparison and/or potential shame to ones in-group (Elliot et al.,
2001); and to examine whether there may be different types of avoidance constructs (Realo
& Allik, 1999).
Tying the above comments about avoidance constructs to a more general debate about
the usefulness of the 12-item construct in the Russian context, it is clear that even in this
brief form, the mastery approach, mastery avoidance, and performance approach constructs
appear to perform well. Despite the potential for semantic misunderstanding, the relevant
items fell into their hypothesised constructs and generally performed well in factor analysis.
The pragmatics of conducting questionnaire-type research, especially in the classroom,
requires researchers to develop techniques that optimise return rates without sacrificing
statistical and theoretical robustness. For three of the constructs measured by this 12-item
questionnaire, it seems that the questionnaire is strong and useful; for performance avoidance, it appears that a closer analysis is required of the items when applied to Russia.
Conclusions
The key finding to emerge from this study was that despite our expectations that students in
Russia would be likely to emphasise mastery goals throughout their university degree
program, this proved not to be the case. Students apparent emphasis upon mastery, rather
than performance, dropped significantly from Year 1 to Year 4. Furthermore, even when the
analysis was restricted to Year 1 relative to Year 2, the same decrement was observed. It
appears that despite considerable cultural differences, the mastery orientation and enjoyment of students in both Russia and the UK show similar declines year on year.
However, we should not dismiss cultural differences lightly. Analysis of the avoidance
constructs strongly suggests that it was unlikely that our Russian sample interpreted avoidance in the way proposed by Western goal theorists. Further studies may help reveal the
usefulness of the avoidance construct as currently understood, not only in the Russia but
also across other diverse contexts.
Examination of the relationship between culture and goals is a developing field of
research. The current study begins to point to some similarities across cultures. For example, mastery goal adoption and differences in goal adoption from Year 1 to Year 2 are
similar in Russia and in the UK. However, the study also highlights important issues that
require further investigation. Since goal theory began to take shape in the late 1970s, it has
been subject to consistent revision. This study begins to address some relevant issues, and
we hope it will stimulate other researchers to examine these and similar issues.
Note
1. All other measures failed to reach statistical significance (p < .30). We also ran the analyses for
third-year students vs. fourth-year students, and found significant reductions in enjoyment (t[234]
= 2.51, p < .01, 2 = .02) and interest (t[234] = 2.99, p < .005, 2 = .02). For all other measures,
p > .17.
References
Alexander, R.J. (2001). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84, 261271.
690
R. Remedios et al.
Andreev, A.L. (2003). Society and education. Russian Education and Society, 45(11), 89103.
Chuprov, V., & Zubok, I. (1997). Social conflict in the sphere of the education of youth. Education
in Russia, the Independent States and Eastern Europe, 15(2), 4758.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis of the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic
Press.
Dweck, C.S., & Leggett, E.L. (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation and personality.
Psychological Review, 95, 256273.
Elliot, A.J. (2005). A conceptual history of the acheivement goal construct. In A.J. Elliot & C.S.
Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 5272). New York: Gilford Press.
Elliot, A.J., Chirkov, V.I., Kim, Y., & Sheldon, K.M. (2001). A cross-cultural analysis of avoidance
(relative to approach) personal goals. Psychological Science, 12, 505510.
Elliot, A.J., & Church, M. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement
motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218232.
Elliot, A.J., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (1994). Goal setting, achievement orientation, and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 968980.
Elliot, A.J., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic
motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461475.
Elliot, A.J., & McGregor, H.A. (2001). A 2 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 80, 501519.
Elliot, A.J., Sheldon, K.M., & Church, M.A. (1997). Avoidance personal goals and subjective wellbeing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 915927.
Elliott, J.G. (2007). Ecosystemic perspectives on student behaviour: Why teachers in training need
to see the bigger picture. In T.E. Scruggs & M.A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and
behavioural disabilities, Vol. 20: International perspectives. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Elliott, J.G., Hufton, N., Hildreth, A., & Illushin, L. (1999). Factors influencing educational motivation: A study of attitudes, expectations and behaviour of children in Sunderland, Kentucky and
St. Petersburg. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 7594.
Elliott, J.G., Hufton, N., Illushin, L., & Lauchlan, F. (2001). Motivation in the junior years:
International accounts from three countries. British Educational Research Journal, 28, 267291.
Elliott, J.G., Hufton, N., Illushin, L., & Willis, W. (2001). The kids are doing all right: Differences
in parental satisfaction, expectation and attribution in St. Petersburg, Sunderland and Kentucky.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 31, 179204.
Elliott, J.G., Hufton, N., Willis W., & Illushin, L. (2005). Motivation, engagement and educational
performance. London: Palgrave.
Elliott, J.G., & Tudge, J. (2007). The impact of the West on post-Soviet Russian education: Change
and resistance to change, Comparative Education, 43, 93112.
Emmons, R.A. (1986). Personal strivings: An approach to personality and subjective well-being.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 10581068.
Harackiewicz, J.M., Barron, K.E., Tauer, J.M., Carter, S.M., & Elliot, A.J. (2000). Short-term and
long-term consequences of achievement goals predicting interest and performance over time.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 316330.
Harackiewicz, J.M., Barron, K.E., Tauer, J.M., & Elliot, A.J. (2002). Predicting success in college:
A longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of interest and
performance from freshman year through graduation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94,
562575.
Hufton, N., Elliott, J., & Illushin, L. (2002). Motivation to learn: The elusive role of culture: Qualitative perspectives on childrens attitudes, expectations and behaviour and their relationship to
educational achievement. Oxford Review of Education, 27, 3768.
Iartsev, D.V. (2000). Characteristics of the socialisation of todays adolescent. Russian Education and
Society, 42, 6775.
Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change and democracy: The human
development sequence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lieberman, D.A., & Remedios, R. (2007). Do undergraduates motives for studying change as they
progress through their degrees? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 379395.
Lisauskene, M.V. (2007). The next generation. Russian Education and Society, 49(4), 7686.
Maehr, M.L., & Midgley, C. (1991). Enhancing student motivation: A school-wide approach.
Educational Psychologist, 26, 399427.
Maehr, M.L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming school cultures. Boulder, CO: Westview.
691
Midgley, C., Maehr, M.L., Hruda, L.Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K.E., et al. (2000).
Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Nicholls, J.G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task
choice and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328346.
Olejnik, S., & Algina, J. (2000). Measures of effect size for comparative studies: Application,
interpretations and limitations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 241286.
Pintrich, P. (2003). Multiple goals and multiple pathways in the development of motivation and selfregulated learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, BJEP Monograph series II, 137154.
Realo, A., & Allik, J. (1999). A cross-cultural study of collectivism: A comparison of American,
Estonian, and Russian students. Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 133142.
Ryan, R.M., Chirkov, V.I., Little, T.D., Sheldon, K.M., Timoshina, E., & Deci, E.L. (1999). The
American dream in Russia: Extrinsic aspirations and well-being in two cultures. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 15091524.
Ryvkina, R.V. (2007). The expiration of the intelligentsias social role in post-Soviet Russia.
Russian Education and Society, 49(7), 520.
Shiller, R., Boycko, M., & Korobov, V. (1991). Popular attitudes toward free markets: The Soviet
Union and the U.S. compared. American Economic Review, 81, 385400.
Thorkildsen, T.A., & Nicholls, J.G. (1998). Fifth graders achievement orientations and beliefs:
Individual and classroom differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 179201.
Urdan, T. (2004). Predictors of academic self-handicapping and achievement: Examining achievement
goals, classroom goal structures, and culture. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 251264.
Vishnevskii, I.R., & Shapko, V.T. (2007). The paradoxical young person. Russian Education and
Society, 49(5), 6585.

Elliot 2008 Goal Orientations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Elliot 2008 Goal Orientations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Ingenta Content Distribution Psy Press Titles]

On: 25 October 2009

Goal orientations in Russian university students: from mastery to performance?

mastery to performance?',Educational Psychology,28:6,677 691

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Goal orientations in Russian university students: from mastery to

Richard Remediosa*, Zoya Kiselevab and Joe Elliotta

(Received 24 August 2007; final version received 14 May 2008)

The current study

Inter-item correlations for the 12-item goal orientation questionnaire.

Avoidance orientations in the Russian context

You might also like