The full text of this item is not available at this time because the student has placed this item under an embargo for a period of time. The Libraries are not authorized to provide a copy of this work during the embargo period, even for Texas A&M users with NetID.
The 3 × 2 Achievement Goal Model and Motivational Regulations in College Physical Activity Classes
MetadataShow full item record
Achievement goal research in physical activity (PA) classes is primarily guided by the dichotomous, trichotomous, and 2 × 2 achievement goal models. However, the utility of the latest 3 × 2 achievement goal model has not been examined in PA settings. Particularly, this latest model and motivational regulations as they relate to students’ achievement/educational outcomes have not been extensively examined in college PA settings. A lack of such information may limit instructors’ understanding of what motivates students in college PA settings. Therefore, this study addressed this deficiency by answering the following four research questions: (1) What are the psychometric properties of the 3 × 2 achievement goal questionnaire (3 × 2 AGQ) and the behavioral regulation in exercise questionnaire-3 (BREQ-3) among American college students in PA classes? (2) What is the predictive power of the achievement goals and motivational regulations in students’ achievement/educational outcomes? (3) Do motivational regulations mediate the relationships between the achievement goals and students’ achievement/educational outcomes? (4) What perceived experiences/factors contribute to students’ endorsement of achievement goals? Accordingly, questionnaire data, accelerometer data, and interview data were collected from a sample of 556 students (M = 20.31 years, SD = 1.34; 305 males; 251 females) enrolled in PA classes at a major university in the southwest U.S. Confirmatory factory analyses (CFAs) and Cronbach alpha analyses revealed that the 3 × 2 AGQ failed to assess task-approach, self-approach, other-approach, task-avoidance, self-avoidance, and other-avoidance goals as construed in the 3 × 2 model of achievement goals but served as a reliable and valid measure assessing task/self-approach, task/self-avoidance, other-approach, and other-avoidance goals in the current study. These analyses also revealed that the BREQ-3 (with one item removed) can reliably and validly assess intrinsic regulation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, external regulation, and amotivation as theorized in self-determination theory in American college PA classes. Structural equation modeling analyses (SEM) revealed that task/self-approach goals, integrated regulation, and identified regulation significantly predicted persistence/effort; task/self-approach goals, intrinsic regulation, and integrated regulation significantly predicted enjoyment; other-approach goals and integrated regulation positively predicted perceived health, but other-avoidance goals and introjected regulation negatively predicted perceived health; and intrinsic regulation and amotivation were significant positive predictors of moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA; assessed by accelerometers). Finally, SEM found that more self-determined motivation fully or partially mediated the relationships between achievement goals and students’ achievement/educational outcomes. The interview data provided some support to the questionnaire data in the current study and showed that students used task-, self-, or other-based competence to justify their achievement goal endorsement. The interview data also provided additional support to the view that the learning environment can influence students’ achievement goals.
Subject3 × 2 achievement goal model
Physical activity classes
Lee, Jihye (2019). The 3 × 2 Achievement Goal Model and Motivational Regulations in College Physical Activity Classes. Doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University. Available electronically from