Work-In-Progress: Changing the Goal Structure in a Problem-Solving Course

Carl Lund

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Publication Date: August 23, 2022
Start Date: June 26, 2022
End Date: June 29, 2022
Conference Session: Works in Progress: Chemical Engineering Education
Page Count: 7
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--40511
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/40511
Download Count: 186

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Carl Lund University at Buffalo, The State University of New York

visit author page

Professor of Chemical Engineering, University at Buffalo

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

Students should benefit from solving homework problems, but some do not, and many more only realize reduced benefits. The reason can be related to the goals that students adopt when solving homework problems. Specifically, when students hold mastery approach goals, they are seeking to develop competence by solving problems. This results in adaptive learning behaviors that foster understanding and deeper learning. When students hold performance approach goals, they are seeking to demonstrate competence, e. g. that they can obtain the correct answer. The performance approach goal orientation can lead to maladaptive learning behaviors. The mimicry approach (find a similar solved problem and mimic its solution) is one such behavior. Achievement goal theory posits that based upon the classroom environment, students perceive a classroom goal structure. That classroom goal structure influences the students’ motivational orientation, also referred to as their achievement goals. Theory indicates when instructors create a classroom environment that makes mastery goals salient, students perceive a mastery goal structure and adopt mastery goals. However there are few, if any, suggestions of specific actions that can be taken to make mastery goals salient. In the present work, five specific instructor actions were implemented in a problem solving course. One was “mastery coaching” by the instructor. When students were solving in-class problems they were encouraged to focus on how to solve each problem type and to view “getting stuck” as a chance to identify topics that they had not yet mastered. A second was expert blind spot avoidance; explaining how you knew what to do when problem-solving. Another involved scaffolded in-class problem solving. The fourth was grading most homework assignments on the basis of effort and not correctness. This eliminated the pressure to get the correct answer and allowed a focus on understanding how to get the answer. The solution to each problem was provided at the same time it was assigned. When coupled with effort-based grading, this eliminated the need for the mimicry approach. The last was the use of homework wrappers wherein students reflected and wrote about how their problem-solving mastery was evolving. Student exam data indicate that after these changes, the submission of homework assignments was of greater benefit to students than before the changes. Each of the changes can be argued to have contributed to the establishment of a mastery goal structure. The next phase of the study will seek to directly relate each of the instructor actions to the classroom goal structure. Additional advantages of these actions are also discussed.

Citation
Format

Lund, C. (2022, August), Work-In-Progress: Changing the Goal Structure in a Problem-Solving Course Paper presented at 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Minneapolis, MN. 10.18260/1-2--40511

TY - CPAPER
AB - Students should benefit from solving homework problems, but some do not, and many more only realize reduced benefits. The reason can be related to the goals that students adopt when solving homework problems. Specifically, when students hold mastery approach goals, they are seeking to develop competence by solving problems. This results in adaptive learning behaviors that foster understanding and deeper learning. When students hold performance approach goals, they are seeking to demonstrate competence, e. g. that they can obtain the correct answer. The performance approach goal orientation can lead to maladaptive learning behaviors. The mimicry approach (find a similar solved problem and mimic its solution) is one such behavior.
Achievement goal theory posits that based upon the classroom environment, students perceive a classroom goal structure. That classroom goal structure influences the students’ motivational orientation, also referred to as their achievement goals. Theory indicates when instructors create a classroom environment that makes mastery goals salient, students perceive a mastery goal structure and adopt mastery goals. However there are few, if any, suggestions of specific actions that can be taken to make mastery goals salient.
In the present work, five specific instructor actions were implemented in a problem solving course. One was “mastery coaching” by the instructor. When students were solving in-class problems they were encouraged to focus on how to solve each problem type and to view “getting stuck” as a chance to identify topics that they had not yet mastered. A second was expert blind spot avoidance; explaining how you knew what to do when problem-solving. Another involved scaffolded in-class problem solving. The fourth was grading most homework assignments on the basis of effort and not correctness. This eliminated the pressure to get the correct answer and allowed a focus on understanding how to get the answer. The solution to each problem was provided at the same time it was assigned. When coupled with effort-based grading, this eliminated the need for the mimicry approach. The last was the use of homework wrappers wherein students reflected and wrote about how their problem-solving mastery was evolving.
Student exam data indicate that after these changes, the submission of homework assignments was of greater benefit to students than before the changes. Each of the changes can be argued to have contributed to the establishment of a mastery goal structure. The next phase of the study will seek to directly relate each of the instructor actions to the classroom goal structure. Additional advantages of these actions are also discussed.
AU - Carl Lund
CY - Minneapolis, MN
DA - 2022/08/23
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - Work-In-Progress: Changing the Goal Structure in a Problem-Solving Course
UR - https://peer.asee.org/40511
DO - 10.18260/1-2--40511
ER -