1. When the Tail Wags the Dog: Perceptions of Learning and Grade Orientations in, and by, Contemporary College Students and Faculty Howard R. Pollio University of Tennessee at Knoxville Hall P. Beck Appalachian State University

2. Learning Orientation Items I find the process of learning new material fun. I enjoy classes in which the instructor attempts to relate material to concerns beyond the classroom. I browse the library even when not working on a specific assignment.

3. Learning Oriented Students Tend To: Display effective study skills. Exhibit above average reasoning skills. Have high levels of self motivation. Possess other positive educational attributes.

4. Grade Orientation Items I think that without regularly scheduled exams I would not learn and remember very much. I think that grades provide me a good goal to work toward. I try to find out how easy or hard an instructor is before signing up for a course.

5. Grade Oriented Students Tend To: Be inefficient in their study habits. Find little pleasure in reading. Have below average Scholastic Aptitude Test scores for their university. Receive poor grades.

6. LOGO F: Learning Orientation Items I think that students should be encouraged to cooperate rather than to compete. I design course assignments that encourage students to read outside my discipline. I encourage students to raise questions in class that are topic related but which also go beyond the scope of the tests which I prepare.

7. LOGO F: Grade Orientation Items Without regularly scheduled exams most students would not learn the material that I present. I emphasize in my conversations with students the importance of studying to obtain “good grades.” I think that college grades are good predictors of success in later life.

8. How Not To See

9. Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius

10. Purpose: Assess the Positive and Negative Values Attached to Learning and Grade Orientations From Three Perspectives Study 1: Students View Of Their Orientations Study 2: Students View Instructors’ Orientations Study 3: Instructors View Students’ Orientations

11. Study 1 Objectives To determine the relationship between students’ current and ideal orientations. To assess the extent to which students’ ideal orientations influence or are associated with current orientations. To measure the degree that students are dissatisfied with their current orientations.

12. Study 1 Methods Participants 184 Appalachian State undergraduates enrolled in either Introductory or Social Psychology classes. Procedure Students indicate on the LOGO II the extent that the items are currently descriptive of them, providing current LO and current GO scores. The same students complete the LOGO II a second time as they would “ideally like to be,” yielding ideal LO and ideal GO scores.

13. Study 1 Method Students indicate on the LOGO II the extent that the items are currently descriptive of them, providing current LO and current GO scores. Same students complete the LOGO II a second time as they would “ideally like to be,” yielding ideal LO and ideal GO scores.

14. Study 1 Measures Current LO score Ideal LO score Current GO score Ideal GO score

15. Study 1 Results Current and ideal LO scores were positively correlated, r (182) =.45, p <.001. Also, current and ideal GO scores were positively correlated, r (182) =.43, p <.001. A 2(LO, GO Scale) x 2(Current, Ideal Instructions) ANOVA was performed using LOGOII scores as the dependent measure.

16. Study 1 Results

17. Why Are Students Dissatisfied With Their Orientations? Instructors prevent students from achieving their high learning oriented and low grade oriented ideals. Most instructors encourage grade orientation. Most instructors give scant attention to learning orientation.

18. Study 2 Objectives To determine if most students believe that instructors overly emphasize grade orientation and are unconcerned with promoting learning orientation in their courses. To discover if students views of instructor orientations are related to their own orientations.

19. Study 2 Method Participants 212 Appalachian State undergraduates enrolled in Introductory Psychology sections participated. Materials and Procedure Students completed LOGO II under standard instructions. They then completed the LOGO F twice, indicating how “they believed a typical ASU instructor would respond” and how they “would ideally like their instructors to respond.

20. Study 2 Methods Students complete LOGO II under standard instructions. On LOGO F students indicate how “they believe a typical ASU instructor would respond.” Students answer the LOGO F as they “would ideally like their instructors to respond.”

21. Study 2 Measures Students’ LO and GO scores Typical Faculty LO score and Ideal Faculty LO score Typical Faculty GO score and Ideal Faculty GO score

22. Study 2 Results Regression of typical LO, ideal LO, typical GO, and ideal GO scores on students’ LO scores was statistically significant, F(4, 207) = 3.62, p <.001, R 2 =.07. Regression of four predictor variables on students’ GO scores was statistically significant, F(4, 207) = 3.47, p <.001, R 2 =.06.

23. Study 2 Results

24. Study 3 Objectives To determine if instructors would like for students to be more grade oriented. To test the hypothesis that instructors are unconcerned with promoting learning orientation. To discover if the orientations instructors emphasize in their classes are related to their views of students’ orientations.

25. Study 3 Method Instructors complete LOGO F under standard instructions. On LOGO II instructors indicate how “they believe a typical ASU student would respond.” Instructors answer the LOGO II as they “would ideally like their students to respond.”

26. Study 3 Measures Instructors’ LO and GO scores Typical Student LO score and Ideal Student LO score Typical Student GO score and Ideal Student GO score

27. Study 3 Results Regression of typical LO, ideal LO, typical GO and ideal GO scores on instructors’ LO ratings was statistically significant, F(4,149) = 36.44, p <.001, R 2 =.49. Regression of four predictors on instructors’ GO scores was statistically significant, F(4,149) = 45.51, p <.001, R 2 =.55.

28. Study 3 Results Strong negative correlation of typical LO and typical GO ratings, r(152) = -.73, p <.001. Strong negative correlation of ideal LO and ideal GO ratings, r(152) = -.52, p <.001.

29. Study 3 Results

30. Learning and Grade Orientations From the Students’ Perspective Students are highly dissatisfied with their own orientations. They want to be more learning oriented and less grade oriented. Results of Study 2 are consistent with the premise that students believe instructors pressure them to be more grade oriented and less learning oriented than they desire.

31. Learning and Grade Orientations From the Instructors’ Perspective Many instructors are dissatisfied with the learning and grade orientations displayed by their students. Instructors want their students to be more learning oriented and less grade oriented.

32. Why Do Students and Faculty Misjudge One Another: A Lover’s Quarrel? Fundamental Attribution Error Need for Student-Instructor Dialogue Reactance