Achievement Goal for Indonesian Students of Mathematics Education
Program: Issues of Gender and Academic Yeal Level
Riyan Hidayat
1
, Sharifah Norul Akmar Syed Zamri
1
, Hutkemri Zulnaidi
1
, Putri Yuanita
2
1
University of Malaya, Malaysia
2
Riau University, Pekanbaru, Indonesia
Keywords:
Academic Year, Achievement Goal, Cross-Cultural Affect, Gender.
Abstract:
Previous study has suggested that a consensus might exist regarding the academic year level and gender
distinction in the achievement goals in higher education. The current study examines the level of the goals
of achievement for students of mathematics education program in Indonesia. In addition, we analyse gender
and academic year level as factors that might influence students’ achievement goals. The research adheres a
survey research design to probe the differences in the achievement goals for mathematics education program
students. Participants involve 538 mathematics education program students. The statistical program SPSS is
employed for computing correlation matrix, mean values, and standard deviations and one-way MANOVA
for making comparison. Indonesian students of the mathematics education program apply other-avoidance
and self-approach goals. No significant distinction was noticed between male and female pupils in all goal
of achievement sub-dimensions. However, significant disparities were noted based on academic year levels,
particularly in relation to self-avoidance and other-approach goals.
1 INTRODUCTION
Recently, complex arrangements of achievement
goals have been evidenced to gauge students’ goals
in pursuing their academic aims. For example, (Elliot
and McGregor, 2001) developed a new framework
of achievement goals that involve task-, self- and
other-based competences. To date, numerous
studies have confirmed that goals of achievement
are progressively recognized as having a important
role in academic results (Lower and Turner, 2016;
Mascret et al., 2017; Wynne, 2014), especially for
resolving complicated problems (Maretasani et al., ).
Endorsing students’ task- and self-based competences
rather than their other-based competence is pivotal
because these competences are connected to positive
learning results (Pahljina-Reini
´
c and Koli
´
c-Vehovec,
2017). However, prior studies have discovered
that Indonesian pupils tend to utilize performance
goal orientation or other-based competence and
mastery-avoidance goals (Liem and Nie, 2008). In
terms of gender, the differences of achievement
goal levels between female and male students found
in extant literature are also highly questionable
(Musa et al., 2016; Rashidi and Javanmardi, 2012;
Remedios et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2008; Wu,
2012). Interestingly, previous investigations have also
recommended that a consensus might exist regarding
the academic year difference in achievement goals
(Alrakaf et al., 2014; Lieberman and Remedios, 2007;
Remedios et al., 2008) although similar education
levels have been studied.
To our knowledge, the level of achievement goals
in higher education in Indonesia involves the latest
framework suggested by Elliot et al. (2011), and
analysis based on gender and academic year level has
not been conducted. Accordingly, the study aims to
assign the nature of the goals of achievement for a
mathematics education program students in Indonesia
with attention to the gap pertaining to gender and
academic year level. The research questions guiding
the study are as follows:
• What is the nature of the goals of achievement
across a mathematics education program students
in Indonesia?
• Is there any gender-based difference in
achievement goals amongst mathematics
education program students in Indonesia?
• Is there any difference in the achievement goals
amongst mathematics education program students
in Indonesia based on their academic year levels?
492
Hidayat, R., Syed Zamri, S., Zulnaidi, H. and Yuanita, P.
Achievement Goal for Indonesian Students of Mathematics Education Program: Issues of Gender and Academic Year Level.
DOI: 10.5220/0010113804920498
In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Social, Economy, Education and Humanity (ICoSEEH 2019) - Sustainable Development in Developing Country for Facing Industrial
Revolution 4.0, pages 492-498
ISBN: 978-989-758-464-0
Copyright
c
 2020 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved

2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Achievement Goals
As mentioned, goals of achievement cover the
aims (Ames, 1992). Ames (1992) argued
that a goal of achievement contains the aims
of achievement behaviour. Likewise, goal of
achievement concentrates on the kinds of goal aim
or reason (Ames, 1992; Maehr and Zusho, 2009;
Pintrich, 1999) dictating achievement-connected
behaviour. Achievement goal deciphers the idea
of pupils’ adaptive and maladaptive reactions to
performance defiance (Dweck, 1986; Nicholls,
1984). Adaptive reactions are emphasized to promote
the formation, preservation and performance of
privately challenging and personally appreciated
goals of performance. Maladaptive reactions
are truly associated with the default to generate
plausible, appreciated aims, keep potent fighting
towards those aims or attain appreciated goals that
are potentially within one’s scope (Dweck, 1986).
The main objective of achievement goal theory
has been categorized into two distinct attentions,
namely, mastery goal orientation and performance
goal orientation (Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1984).
Mastery goal orientation (adaptive) are reflected
by defiance-seeking and great, potent persistence
in the face of barriers. Students who indicate this
scheme usually savor undertaking effort in the
chase of problem mastery. Conversely, performance
goal orientation (maladaptive) are categorized by
defiance avoidance and minimal persistence in the
face of adversities. Pupils with performance goal
orientation are more likely to depict negative effect
(like discomfort) and negative self-cognitions when
facing hurdles.
(Elliot and McGregor, 2001) suggested the recent
model of achievement goal, which is the 3 × 2
achievement goal model. The suggested model
is evolved from the 2 × 2 mastery–performance
design, distributing from the mastery–performance
distinction. Under the 3 × 2 model, for example,
mastery-approach and -avoidance goals focus on
the accomplishment of task–based competence
or self-based competence and incompetence,
successively. By contrast, performance-approach and
-avoidance goals concentrate on the accomplishment
of other-based competence and incompetence,
respectively. The inquiry of interest is whether
task- and self-based abilities have same or distinct
goal dimensions. Therefore, a 3 × 2 goals of
achievement model (Elliot et al., 2011) is the latest
model employed in the present work.
(Elliot and McGregor, 2001) asserted that task-
and self-based goals have been regarded as falling
under a sole construct where both have an evaluative
criteria, such as mastery goal orientation. It is clearly
accurately interconnected between the task-based
goal of understanding new subject material and
the self-based goal of broadening one’s insight
base. Nevertheless, (Elliot and McGregor, 2001)
also depicted that task- and self-based competences
are not corresponding for all conditions; moreover,
dividing them into two entities is occasionally
important depending on particular surroundings.
Many real-world samples are connected to task- and
self-based competences. Pupils who work on a
crossword puzzle (i.e., task-based goal) may simply
be fighting to discover all of the words in the
puzzle while not caring about improving their logic
capabilities (i.e., self-based goal; Elliot et al., 2011).
Conversely, other-based goals are direct analogues
of performance goals. Competency in mastery
and performance is conceptualized as approach or
evasion. Mastery goals (i.e., mastery goal orientation
and performance goal orientation) are connected to
positive academic outcomes; meanwhile, avoidance
goals (i.e., mastery- and performance-avoidance
goals) often affect negative results (Liu et al., 2017).
2.2 Academic Year and Gender Factor
in Achievement Goals
Prior works have suggested that Indonesian
students hold social-oriented performance
and performance-approach orientation and
mastery-avoidance goals orientation (Liem and Nie,
2008). Moreover, they are prone to follow values
underlining conformity and togetherness. They also
perceive safety from attaining the academic goals
decided by parents or teachers. Interestingly, (Go,
2017) examined students’ personal achievement
goal orientation in relation to the National Exam
in Indonesia. The results indicated no significant
distinctions between the exam and non-exam
groups in the achievement goals involving personal
mastery and performance-approach goal orientations.
Qualitative analysis confirms that pre-service
teachers in Indonesia who enrolled at secondary
science and mathematics education have diverse
goals of achievement in diverse circumstances
based on vital factors, including ability, course
regulation, educators, subject and community (Aziz
et al., 2017). For instance, they are more inclined
to hold other-avoidance goal orientation in terms
of the subjects, have task-avoidance goal in terms
of completing high stakes coursework or taking
Achievement Goal for Indonesian Students of Mathematics Education Program: Issues of Gender and Academic Year Level
493

non-preferable courses, and indicate self-approach
goals in terms of scoring greater than the classroom
average value in the initial exam.
Moreover, in a comparison of students according
to academic year level, several international studies
have revealed differences in the achievement goals
amongst higher education students. Alrakaf,
Sainsbury, Rose, and Smith (2014) found that
third-year students were oriented less strongly
towards performance and mastery goals than their
first-year counterparts. Interestingly, the research also
confirmed that performance-goal-oriented students
obtained higher scores in their course than their fellow
students who adopted any other type of achievement
goals. First-year students in psychology and nursing
departments were less likely to want to dominate their
courses than students in years 2, 3 and 4 (Lieberman
and Remedios, 2007). The study also found that
students in years 2, 3 and 4 were focused on grades
and their enjoyment towards subjects substantially
decreased. Similarly, Remedios, Kiseleva and Elliott
(2008) indicated that Russian students’ degrees of
mastery were substantially lower after semesters
1 and 2. Therefore, we hypothesized that
amongst mathematics education program students
significant differences exist for achievement goal
sub-dimensions.
Females apply masculine gender roles and males
apply feminine gender roles; thus, they probably
possess different goal orientations. (Remedios et al.,
2008) found similar results for students in the sport
field. In comparison with male students, female
students indicated lower ego orientation and were less
likely to declare that they engaged in an ego-oriented
environment. Conversely, males were less likely to
feel a task- oriented environment than the females.
Meanwhile, (Wu, 2012) examined gender differences
across cultures in achievement goals in Taiwan.
Chi-square tests revealed that no gender distinctions
were present in the pattern of achievement goals
for junior high school and elementary students.
Similarly, at a higher education level, no significant
differences were found in achievement goals between
male and female students (Wang et al., 2008). To
our knowledge, however, no extant research has
concentrated on the differences of achievement goal
sub-constructs among students in a mathematics
education program.
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The present study follows a survey design (Creswell,
2012). The population of the present study was
a mathematics education program in Indonesia.
(Fraenkel and Wallen, 2009) indicated that cluster
random sampling was selected since this work
selected groups rather than individuals. The research
participants were 538 students of a mathematics
education program in Riau Province, Indonesia. 483
(89.8%) of participants were woman participants
were , whereas 55 (10.2%) of participants were
man participants. Targeted participants involved
those from the first until the fourth year during
AY 2017– 2018. Nevertheless, this work only
included the first-year participants, second-year
participants and third-year participants, because
the fourth-year participants were conducting
their teaching training sessions. To measure
goal of achievement, we employed The 3 × 2
Achievement Goal Questionnaire (Elliot et al., 2011).
It consisted of six sub-dimensions; task-approach
goal, task-avoidance goal, self-approach goal
and self-avoidance goal, other-approach goal and
other-avoidance goal. Cronbach’s alpha score was
discovered to be .95 for all the sub-constructs.
3.1 Data Analysis
The SPSS 24.0 software was employed in the current
research for descriptive analysis. The MANOVA
factorial analysis was employed to gauge the
distinction in pupils’ achievement goal. Cronbach’s
alpha coefficients are computed to assign the
questionnaire reliability (total and sub- constructs).
As for Hair et al., (2010), alpha scores of 0.60 to 0.70
in exploratory research are satisfactory.
4 RESULTS
4.1 Analysis of Descriptive Statistics
To present foremost insights into the data, we
computed correlation matrix, mean values, and
standard deviations for all measures employing SPSS
(Table 1).
Table 1 provides the mean values for goals of
achievement, which varied between sub-constructs
(M = 4.87 and SD = 1.16 for task-approach goal; M =
5.46 and SD = 1.26 for task-avoidance goal; M = 5.57
and SD = 1.09 for self-approach goal; M = 5.20 and
SD = 1.17 for self-avoidance goal; M = 5.14 for and
SD = 1.29 for other-approach goal; and M = 5.58 and
SD = 1.07 for other-avoidance).
ICoSEEH 2019 - The Second International Conference on Social, Economy, Education, and Humanity
494

Table 1: Correlation Matrix, Mean and Standard Deviation
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Task-approach
goal
1 .54** .51** .47** 58** .48**
2. Self-approach
goal
1 .55** .59** .57** .55**
3. Task-avoidance
goal
1 .59** .52** .56**
4. Self-avoidance
goal
1 .51** .51**
5. Other-approach
goal
1 .56**
6. Other-avoidance
goal
1
Skewness -.15 -1.07 -.98 -.90 -.60 -1.05
Kurtosis -.07 1.49 .80 1.24 .09 1.23
M 4.87 5.57 5.46 5.20 5.14 5.58
SD 1.16 1.09 1.26 1.17 1.29 1.07
4.2 Differences in Achievement Goal
Sub-constructs based on Gender
One-way MANOVA analysis was calculated to assign
the distinction in the achievement goals between
male and female participants. Prior to the one-way
MANOVA test, the variance homogeneity test was
calculated employing Levene’s test of equality of
error variances, which exhibited the variances of the
variables scattered equally with the F value = 1.47
and sig = .075 (p > .05). This outcome revealed that
one-way MANOVA could be computed to determine
the differences in the students’ achievement goals.
Table 2 depicts the mean and standard deviation of
pupils’ achievement goals based on gender.
Table 2: Mean and Standard Deviation of Students’
Achievement Goals Based on Gender
Dependent Variable Male Female
Task-approach goal 4.94 ± 1.23 4.86 ± .93
Self-approach goal 5.53 ± 1.28 5.61 ± .94
Task-avoidance goal 5.33 ± 1.26 5.43 ± 1.00
Self-avoidance goal 5.22 ± 1.32 5.29 ± 1.03
Other-approach goal 5.03 ± 1.34 5.08 ± 1.07
Other-avoidance goal 5.71 ± 1.20 5.58 ± .90
Table 2 reveals that females had higher
achievement goals compared with males. By
contrast, males had higher other-avoidance goals
(M = 5.71 and SD = 1.20) than females (M = 5.58
and SD = .90). Females had higher self-approach
goals (M = 5.61 and SD = .94) than males (M = 5.53
and SD = 1.28). The lowest mean values were for
the task-approach goal (males: M = 4.94 and SD =
1.23, females: M = 4.86 and SD = .93). Table 3 lists
the results of the one-way MANOVA of gender in
achievement goals.
Table 3 lists the findings of the one-way
Table 3: One-Way Manova Results on the Difference in
Students’ Achievement Goals Based on Gender
Dependent Variable df
Mean
Square
F Sig.
Partial
Eta
Squared
Task-approach
goal
.333 1 .333 .354 .552 .001
Self-approach
goal
.297 1 .297 .305 .581 .001
Task-avoidance
goal
.482 1 .482 .454 .501 .001
Self-avoidance
goal
.270 1 .270 .238 .626 .000
Other-approach
goal
.140 1 .140 .114 .735 .000
Other-avoidance
goal
.816 1 .816 .923 .337 .002
MANOVA analyses on gender. Overall, no
significant difference was found between male and
female students’ task-approach goal (F= .354, p=
.552), self-approach goal (F= .305, p= .581), task-
avoidance goal (F= .454, p= .501), self-avoidance
goal (F= .238, p= .626), other-approach goal (F=
.114, p= .735) and other-avoidance goal (F= .923, p=
.337).
4.3 Differences in Achievement Goal
Sub-constructs based on Academic
Year Level
Table 4 reveals the mean and standard deviation of
students’ achievement goals based on academic year
level.
Table 4: Mean and Standard Deviation of Students’
Achievement Goals Based on Academic Year Level
Dependent Variable Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Task-approach
goal
4.94 ± .98 4.89 ± 1.02 4.78 ± .88
Self-approach
goal
5.78 ± .87 5.56 ± 1.03 5.52 ± .99
Task-avoidance
goal
5.46 ± 1.01 5.43 ± 1.09 5.39 ± .95
Self-avoidance
goal
5.51 ± .97 5.25 ± 1.09 5.17 ± 1.06
Other-approach
goal
5.29 ± 1.06 4.99 ± 1.20 5.02 ± .98
Other-avoidance
goal
5.76 ± .82 5.52 ± .97 5.57 ± .96
Table 4 reveals that first-year (M = 5.78 and
SD = .87) and second-year (M = 5.56 and SD =
1.03) students had the highest self-approach goals.
Third-year students had the highest other-avoidance
goal (M = 5.57 and SD = .96). The lowest mean
value was for the task-approach goal of third-year (M
= 4.78 and SD = .88), second-year (M = 4.89 and
SD = 1.02), and first-year (M = 4.94 and SD = .98)
Achievement Goal for Indonesian Students of Mathematics Education Program: Issues of Gender and Academic Year Level
495

students. Overall, first-year students had higher task-
approach goal, task-avoidance goal, self-approach
goal, self-avoidance goal and performance goals
(including other-approach goal and other-avoidance
goal) than second- and third-year students. Table
5 shows the results of the one-way MANOVA of
academic year in achievement goals.
Table 5: One-Way Manova Results on The Difference in
Students’ Achievement Goals Based on Academic Year
Level
Dependent
Variable
Type-III
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
F Sig.
Partial
Eta
Squared
Task-approach
goal
2.142 2 1.071 1.140 .321 .004
Self-approach
goal
5.944 2 2.972 3.078 .051 .011
Task-avoidance
goal
.441 2 .221 .207 .813 .001
Self-avoidance
goal
9.649 2 4.825 4.323 .014 .016
Other-approach
goal
8.112 2 4.056 3.350 .036 .012
Other-avoidance
goal
5.042 2 2.521 2.871 .057 .011
Table 5 reveals the findings of the one-way
MANOVA analyses of achievement goals based on
academic year level. Overall, significant univariate
main effects for academic year level were obtained for
the percentage of self-avoidance goal [F= 4.323, (p=
.014, p < .05)] and other-approach goal [F= 3.350,
(p= .036, p < .05)]. To identify the difference in
the students’ achievement goals, the post-hoc Scheffe
test was also evaluated. The analysis was conducted
to examine the difference in the achievement goals
based on academic year level (i.e., first-year students,
second-year students and third-year students. The
outputs of the post-hoc Scheffe test are indicated in
Table 6.
Table 6: Post-Hoc Scheffe Test Results on The Differences
in Achievement Goals Based on Academic Year Level
Dependent
Variable
Mean Difference
Academic
Year
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Self-avoidance
goal
Year 1 - .26 .34*
Year 2 -.26 - .08
Year 3 -.34* -.08 -
Other- approach
goal
Year 1 - .30* .26
Year 2 -.30* - -.03
Year 3 -.26 .03 -
Table 6 indicates significant difference in the level
of self-avoidance goals between first- and third-year
students, with mean difference of .34 p <.05).
The mean score reveals that first-year students
had higher self-avoidance goal than third-year
students. Moreover, a significant difference was
found in the other-approach goals of first- and
second-year students, with mean difference of .30
(p < .05). The mean score reveals that first-year
students had higher self-avoidance goal than second-
year students. Findings also indicate that no
significant difference existed in the task-approach,
self-approach, task-avoidance and other-avoidance
goals among all groups.
5 DISCUSSION
The study aims to assign the nature of the
goals of achievement across mathematics education
program students in Indonesia. Our findings
reveal that the mathematics education program
learners in Indonesia appreciate generally in terms
of their other-avoidance goals and self-approach
goals. Interestingly, learners in Indonesia report
higher degrees of self-based goals and other-based
goals than task-based goals. The Indonesian
students of the mathematics education program
tend to use other-avoidance and self-approach goals
for their competency. Evasion-based goals are
based on default or avoiding from this negative
likelihood, whilst approach-based goals are based
on success and preserving a positive likelihood.
Therefore, pupils who have other-avoidance goals
evade making worse than their counterparts, whilst
those holding self-approach goals also focused on
the attainment of self-based competence (i.e., making
better than previous). Likewise, the findings of
the present study appear to be corresponding with
previous studies (David, 2012; Liem and Nie,
2008), which indicate that Indonesian pupils are
more likely to apply social-oriented achievement
and performance-approach orientation and mastery-
avoidance goal orientation. This outcome can be
attributed to social views, social affiliation and social
agreement mediating goals of achievement (Bernardo
and Ismail, 2010). The findings spotlight the interest
of maintaining goals of achievement for students of
the mathematics education program in Indonesia in
terms of enlarging their achievements by promoting
task-based goal orientation and self- based goal
orientation orientation rather than other- based goal
orientation.
In terms of gender comparison, analysis
of one-way MANOVA indicate no significant
distinctions between man and woman in goals of
achievement. The findings of the current research
are consistent with several previous studies (Musa
et al., 2016; Rashidi and Javanmardi, 2012; Wang
et al., 2008; Wu, 2012) that revealed no gender
ICoSEEH 2019 - The Second International Conference on Social, Economy, Education, and Humanity
496

distinctions in the pattern of achievement goals in
higher education levels. Social goals cause this
non- significant differences of achievement goal
sub- constructs. (Bernardo and Ismail, 2010) stated
that social goals constitute a contributing factor
that affects the achievement goals adopted in higher
education. Moreover, aside from encouraging
competition based on ability and effort, the
higher education system in Indonesia have also
concentrated intensely on examinations to fulfil
particular requirements for upcoming semesters.
Hence, obtaining the best result and fulfilling the
expectations of lecturers are the main contributing
factors towards the same social goals between
genders. This circumstance significantly influences
the students’ achievement goals in higher education.
The present study also confirms that a significant
difference exists in achievement goals, particularly
the self-avoidance and other-approach goals based
on academic year level. First-year students tend
to adopt higher self-avoidance goals than third-year
students, and they also hold greater other-approach
goals than second-year students. We may infer
that first-year students often approach success by
doing better that their counterparts while they define
success as avoiding failure or doing worse than
they have achieved before. Our findings appear
to corroborate with those from previous studies
(Alrakaf et al., 2014; Lieberman and Remedios,
2007; Remedios et al., 2008), which indicate that
first-year students are more strongly oriented towards
performance and mastery goals. One possible
reason for this outcome was explained by Alrakaf,
Sainsbury, Rose, and Smith (2014) as arising from
the competitive secondary school milieus from which
freshmen recently emerged. They contend that
such environment is the main reason why first- year
students adopt greater performance-approach goals
compared to second- or third-year students.
6 CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The present study shows that mathematics education
program students in Indonesia hold various
achievement goals, namely other-avoidance and
self-approach goals. Surprisingly, no significant
distinction was found between man and woman
learners in all achievement goal sub-dimensions.
However, significant disparities were confirmed
based on academic year levels for the self-avoidance
and other-approach goals. Freshmen tend to
apply greater self-avoidance goals than third-year
students and have higher other-approach goals than
second-year students. An important limitation of the
present study involves its small sample size. As a
result, we cannot compare differences in achievement
goal sub-constructs between male and female
students in every academic year level. Therefore,
future research should explore the effect of the
interaction between gender and academic year level
towards goals of achievement. Further investigation
of other factors, like socioeconomic background or
levels of accomplishment, is also necessary.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research received no specific grant from any
funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for
profit sectors.
REFERENCES
Alrakaf, S., Sainsbury, E., Rose, G., and Smith, L. (2014).
Identifying achievement goals and their relationship
to academic achievement in undergraduate pharmacy
students. American Journal of Pharmaceutical
Education, 78(7).
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures,
and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84(3).
Aziz, T. A., Purnomo, Y. W., and Pramudiani, P. (2017).
Indonesian pre-service teachers learning motivations
and goal achievements: A qualitative study. In
Kusumawardani, C., Abadi, A. M., Suyanto, S.,
and Wilujeng, I., editors, The 4th International
Conference on Research, Implementation, and
Education of Mathematics and Science (4th
ICRIEMS). Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta,
Yogyakarta.
Bernardo, A. B. I. and Ismail, R. (2010). Social
perceptions of achieving students and achievement
goals of students in Malaysia and the Philippines.
Social Psychology of Education, 13.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning,
conducting, and evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research. Educational Research (Vol.
David, A. (2012). Structural validation of the 3 X 2
achievement goal model. Educational Measurement
and Evaluation Review, 103(3).
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting
learning. American Psychologist, 41(10).
Elliot, A. J. and McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 x 2
achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 80(3).
Elliot, A. J., Murayama, K., and Pekrun, R. (2011). A 3×
2 achievement goal model. Journal of educational
psychology, 103(3):632.
Achievement Goal for Indonesian Students of Mathematics Education Program: Issues of Gender and Academic Year Level
497

Fraenkel, J. R. and Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to Design
and Evaluate Research in Education. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Go, A. M. (2017). Student’s motivational goal orientation
in facing national exam in Indonesia. University of
Oulu.
Lieberman, D. A. and Remedios, R. (2007). Do
undergraduates’ motives for studying change as they
progress through their degrees? British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 77(2). 379–395.
Liem, A. D. and Nie, Y. (2008). Values, achievement
goals, and individual-oriented and social-oriented
achievement motivations among Chinese and
Indonesian secondary school students. International
Journal of Psychology, 43(5).
Liu, J., Xiang, P., and Lee, J. (2017). Developing
physically literacy in K-12 physical education through
achievement goal theory. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 36.
Lower, L. M. and Turner, B. A. (2016). Examination of the
3x2 achievement goal model in collegiate recreation:
Comparison across sport programs. Journal of
Amateur Sport, 2(2):75–102.
Maehr, M. L. and Zusho, A. (2009). Achievement goal
theory: The past, present, and future. Handbook of
Motivation at School, 77–104.
Maretasani, L. D., Masrukan, and Dwijanto. (2016).
International Conference on Mathematics, Science,
and Education 2016 (ICMSE 2016) Problem,
Semarang.
Mascret, N., Elliot, A. J., and Cury, F. (2017). The
3× 2 achievement goal questionnaire for teachers.
Educational psychology, 37(3):346–361.
Musa, A. K. J., Dauda, B., and Umar, M. A. (2016). Gender
differences in achievement goals and performances
in English language and mathematics of senior
secondary schools students in Borno state. Nigeria.
Journal of Education and Practices, 7(27).
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation:
Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task
choice, and performance. Psychological Review,
91(3).
Pahljina-Reini
´
c, R. and Koli
´
c-Vehovec, S. (2017).
Average personal goal pursuit profile and contextual
achievement goals: Effects on students’ motivation,
achievement emotions, and achievement. Learning
and Individual Differences, 56:167–174.
Pintrich, P. (1999). An achievement goal theory perspective
on issues in motivation terminology, theory, and
research. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
25(1).
Rashidi, N. and Javanmardi, F. (2012). The relationship
between Iranian EFL students’ achievement goal
orientations and their gender. Education, 2(1).
Remedios, R., Kiseleva, Z., and Elliott, J. (2008). Goal
orientations in Russian university students: From
mastery to performance? Educational Psychology,
28(6). 677–691.
Wang, C. K., Lim, B. S., Aplin, N. G., Chia, Y. H. M.,
McNeill, M., and Tan, W. K. (2008). Students’
attitudes and perceived purposes of physical education
in Singapore: Perspectives from a 2 x 2 achievement
goal framework. European Physical Education
Review, 14(1).
Wu, C.-C. (2012). The cross-cultural examination of 3× 2
achievement goal model in taiwan. Procedia-Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 69:422–427.
Wynne, H. M. (2014). Integrating the demonstration
orientation and standards-based models of
achievement goal theory. Fordham University.
ICoSEEH 2019 - The Second International Conference on Social, Economy, Education, and Humanity
498