Pursuing their own learning agenda: How mastery-oriented students jeopardize their class performance

By Corwin Senko, Kent Miles. 2008

223 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/10f994226a1bcf036c7bab33de690d8eba747d93

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

A 3 × 2 achievement goal model (2011, background): “…task-approach nor self-approach goals were expected to significantly predict performance attainment (omnibus mastery-approach goals are not consistent predictors of performance, see Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, & Thrash, 2002; Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton, 2001; Senko & Miles, 2008).”
Why students become more engaged or more disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model (2016, methodology): “To assess cognitive engagement, we used the fouritem Deep Learning measure (Senko & Miles, 2008).”
Studying for the sake of others: the role of social goals on academic engagement (2012, background): “In terms of cognitive engagement, several studies have found that mastery-approach goals are consistently related to the use of deeper-level, meaning-oriented strategies (e.g. Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Senko & Miles, 2008; Wolters, 2004).”
Testing a motivational model of achievement: How students’ mathematical beliefs and interests are related to their achievement (2012, result): “Although some researchers have found that mastery goal pursuits are more closely associated with positive achievement (Grant and Dweck 2003) and mastery response patterns (Elliott and Dweck 1988), other studies indicate that performance-approach goals predict student achievement and mastery goals do”
Achievement Goals, Reasons for Goal Pursuit, and Achievement Goal Complexes as Predictors of Beneficial Outcomes: Is the Influence of Goals Reducible to Reasons? (2017, unknown): “Autonomous reasons may enhance mastery goal persistence and attainment via challenge appraisals (Ntoumanis et al., 2014), and mastery goals may help maintain a focus on the positive value of the task and facilitate interest-based engagement (Huang, 2011; Senko & Miles, 2008).”
Learner Engagement in Blended Learning Environments: A Conceptual Framework (2019, background): “The latter “refers to enjoyment of external stimuli, such as an entertaining lecture or catchy story” (Senko & Miles, 2008, p. 567); we propose that situational interest and enjoyment are part of positive emotional engagement, to be discussed shortly.”
Interrelations between self‐efficacy and learning approaches: a developmental approach (2011, background): “Empirical evidence ascertained from a voluminous body of research studies to date attests to the combined effects of these two constructs on learning and academic achievement outcomes (Fenollar, Roman, & Cuestas, 2007 ; Liem, Lau, & Nie, 2008 ; Senko & Miles, 2008 ).”
Expanding Autonomy Psychological Need States From Two (Satisfaction, Frustration) to Three (Dissatisfaction): A Classroom-Based Intervention Study (2019, methodology): “To assess cognitive engagement, we used the four-item Deep Learning measure (Senko & Miles, 2008).”
Achievement Goal Theory at the Crossroads: Old Controversies, Current Challenges, and New Directions (2011, unknown): “Performance-avoidance goals, unlike normative goals, also prompt confusion about how to study (e.g., Elliot et al., 1999; Senko & Miles, 2008), frequently set in motion the feelings of shame and anxiety that trigger task-disrupting thoughts (Pekrun et al., 2006; Pekrun, Goetz, Titz, & Perrry,…”
Students’ academic performance and various cognitive processes of learning: an integrative framework and empirical analysis (2010, background): “Consistent with existing research studies (DeBacker & Crowson, 2006; Fenollar et al., 2007; Liem et al., 2008; Senko & Miles, 2008), we use the terms deep- and surface-processing strategies in this article.”
Students' Agentic Engagement Predicts Longitudinal Increases in Perceived Autonomy-Supportive Teaching: The Squeaky Wheel Gets the Grease (2018, methodology): “To assess cognitive engagement, we used the four-item Deep Learning measure (Senko & Miles, 2008).”