Examining Goal Orientation Similarities and Differences Among College Majors : An HLM Analysis

This study employed hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to explore differences among college majors on five goals orientations. Specifically, measures of mastery-approach, performance-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-avoidance, and work-avoidance goals were collected from a sample of 1889 college students representing 26 different majors. Statistically significant differences existed among majors in mastery-approach, performance-approach, and work-avoidance, although measures of practical significance indicated that the differences among majors were small. Moreover, once gender and SAT scores were controlled for, differences among majors in mastery-approach and workavoidance disappeared. Only significant differences in performance-approach among majors remained when controlling for other variables. These results provide initial information for better understanding differences in goal pursuit that may be a function of contextual influences (i.e., the academic environment created by one’s major) or characteristics of students who self-select into certain majors. Examining Goal Orientation 3 Examining Achievement Goal Similarities and Differences Among College Majors: An HLM Analysis The purpose of the present study was to examine similarities and differences in the types of goal orientation being pursued by college students majoring in a variety of different disciplines (e.g., Nursing, Computer Science, Psychology, English). Specifically, we investigated the pursuit of five different goal orientations currently being discussed in the literature: mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, performance-avoidance, and work-avoidance goals. Within the framework of goal orientation, researchers have often focused on examining differences in goal pursuit between groups. For instance, some studies examined differences between the goal orientations of males and females (e.g., Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Finney & Davis, 2003; Patrick, Ryan, & Pintrich, 2002; Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan, 1996), while other studies examined differences in goal orientations among ethnic groups (e.g., Kaplan & Maehr, 1999; Pastor & RiCharde, 2003). The findings from such studies can help identify demographic groups that may be adopting less advantageous goal orientations. In addition, contextual effects of the classroom and school environment have been examined to determine their influence on goal orientation. Specifically, studies have considered the environmental factors of classrooms in different subject domains using students in elementary schools (e.g., Midgley, 2002), middle schools (e.g., Anderman & Anderman, 1999; Midgley, 2002; Roeser, et al., 1996), and high schools (e.g., Midgley, 2002). Similarly, Barron, Harackiewicz, and colleagues (e.g., Barron & Harackiewicz, in press; Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, Lehto, & Elliot, 1997) have explored differences in Examining Goal Orientation 4 achievement goals of college students across contexts within the same subject area (e.g., introductory vs. advanced psychology courses). When group differences are identified, researchers are faced with the challenge of trying to determine why such differences exist. For instance, if in the present study, differences are found in the types of goals adopted by students in different majors, we are forced to ask to what extent are the differences due to characteristics of the person and/or characteristics of the environment? An explanation using a characteristic of the person to explain the difference might suggest that students are inclined to seek out environments which promote the same goals that they endorse. In this sense, goal orientation may be a cause for which major a student selects. In contrast, an explanation using a characteristic of the environment to explain the difference would be that students do not select their major based on their goal orientation, rather, their goal orientation is shaped by whatever goal orientation is predominant and adaptive in their new environment (major). In this sense, the major (i.e., the climate promoted by faculty and other students in that major) may be the cause for a student adopting a particular goal orientation. The first possible explanation of differences between majors implies that person variable influences on one’s goal orientation should be considered. A search of the Internet results in hundreds of websites devoted to helping students identify which college major is best suited for them. These websites suggest that students consider their interests, abilities, and values. One website (Hansen, n.d.) uses an instrument in which students must identify the values that they feel are most important in a future career. For example, individuals must determine if they desire a career that involves mentally challenging tasks, professional development, on-going learning and growth, recognition Examining Goal Orientation 5 for quality of work in a public way, or obtainment of social status. Within these example values we can see signs of qualities that are reflected within the framework of achievement goals. Dweck (1986, p. 1040) describes persons adopting learning (or mastery) goals as those who “seek to increase their competence, to understand or master something new” and persons adopting performance goals as those who “seek to gain favorable judgments of their competence or avoid negative judgments of their competence. ” If one’s goal orientation drives the selection of their college major, students that are mastery-oriented would choose majors that lead to careers characterized by challenging tasks and on-going learning and growth, whereas students that are performance-oriented would select majors that lead to careers promising social status or recognition of their work in a public way. There are other types of personal characteristics that may help predict differences among majors in goals orientation. Given that certain majors are traditionally considered to be more “female-oriented” or “male-oriented”, research on gender differences in goal orientation should be considered. For example, previous research has established that college-aged females more strongly endorse mastery-approach goals than males (e.g., Bouffard, Boisvert, Vezeau, & Larouche, 1999; Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Finney & Davis, 2003), and adolescent males usually report higher levels of performance-approach goals than females (e.g., Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Midgley & Urdan, 1995; Patrick et al., 1999; Roeser et al., 1996; Ryan, Hicks, & Midgley, 1997). Therefore, it would be expected that if a major was predominantly populated by females, the overall major may appear to be higher in mastery-approach, not due to a characteristic of the major, but rather a characteristic of its members. Examining Goal Orientation 6 In addition to gender, the influence of prior ability must also be considered. For example, when students apply to college, admittance into their major of choice may require a given level of ability as demonstrated by high school grades or SAT scores. Therefore, students may be restricted by their choice in major due to ability. Elliot and McGregor (2001) found that SAT scores positively predicted performance-approach goals and negatively predicted performance–avoidance goals in college students. Therefore, those majors that have higher requirements for admittance would be expected to have students with higher levels of performance-approach and lower levels of performance-avoidance goals. The second possible explanation for differences between majors implies that contextual or environmental influences on one’s goal orientation should also be considered. Research on classroom context has indicated that endorsement of personal goals is often reflective of the perceived contextual goals (e.g., Anderman & Anderman, 1999; Anderman, Maher, & Midgley, 1999; Church, Elliot, & Gable, 2001). For example, students entering a middle school that was perceived to be performance-oriented were more likely to report an increase in their personal performance goals than students entering a middle school that was perceived to be more mastery-oriented (Anderman et al., 1999). Therefore, the personal adoption of goals may depend on what goal orientation the student perceives as being advocated by their particular major. Purpose of the Current Study Given that there are reasons to expect differences between majors in goal pursuit, the primary purpose of this study was to determine if significant differences between majors existed in the pursuit of five goal orientations. If differences were found, it was of Examining Goal Orientation 7 interest to explore whether these differences were attributable to person-level characteristics (specifically, gender or ability) or a contextual-level characteristic (specifically, classification of majors within colleges). The achieve this purpose, the following research questions were addressed: 1) Are there significant differences among majors in goal orientation? 2) To what extent are students within a given major similar in goal orientation? 3) If significant differences among majors do exist, where do the various majors fall along the scale of each goal in relation to other majors (e.g., which majors are highest on endorsing a particular goal and which are lowest)? 4) If significant differences are found between majors, do they still exist after controlling for certain person-level or context-level characteristics? An ideal technique for analyzing the differences among majors on these five goals is hierarchical linear modeling (HLM). The technique of HLM has been used in studies examining achievement goals with elementary school students (e.g., Anderman et al., 2001; Urdan, Midgley, & Anderman, 1998), middle school students (e.g., Anderman et al., 2001), high school students (e.g., Kaplan, Gheen, & Midgley, 2002), and college students (e.g., Church et al., 2001). Using HLM over traditional metho