با همکاری مشترک دانشگاه پیام نور و انجمن روانشناسی اجتماعی ایران

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری روان‌شناسی تربیتی دانشگاه تهران

2 دانشیار روان‌شناسی دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

هدف از پژوهش حاضر بررسی نقش میانجی اهداف پیشرفت در رابطه بین نیاز به خاتمه و درگیری شناختی بر حسب تعلل‌ورزی دانش‌آموزان بود. برای این منظور 268 نفر (161 دختر و 107 پسر) از دانش‌آموزان پایه سوم دبیرستان‌های دولتی شهر شیراز به روش نمونه‌گیری خوشه‌ای چند مرحله‌ای انتخاب شدند و به پرسشنامه‌ای خودگزارشی متشکل از خرده مقیاس-های نیاز به خاتمه (NFCS)، مقیاس اهداف پیشرفت (AGS)، مقیاس درگیری شناختی (MSLQ) و مقیاس تعلل‌ورزی تحصیلی (PASS) پاسخ دادند. نتایج پژوهش بطور کل‍‍ی نشان داد که در یک بافت تحصیلی تعلل‌ورزی، ابعاد نیاز به خاتمه از طریق واسطه‌گری اهداف پیشرفت بر راهبردهای شناختی عمیق دارای اثر غیرمستقیم، منفی و معنی‌دار؛ در حالی که بر راهبردهای شناختی سطحی دارای اثر غیرمستقیم، مثبت و معنی‌دار است. یافته‌ها حاکی از آن بود که اثر مستقیم نیاز به ساختار بر اهداف تبحری و رویکرد- عملکرد معنی‌دار و منفی و بر اهداف اجتناب- عملکرد معنی‌دار و مثبت است. بعلاوه، اثر مستقیم نیاز به قطعیت بر اهداف تبحری معنی‌دار و منفی و بر اهداف رویکرد- عملکرد معنی‌دار و مثبت بود. اثر مستقیم نیاز به قطعیت بر اهداف اجتناب- عملکرد معنی‌دار نبود. در ضمن، اثر هر یک از اهداف پیشرفت بر راهبردهای شناختی سطحی و عمیق متفاوت بود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Investigating the Mediating Role of Achievement Goals in the Relationship between Need for Closure and Cognitive Engagement: the Effect of Procrastination Context

نویسندگان [English]

  • Reza Ghorban Jahromi 1
  • Elaheh Hejazi 2
  • Javad Ejei 2
  • Mohamad Khodayari Fard 2

1 Ph.D candidate, Tehran University

2 Associate professor, Tehran University

چکیده [English]

The aim of the present study was investigating the mediating role of achievement goals in the relationship between need for closure and cognitive engagement based on students’ academic procrastination. For this reason, 268 third grade high school students (161 female & 107 male) from Shiraz were selected through multistage cluster sampling and answered to a self-report questionnaire consisted of need for closure scale (NFCS), achievement goals scale (AGS), cognitive engagement scale (MSLQ), and academic procrastination scale (PASS). The results generally showed that in an academic procrastination context need for closure dimensions have significant negative indirect effects on deep cognitive strategies through the mediation of achievement goals; however, this effect on shallow cognitive strategies is significant, negative, and indirect. The findings demonstrated that the direct effect of need for structure on mastery and performance-approach goals is significantly negative; but this effect on performance-avoidant goals was significantly positive. Moreover, the direct effect of need for certainty on mastery goals and performance-approach goals was respectively negative and positive, both significant. The direct effect of need for certainty on performance-avoidance goals was not significant. The effect of each of the achievement goals on shallow and deep cognitive strategies was different.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • need for closure
  • Achievement Goals
  • Cognitive engagement
  • Academic Procrastination
ـ خادمی، م. و نوشادی، ن. (1380). «بررسی رابطه بین جهت گیری هدف با خودتنظیمی یادگیری و پیشرفت تحصیلی در دانش آموزان پیش دانشگاهی شهر شیراز». مجله علوم انسانی و اجتماعی دانشگاه شیراز، دوره بیست و پنجم، شماره چهارم، ویژه­نامه علوم تربیتی.
ـ رستگار، ا.؛ قربان جهرمی، ر. و مظلومیان، س. (1390). «مدل روابط باورهای هوشی، اهداف پیشرفت و در گیری شناختی در دانش­آموزان دبیرستانی». مجله روانشناسی، شماره 57، 90ـ103.
ـ زارع، ح. و رستگار، ا. (1391). «رابطه باورهای معرفت شناختی و فرایندهای شناختی: بررسی نقش واسطه­ای اهداف پیشرفت». مجله روانشناسی، 16 (4)، 388ـ404. 
ـ محسن­پور، م.؛ حجازی، ا. و کیامنش، ع.ر. (1385). «نقش خودکارآمدی، اهداف پیشرفت، راهبردهای یادگیری و پایداری در پیشرفت تحصیلی درس ریاضی دانش آموزان سال سوم متوسطه شهر تهران». مجله نوآوری­های آموزشی، شماره، 16، 9-36.
 -Ames, C. (1992). “Goals, structures, and student motivation.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
 -Craik, F.I.M. & Lockhart, R.S. (1972).“Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. ” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.
 -Cury, F.; Elliot, A.J.; Fonseca, D. & Moller, A.C. (2006).“The Social-Cognitive Model of Achievement Motivation and the 2 × 2 achievement Goal Framework.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (4), 666–679.
 -DeBacker, T.K. & Crowson, H.M. (2006). “Influences on cognitive engagement: Epistemological beliefs and need for closure.” British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 535-551.
 -DeBacker, T.K. & Crowson, H.M. (2008).“Measuring need for closure in classroom learners.” Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 711-732.
 -Dupeyrat, C. & Marine, C. (2005). “Implicit theories of intelligence, goal orientation, cognitive engagement, and achievement: A test of Dweck's model with returning to school adults.” Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(1), 43-59.
 -Dweck, C.S. & Leggett, E.L. (1988).“A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.” Psychological Review, 95(2), 256-273.
 -Elliot, A.G. (1999). „Approach and Avoidance motivation and Achievement goal.” Educational psychologist, 34, 169-189.
 -Elliot, A.J. & McGregor, H. (2001). “A 2x2 achievement goal framework.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501-519.
 -Elliot, A. McGregor, H.A. & Gable, S. (1999).“Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam performance: A mediational analysis.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 549-563.
 -Harlow, L.; DeBacker, T. & Crowson, H.M. (2011). “Need for Closure, Achievement Goals, and Cognitive Engagement in High School Students.” The Journal of Educational Research, 104, 110-119.
 -Kardash, C.M. & Amlund, J.T. (1991).“Self-reported learning strategies and learning from expository text.” Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 117-138.
 -Kruglanski, A.W. (1989). Lay epistemics and human knowledge, cognitive and motivational bases. New York: Plenum.
 -Kruglanski, A.W. (1990).“Lay epistemic theory in social-cognitive psychology.” Psychological Inquiry, 1(3), 181-197.
 -Kruglanski, A.W. & Freund, T. (1983).“The freezing and unfreezing of lay-inferences: Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 448-468.
 -Kruglanski, A.W. & Webster, D. (1996).“Motivated closing of the mind: Seizing and freezing.” Psychological Review, 103, 263-283.
 -Linnenbrinc, E.A. & Pintrich, P.R. )2003(.“The role of self-efficacy belief in student engagement and learning in the classroom.” Reading and Writing  Quarterly, 19, 119-137.
 -Middleton, M.J. & Midgley, C. (1997). “Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An under explored aspect of goal theory.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 9(4), 710-718.
 -Miranda, R.K.; DeBacker, T.K. & Crowson, H.M. (2008). Influences on achievement: Epistemic beliefs, epistemic motives, and achievement goals. Paper presented at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York City.
 -Nicholls, J.G. (1989).“Quality and equality in intellectual development: The role of motivation in education.” American Psychologist, 34, 1071-1084.
 -Pintrich, P.R.; Smith, D.A.; Garcia, T. & McKeachie, W. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). University of Michigan, National center for research to improve postsecondary teaching and learning. Ann Arbor, MI.
 -Rastegar, A.; Ghorban-Jahromi, R.; Salim H,A. & Akbari, A,R. (2010).“The relation of epistemological beliefs and mathematics achievement: the mediating role of achievement goals, matematics self- efficacy, and cognitive engagement.” Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 791-797.
 -Ravindran, B.; Green, B. & Debacker, T. (2000). Predicting preservice teacher cognitive engagement with goal and epistemological beliefs. paper presented at the annual meeting of the American educational association in new orlean.
 -Richter, L. & Kruglanski, A.W. (1998).“Seizing on the latest: Motivationally driven recency effects in impression formation.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 313-329.
 -Schunk, D.H.; Pintrich, P.R. & Meece, J.L. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications (3rd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall.
 -Simons, J.; Dewitte, S. & lens, W. (2004). „The role of different types of instrumentally in motivation, study strategies, and performance: know why you learn, so you’ll know what you learn.” British Journal of Educational psychology, 74. 343-360.
 -Sins, P.H.M.; van Joolingen, W.R.; Savelsbergh, E.R & van Hout-Wolters, B. (2008).“Motivation and performance within a collaborative computer-based modeling task: Relationships between students' achievement goal orientation, self-efficacy, cognitive processing, and achievement.” Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 58-77. 
 -Solomon, L.J. & Rothblum, E.D. (1984).“Academic procrastination: frequency and cognitive-behavioural correlates.” Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 504-510.
 -Steel, P. (2007).“The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytical and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure.” Psychological Bulletin.133 (1): 65-94.
 -Vermetten, Y.J.; Lodewijks, H.G. & Vermunt, J.D. (2001).“The role of personality traits and goal orientation in strategy use.” Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 149-170.
 -Walker, O.C.; Greene, A.B. & Mansell, A.R. (2006). “Identification with academics, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement.” Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 1-12.