performance psychology .
Student one
Epstein’s TARGET framework wraps around tasks, control, intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, feedback, mood-states related to choice and perceived experiences, and temporal instructions to address motivational climate in achievement environments (Nicholls, 1984). Where research is less conclusive pertains to the subject of motivational factors that correlate with motivational climate and motivational orientation (Cecchini et al., 2014). Some of the challenge with clearly delineating the relationship between the two might lie in evaluating motivational orientation, as it inherently has temporal elements, such as mood, performance, etc. (Bortoli, et al., 2011), that likely shift to varying degrees over time making it difficult to hold orientation fixed even in fairly stable climates. For instance, those who play/played and/or coach/coached sport for any length of time have become participants in and agents of TARGET framework via the use of long-term athlete development plans (LTAPDs).
LTAPDs overlay targeted, age-specific skills and cognitive development strategies to cultivate athletes into elite by conditioning young participants to perform task-specific skills, form and adopt sport mentality, and embrace cultural climates in sport (Woods, 2016). LTADPs are not relegated to one age-group, but are divided into quadrants that span a minimum of 10-years. The use of LTAPDs is prevalent and steeped in motivational attributes that must be advanced and/or oriented across quadrants. As the pre-eminent resource for coaches and trainers alike, we should understand the very important factor in how climate and orientation work to address the primary outcome of achievement via the use of LTAPDs, which has considerable voice in training youth to perform in sport.
References
Bortoli, L., Bertollo, M., Comani, S., & Robazza, C. (2011). Competence, achievement goals, motivational climate, and pleasant psychobiosocial states in youth sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 29(2), 171-180. doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2010.530675
Cecchini, J. A., Fernandez-Rio, J., Mendez-Gimenez, A., Cecchini, C., & Martins, L. (2014). Epstein's TARGET framework and motivational climate in sport: effects of a field-based, long-term intervention program. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 9(6), 1325-1340.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance.Psychological Review, 91(3), 328-346. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.32
Woods, R.B. (2016). Social Issues in Sport. Chicago, IL: Walsworth
Student two :
The research and interest surrounding motivational climate has been quite popular over the last decade in performance psychology. It is common to value an organization, team, or group of individuals based on the performance quality that is present. However, the research suggests that focus on mastery within a group is more conducive to longer motivational climates. The TARGET framework provides a guideline to enhance the mastery climate within a group. TARGET is an acronym standing for task, authority, recognition, grouping, evaluation, and time (Cecchini et. al, 2014). It was discovered that when all of these components were present within a group, a mastery climate was more likely to occur. This theory of motivation is closely link to the self-determination theory. Within the self-determination theory, there are three main components for an individual to perceive sense of self-determination: competence, relatedness, and autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 2008). When the motivational climate is strong within a group, it is highly likely that that motivational orientation is geared towards tasks related to the group or context. The link between these two factors are critical and closely related to each other. If a group demonstrates a low motivational climate, chances are that the group will contain a significantly less mastery climate overall. One piece of research that is missing from the literature could be the differences between younger performers and professional athletes. The motivational orientation of a professional team could be perpetuated from the financial gain while a youth team’s motivational orientation might mastery or performance orientation, depending on the climate established by the coach and parents.
References:
Cecchini, J. A., Fernandez-Rio, J., Mendez-Gimenez, A., Cecchini, C., & Martins, L. (2014). Epstein's TARGET Framework and Motivational Climate in Sport: Effects of a Field-Based, Long-Term Intervention Program. International Journal Of Sports Science & Coaching, 9(6), 1325-1340. Retrieved from: http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=60d983e6-2363-4e05-b3b2-095ffd046278%40sessionmgr4006.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49(1), 14-23. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14.
Bailey Trammell
1 posts
Re:Module 4 DQ 1
Dweck’s Achievement Motivation Model focuses on motivation based on the perceived goal (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). This means that the motivation within an individual adapts depending on the goal and how difficult the goal is to reach. Both Dweck and Nicholls developed research based on the ego of individuals. This ego driven theory revolved around the idea that individuals held an ego and would come across a problem, then he or she would doubt his or her ability to overcome the problem and this would then result in a decline in performance and the ability to reach the end goal (Kumar & Jagacinski, 2011). If an individual were to persistently face difficulty, then his or her identified ability would continuously decline due to this difficulty and ego (Kumar & Jacacinski, 2011). Dweck also based findings off of The Growth Mindset (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). This theory focuses on the individual differences that occur within performance and the importance of each individual motivators (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Individual performances are important to recognize because this allows coaches, counselors, and/or mentors to focus on individual needs as to make the individual, and even a group, better and adapt to challenges easier.
References
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256−273. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256.
Kumar, S., & Jagacinski, C. M. (2011). Confronting task difficulty in ego involvement: Change in performance goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 664-682. doi:10.1037/a0023336
Mei Lam Justina Or
3 posts
Re: Module 4 DQ 1
Nicholls’ achievement motivation model is based on the one’s identified two distinctive types of achievement goals, including task goals and ego goals (Nicholls, 1984). Task goals illustrate one’s perceived ability related to task mastery. Ego goals illustrate one’s perceived ability related to others’ performance (Nicholls, 1984). Nicholls (1984) suggested that one’s conceptions of ability, subjective experience and task choice play crucial roles in one’s achievement motivation and thus performance.
Dweck’s achievement motivation model is based on the patterns of adaptive and maladaptive motivational patterns (Dweck, 1986). He defined adaptive motivational patterns as those that improve the “establishment, maintenance, and attainment of personally challenging and personally valued achievement goals” and maladaptive patterns as those that “are associated with a failure to establish reasonable, valued goals, to maintain affective striving toward those goals, or ultimately, to attain valued goals that are potentially within one’s reach” (Dweck, 1986, p. 1040). This research-based model exhibits how specific goals children pursue on cognitive tasks cultivate their responses to success and failure and affect the excellence of their cognitive performance (Deck, 1986).
It seems to me that Nicholls’ theory best describes how performers regulate motivation and achievement in a performance setting. This is because Nicholls’ model addresses more factors that will affect one’s motivation. It points out how our conceptions of ability, individual past experience and choice of task all influence our motivation and thus performance.
Nonetheless, Dweck’s achievement motivation seems to be able to provide more explanation on individual differences, as it gives us very specifics about one’s view of intelligence can affect our performance. For instance, on the one hand, if one believes that intelligence is set, one’s performance goal is to obtain positive judgements. If this person has a high level of confidence in current capability for the task, this person will be mastery-oriented (she will look for challenges and become persistent). If this person has a low level of confidence in current capability for the task, this person will feel helpless (she will avoid challenges and is not persistent). On the other hand, if one believes that intelligence is impressionable, one’s performance goal is to enhance abilities. In this situation, regardless of the person’s confidence level in current capability for the task, this person will become mastery-oriented (she will seek challenges that facilitate learning and become persistent).
References
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American psychologist, 41(10), 1040.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance.Psychological review, 91(3), 328.
Monica Williams
3 posts
Re:Module 4 DQ 1
Motivation is a central component in performance, especially in high stakes environments where performance successes are measured in output based on exceeding variance or other stringent markers or success goals. Early research, such as Dweck's (2006) work in growth mindset folds in effort, feedback, and goals as the basis for learning and success (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). While true, other factors must be considered in order to keep individuals motivated to exert the effort or sweat equity needed to maintain effort and motivation over time (Weinberg & Gould, 2015).
Additionally, motivation is also tempered by performance environment. Having participating in both track and field, as well as basketball, I can attest to the differences in motivation. Individual sports allow for greater autonomy in goal setting (more voice in what success looks and feels like), which can facilitate higher levels of buy in, thus leading to increased motivation (Ntoumanis et al., 2014 ). Team sports harness different levels of motivation, due to goal factors being less autonomous or broader in scope. The line from goal, to buy-in, to motivation is not always linear in team sport. So to arrive at and sustain motivation in team environments often requires greater intentionality by coaches and players alike.
The latter points may seem anecdotal unless we consider Duda's early research on motivation seated in self-determination theory. Ntoumanis et al. (2014) extending Duda’s earlier work provide additional support to my claims that motivation varies across settings (p. 226).
References Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256−273. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256
Ntoumanis, N., Healy, L.C., Sedikides, C., Duda, J. L., Stewart, B., Smith, A., & Bond, J. (2014). When the going gets tough: The “why” of goal striving matters. Journal of Personality, 8, 225-236. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12047
Weinberg, R.S. & Gould, D. (2015). Foundations of Sport and Exercise Psychology (6th ed.). Chicago, IL: Courier Companies, Inc.