MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200347399 · doi:10.1177/08295735211058319

Achievement Goal Theory Review: An Application to School Psychology

2021· article· en· W4200347399 on OpenAlexaff
Devon Chazan, Gabrielle N. Pelletier, Lia M. Daniels

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of School Psychology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPerspective (graphical)School psychologyIntervention (counseling)Educational psychologySport psychologyField (mathematics)Goal theoryVariety (cybernetics)CognitionApplied psychologyLearning theoryCognitive psychologySocial psychologyMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Achievement Goal Theory (AGT) is one of the most popular theoretical frameworks in motivation research. Despite its application to a variety of contexts, including, school, work, and sport, it has not yet been referenced in the field of school psychology. First, we review the theoretical underpinnings as told through the theory’s evolving models, explore its impacts on cognition, emotion, and behavior, and introduce a multiple goals perspective. Second, we outline the leading research supporting AGT, both in terms of structural and individual intervention studies. Third, we apply the principles of AGT to the primary tasks of school psychology professionals, including assessment, intervention, and consultation practices. The students we support can greatly benefit from gearing our approaches toward ones that foster self-improvement and interest.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0130.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.362 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations58
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of School PsychologySame topicEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessFrench-language works237,207