Adolescents' Goal Orientations in Society and the Educational Context: A Dutch‐Swedish comparative...

Adolescents’ Goal Orientations in

Society and the Educational Context: A

Dutch-Swedish comparative study

Joanna Giota*Goteborg University, Sweden

The purpose of this article is to examine whether 13-year-old pupils in Sweden and the

Netherlands have similar or different goal orientations for going to school and learning. For this

purpose a cross-national comparative study was conducted involving 717 Dutch and 7391 Swedish

pupils. The findings suggest that while goal orientations—constituted by different types of

subgoals—seem to be culturally independent, the contents of these orientations are not. The

results also suggest that there are considerable differences between the Dutch and Swedish

education systems and the way Dutch and Swedish pupils perceive similar aspects of the

educational process.

Keywords: Goal orientations; Society; Education; Dutch-Swedish study

Introduction

From sociological studies we know that the socio-economic background of young

people affects their route through the educational system. Our knowledge about

what the young people think of their passage through the education system, about

themselves and their goals, is less comprehensive (Giota, 2001). In the present study,

what young people think about these aspects and their future lives is thought to

reflect the structure of the educational system as well as the sociocultural and socio-

economic features of the society in which this educational system is embedded.

The overarching pattern of ideology and organisation of the social institutions can

define a sociocultural structure or society. This pattern consists of complex systems

of beliefs and values, which are related to various kinds of activities and institutions

and their constituent roles, and are shared by more or less all the individuals of a

group or society. Every sociocultural structure specifies not only which kind of

knowledge and skills are important and must be acquired by its members, but also

*Department of Education, Goteborg University, PO Box 300, SE-40530, Goteborg, Sweden.

Email: [email protected]

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

Vol. 51, No. 1, February 2007, pp. 41–62

ISSN 0031-3831 (print)/ISSN 1470-1170 (online)/07/010041-22

� 2007 Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

DOI: 10.1080/00313830601079041

the value or social meaning of the knowledge and skills (Oppenheimer, 1996).

However, within society, cultural knowledge is transmitted and reproduced through

learning collective representations in school. That is, ideas of which different goals—

content—are considered important in a culture, when and how they can be realised

and potential outcomes. According to Bourdieu (1986), reproduction refers to the

maintenance of the structure of society (social reproduction) as well as the

maintenance of the content of society (cultural reproduction). Both types of

reproduction are steered by laws, regulations and curricula. In school, teachers enact

the content of these documents through action in classrooms. The teachers realise

social reproduction through their evaluation, assessment and grading of pupils.

Besides the education context and society several other contexts have been pointed

out as developmental influences on adolescents and their goal setting. A best friend

and parents have been found to have the strongest influence on education aspirations

(Malmberg, 1998).

In the present study, it is suggested that one way of answering the question ‘‘why

do adolescents develop the goal orientations, goals, means and potential outcomes

they do in a certain context, at a particular time?’’ is to conceptualise contexts as

‘‘normative patterns’’ for the development of these action steps. In the literature, this

normative ‘‘power’’ does not seem to be equally strict in all contexts, but varies

depending on the nature of the context (Triandis, 1995). For instance, in an

individualistic culture people are characterised as self-reliant and are expected to

take care of themselves and their immediate family. In a collectivistic culture people

are characterised by a high level of interdependence and are expected to take care of

an extended family, in exchange for loyalty. For complex cultures, in which several

in-groups co-exist, norms are characterised by a high degree of freedom and people

tolerate deviation from norms to a greater extent than in less complex cultures with

fewer in-groups and stronger norms (Triandis, 1995). According to Hofstede’s

(2003) five-dimensional model of cultural differences, Sweden is ranked as less

individualistic than the Netherlands. This implies that in the Netherlands children

are encouraged to find their own ‘‘self’’ and explore their own talents and abilities to

a larger extent than in Sweden, which has implications for their goal orientation

toward school and learning.

Goals and Goal Orientations

In the most well-established and widely used theoretical perspective concerning

pupil motivation, that is, the mastery and performance goal orientation perspective, a

clear distinction between the concepts goal and goal orientation has not been made,

causing great confusion (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). According to this perspective, if

pupils adopt a mastery goal orientation toward their academic work then they should

be focused on learning and mastering the content according to self-set standards,

developing new skills and improving their competence. The focus of performance

goal-oriented pupils, on the other hand, is expected to be on demonstrating ability,

42 J. Giota

trying to surpass normative performance standards, getting good grades or rewards,

besting other pupils’ performance and seeking public recognition of this performance

level (Ames, 1992). Many writings concerning goal orientation research reveal the

contents of these orientations by focusing on particular goals. In an attempt to clarify

the distinction between goals and goal orientations, Pintrich and Schunk (1996)

suggest that goal orientations do not focus on particular goals but rather on the

question of why individuals want to accomplish a particular goal and how they

approach this task. In addition, in many writings, mastery and performance goals are

conceptualised and measured as opposite ends of one continuum, thereby suggesting

that individuals are pursuing either mastery or performance goals. Whether mastery

vs. performance is one single, cognitive goal or two goals, that is, if mastery and

performance goals can be orthogonal to one another, is still an unresolved issue

within goal orientation theory and research.

Interactionist and action theory-oriented research on pupil motivation stresses the

importance of embedding the individual in the biological, social and environmental

contexts that are crucial for development and explaining the complex reciprocal

interaction between the individual and the context in which the goals of the

individual are to be realised. This implies that the goals that pupils set up and strive

for in school can never be exclusively cognitive but must be perceived as being

multiple (Ford, 1992; Giota, 2001; Wentzel, 1989). Within this perspective,

multiple goals are regarded as hierarchically organised. This means that pupils try to

attain different types of cognitive as well as social and affective goals simultaneously

that are to be attained in different time dimensions and not exclusively in a here-and-

now time perspective; as assumed within the predominant goal orientation theory

and research. Multiple goals refer, in addition, more to personal disposition or

individual difference variables in contrast to mastery vs. performance goals, which

are more situated and context-dependent.

The study to be presented is based on an earlier study by Giota (2001) among

7,607 13-year-old Swedish pupils in compulsory school who were asked (in an open-

ended question) to give their own reasons for why they were going to school. This

study suggests that the identified Self-now goal orientation, which showed the

biggest conceptual similarities with a mastery goal orientation, also involves learning/

intrinsic goals to be attained in social situations in school such as hopes to develop

new social relationships, expand social horizons and social experiences, master new

social tasks and increasing one’s social competence. Within goal orientation theory

all social as well as future goals are per definition considered as performance/extrinsic

goals, however, and are associated with maladaptive learning behaviour. In Giota’s

study social goals, in this case, such as to engage in actions in order to prove to

oneself and to other people that one is a responsible person, characteristic for pupils

holding an Others-now+Preventive-future goal orientation, were related to high

achievements in Grade 6 and 8 in compulsory school. This finding goes for all of the

identified future-oriented goal orientations in the study. However, in addition, some

groups of pupils also integrated various internal and external sources of motivation

A Dutch-Swedish study on pupil motivation 43

with respect to going to school and learning and tried to pursue a mixture of both

short-term and long-term goals simultaneously, that is, learning/intrinsic and

performance/extrinsic or multiple goals. Pupils holding such an Integrative goal

orientation demonstrated higher achievements over time compared to pupils holding

a pure mastery or learning/intrinsic goal orientation; in this study, represented by the

Self-now goal orientation. Given these results, in order to describe adequately the

variety of concerns that motivate pupil behaviour, a multiple goal approach was

suggested in the study of pupil motivation.

The Present Study

In line with an interactionist and action theoretical perspective, in the present study a

goal orientation is thought to represent a motivational predisposition or a personal

factor linked to the personality system that contributes to the individual’s preferences

for, or motivated selection of, certain types of goals (Niemivirta, 1998). In spite of

this assumption, the way an individual in a certain sociocultural context sets goals,

determines means for reaching these goals, and acts to reach these goals, is set within

the boundaries of what is possible in that context and factors such as language

concepts, sociocultural values and material constraints.

One aim of the study is thus to examine whether in two different sociocultural and

socio-economic contexts—Sweden and the Netherlands—13-year-old pupils have

similar or different goal orientations for going to school and learning and, hence,

perceive school and learning as well as educational practices in similar or different ways.

Given the assumption that nation-specific social institutions such as schools define

the set of assumptions about appropriate roles, goals and means used by the

participants in that setting (Oppenheimer, 1996), another aim is to compare the goal

orientations of Swedish and Dutch pupils with regard to education. The aim here is,

in particular, to investigate whether these goal orientations relate to differences in

educational practices and educational systems as parts of nation-specific character-

istics.

In Table 1 a brief description of the goal orientations identified among the Swedish

pupils by Giota (2001), and which are to be involved in the analyses of the Dutch

pupils’ reasons for going to school and learning, is provided.

Differences Between the Swedish and Dutch Educational Systems

The data collection among the Dutch 13-year-old pupils took place in the spring of

1998. At that time the Dutch pupils were in the first grade of secondary education,

while the Swedish 13-year-old pupils involved in the present study were in Grade 6

in the compulsory school system. Hence, in spite of the similarity in age, the two

groups of pupils were subject to different educational systems. Given the aims of the

present study, it is important to discuss some differences between the Swedish and

Dutch educational systems.

44 J. Giota

One of the differences between the systems concerns the way in which they are

geared towards continued tertiary education. Within the Dutch educational system,

secondary education is layered. That is, depending on the achievements of pupils in

the first grade (the bridge class) pupils will be assigned to different types of secondary

education that give access to different types of tertiary education (the Middle level

[MAVO] to vocational training, the Higher level [HAVO] to college and Athenaeum

or Gymnasium to university). For this reason, schools for secondary education in the

Netherlands are often characterised as ‘‘school communities’’ since they comprise

different educational programmes that some years ago were represented by separate

schools. This system has as a consequence that achievements in the first grade

determine the extent to which particular future goals can be realised. In addition, for

Dutch pupils the attainment of a certificate showing that they have successfully

finished a particular type (level) of secondary education is much more important

than grades. Grades are only relevant for academic education for which only a

limited amount of students are admitted, for example, medical studies.

Things are different in the Swedish educational system. During the 9 years of

compulsory school, Swedish pupils do not have to make any educational choices

Table 1. Brief descriptions of each of the eight goal orientations in the Swedish sample (n57367)

Self-now

n52265 or 30.6%

Positive views of school, the teachers and the school content. Focus

on learning and self-development in a here-and-now perspective.

Self-future

n5985 or 13.3%

Positive views of school, the teachers and the school content. Focus

on the long-term consequences of learning and self-development and a

desire to use attained outcomes as a strategy to structure the future and

adult life.

Others-now

n5859 or 11.6%

Going to school and engaging in the school content because society,

the labour market, and/or parents require that.

Preventive-future

n5332 or 4.5%

Going to school and engaging in the school content because of a

self-defined request. Focus on the prevention of personally relevant

fears with respect to the future by learning and a social responsibility

towards society, the labour market and other people.

Self-now+Self-future

n51256 or 17.0%

Integrative goal orientation. Focus on learning, self-actualisation,

self-determination, self-growth and well-being through the realisation

of own potentials and capacities in a here-and-now and a future

perspective.

Others-now+Preventive-future

n5146 or 2.0%

Integrative goal orientation. Focus on the attainment of requirements

set by authorities, and a willingness to achieve for the best of oneself,

society, the labour market and other people.

Integrative

n51198 or 16.1%

Integrative goal orientation. Involves nine different goal orientations,

which integrate various internal and external sources of pupil

motivation.

Neg/critical

n5326 or 4.4%

Negative and critical views of school, the teachers and the school

content. Involves no personal reasons for going to school, but indicates

an avoidance orientation towards school and education.


until the second term in Grade 9, when they are approximately 16 years old.

Moreover, while upper secondary school is voluntary, there are practically no pupils

from compulsory school who do not apply. Entrance into particular programmes is,

however, based on the grades awarded in the first term in Grade 8 in compulsory

school and the final term of Grade 9.

In short, by the first grade of secondary education Dutch pupils have to do well

and to obtain high grades, which permit them entrance to higher levels of secondary

education (college or university). When entered, grades become less important. For

Swedish pupils to obtain high grades becomes important from the age of 15 as these

give them admittance to particular programmes in upper secondary school that are

geared to different types of higher education.

The differences in the educational systems between Sweden and the Netherlands

may be considered as resulting in differences in the motivation to study and learn at

the age of 13. For instance, because in the Dutch educational system at this

particular age so much emphasis is put on the need to achieve well in order to attain

entrance to the higher levels of secondary education, in the present study the more

self-actualisation subgoals of learning, such as being in school and learning for one’s

own pleasure, central to the Self-now goal orientation, may be suppressed.

Alternatively, because in the last grade of the Dutch elementary school system

pupils are screened with respect to their abilities to successfully follow secondary

education, pupils who still have as their major purpose to be in school in order to

have fun may be filtered out. Hence, a lower frequency of pupils holding a Self-now

goal orientation and a higher proportion of pupils holding a performance/extrinsic

goal orientation, such as the Others-now+Preventive-future, in Dutch classrooms

may be expected than in Swedish classrooms.

Methods

Subjects and Procedures

The present study is based on a selection of questions included in a pupil

questionnaire that was presented to 7,607, 13-year-old Swedish pupils (6th grade,

born in 1982) within the framework of the ETF Project’s (Evaluation Through

Follow Up) data collection in spring 1995. In close co-operation with Statistics

Sweden, ETF has since its start in 1961 followed up nationally representative

samples, each comprising approximately 10,000, 10- and 13-year-old pupils born in

1948, 1953, 1967, 1972, 1977, 1982, 1987 and 1992 (Harnqvist, 2000). The pupils

have answered the questionnaire in their classrooms during school hours with the

help of their teachers.

This pupil questionnaire was translated into Dutch and presented to Dutch pupils

in spring 1998. Like their Swedish peers they answered the questionnaire in their

classrooms during regular school hours. The Dutch sample comprised 787 13-year-

old pupils in the bridge class (the first grade) of secondary education, located in

46 J. Giota

different cities in the Netherlands (Amsterdam, Rotterdam and smaller cities) and

different educational programmes. The Dutch sample may thus be considered as

representative in the sense that it involves educational programmes that give access

to all three different types of tertiary education (MAVO, HAVO and Athenaeum).

In order to examine whether Swedish and Dutch 13-year-old pupils have similar

or different goal orientations and goals for going to school and learning, the Dutch

pupil responses to the open-ended question ‘‘Why do all children in the Netherlands

go to school?’’ (Write your own reasons), included in the Dutch pupil questionnaire,

were analysed by independent Dutch raters according to the procedure employed by

Giota (2001) in the Swedish study. Asking 13-year-old pupils to give their own

reasons as to why all children in the Netherlands go to school was expected to result

in statements reflecting their beliefs about the socio-economic and sociocultural

features of Dutch society in which school and education is embedded. These features

are assumed to influence the decisions that pupils have to make with respect to their

own future goals and their actions to reach these goals.

The total number of Dutch pupils who answered the open-ended question is 717

or 91% compared with 7,391 or 97% of the Swedish sample. The first analysis

involved the identification of themes—or subgoals (Ford, 1992)—considered as

characteristic for each of the eight goal orientations identified among the Swedish

pupils. These themes were in a data file (SPSS version 12.01 for Windows) as

numerical variables. The second analysis involved the categorisation of the identified

themes into one of the eight different goal orientations. The interrater reliability for

the identification and content analysis of themes for the responses of the Swedish

pupils reached .90 (Giota, 2001), while for the responses of the Dutch pupils the

interrater reliability was .86. These analyses also revealed that among Dutch pupils

the eight different types of goal orientations towards school and learning could be

identified. As can be seen in Figure 1, the distribution of the orientations within the

two populations is different, however.

In order to examine whether the differences in the distribution of pupils’ goal

orientations may be due to differences in the way they perceive their educational

systems and the involved educational practices, Dutch and Swedish pupils will be

compared with respect to their perceptions of a variety of educational practices they

are exposed to. For more details concerning the other questions in the Swedish

questionnaire, involving pupils’ self-perceptions of competence in academic and

non-academic school subjects, personal interest in these subjects and affect in regard

to different evaluative situations that take place in school, see Giota (2006).

In the next sections a comparison of similarities and differences in goal

orientations over the Dutch and Swedish pupil groups will be presented. Note that

this content analysis involves only four of the eight identified goal orientations. The

reasons for going to school and learning, constituting these orientations, have been

considered as having their main source either in the pupil or outside the pupil and

being situated either in a here-and-now or a future time perspective. The fact that

each pupil could give multiple responses implied that she or he simultaneously gave


evidence of more than one goal orientation. Given the shortage of space here,

integrative goal orientations such as the Self-now+Self-future, involving learning/

intrinsic goals to be attained in the present at the same time as they are considered to

be means for the attainment of other learning/intrinsic goals situated in the future,

will not be analysed with respect to their content. The frequencies of themes or

subgoals, considered as characteristic for each goal orientation within the two

populations, are presented in Table 2.

Given the assumptions about multiple goals, hierarchies for multiple goals and the

coordination and alignment of multiple goals (Ford, 1992), but still the unclear

picture of how individuals actually construct hierarchies or align their goals, Table 2

is of particular interest as it shows how pupils holding integrative goal orientations,

such as the Self-now+Self-future, align (use or value) the same subgoals that appear

within two single goal orientations, such as the Self-now and Self-future. Ford

proposes that within any one situation, there might be a larger overall goal as well as

many subgoals or proximal goals that help individuals evaluate their progress and

maintain their overall direction to the larger target goal. In addition, Ford notes that

there may be goal conflict within these hierarchies. So, by analysing the use of

particular subgoals (the frequency of their appearance) or their importance (valence)

within each integrative vs. single goal orientation, we may, among other things,

obtain knowledge about the relative importance of different subgoals for the

individual’s overall development over time. For more details concerning these

assumptions within the Swedish sample see Giota (2001).

Figure 1. Frequency of Swedish and Dutch pupils within each of the eight goal orientations

48 J. Giota

Table 2. Frequency of themes or subgoals considered as characteristic for each of the seven goal orientations identified among the Dutch (n5717)

and Swedish sample (n57041)

% of themes or subgoals within each goal orientation

Sn

D

Sn

Swe

Sf

D

Sf

Swe

On

D

On

Swe

Pf

D

Pf

Swe

Sn+Sf

D

Sn+Sf

Swe

On+Pf

D

On+Pf

Swe

Int

D

Int

Swe

Th_1. School as a pleasant venture 5 1 5 .1 10 2

Th_2. School and learning because it is good for you 5 4 1 4 2 11

Th_3. Social relationship goals 3 2 11 3 5 2

Th_4. Going to school in order to acquire knowledge 78 80 78 85 35 48

Th_5. To acquire specific skills 4 29 4 25 1 26

Th_6. To acquire knowledge in specific subjects 7 29 5 18 1 23

Th_7. To acquire knowledge and skills in order to

manage everyday situations

3 4 1 4 5

Th_8. To develop one’s intellectual abilities 8 2 5 3 4

Th_9. To develop one’s social knowledge and skills 3 3 2 3 2

Th_10. To acquire knowledge and skills in order to

prepare for the future

17 14 9 10 11 5

Th_11. To get a certificate in order to acquire a

profession and/or a job

6 2 18 4 3 4

Th_12. To acquire vocational knowledge in order to

attain a profession in the future

36 10 37 11 16 5

Th_13. To acquire knowledge and skills or an

education in order to get a future job

40 69 23 74 14 32


education in order to get a job and money

8 7 12 5 5 3


education in order to get a job so you can be able to

support yourself and/or a family and live a good and

happy life

9 5 4 4 3 2

AD

utch

-Sw

edish

study

onpupil

motiv

ation

49

% of themes or subgoals within each goal orientation

Sn

D

Sn

Swe

Sf

D

Sf

Swe

On

D

On

Swe

Pf

D

Pf

Swe

Sn+Sf

D

Sn+Sf

Swe

On+Pf

D

On+Pf

Swe

Int

D

Int

Swe

Th_16. To become someone in the future 4 .1 4 .1 6 .1

Th_17. To become independent 2 16 4 10 4 6

Th_18. Economic, material, equality and democratic

reasons for the existence of school

16 64 11 38 5 25

Th_19. Learning for the well-being of society 6 7 3 32 1 9

Th_20. School not a pleasant venture 2 2 3 4 2 4

Th_21. Staying at home not fun either 11 1 3 3 6 4

Th_22. School and learning as a demand 27 16 17 15 17 12

Th_23. School and learning because it is required by

the law, teachers and/or society

54 41 64 44 37 17

Th_24. School and learning because of parents 6 2 6 1 17 7 7 4

Th_25. Going to school and learning in order to

prevent feared situations becoming reality

20 46 17 41 6 30

Th_26. Because you must acquire knowledge and

skills or an education

40 36 14 32 6 20

Th_27. Because you must acquire vocational

knowledge in order to attain a profession

8 6 8 1 2 1

Th_28. Because you must develop your intelligence 10 1 22 1 29 .1

Th_29. Because you must get a certificate 4 2 11 1 1 1

Th_30. Because you must get a job in the future 28 30 42 24 2 14

Th_31. Learning for the children’s own well-being as

well as for the well-being of society

16 19 6 22 1 8

Table 2. (Continued.)

50

J.

Giota

Results

Self-Now Goal Orientation

For both pupil groups going to school and learning is a pleasant venture and

something that children want to do because ‘‘school and learning is good for

children’’. Or as a Dutch pupil expressed it: ‘‘To achieve something and because it is

fun. School is for your own good’’. Dutch pupils refer to ‘‘going to school because it

is fun’’ more often than their Swedish peers, however (see Th_1 in Table 2). Both

groups emphasise the importance of going to school and learning, in general, but

Swedish pupils comment more often on the importance of acquiring particular skills

in school, such as reading, writing and arithmetic, and knowledge in particular

school subjects, which are necessary to manage everyday and here-and-now

situations (Th_5 and Th_6). The importance of learning one’s own language and

foreign languages is also emphasised in both countries. By making use of their

language competencies pupils can expand their social horizons and social

experiences by communicating, getting acquainted with and understanding other

people, both within and outside their own country. Swedish pupils emphasise the

importance of learning English more often than Dutch pupils who instead emphasise

the importance of learning languages in general. Or as a Dutch pupil expressed it:

‘‘To know a lot and speak languages so you can speak with foreign people’’. The

importance of learning social sciences is also more emphasised among Swedish

pupils. Moreover, going to school and learning in order to increase or develop ‘‘one’s

intelligence’’ and social knowledge in order to manage well in social interactions are

important goals in both countries. Or as Dutch pupils expressed it (Th_8 and Th_9):

To achieve something and not stay dumb.

To learn and know a little more about the world and people in order to understand and

care about others.

To learn how to socialise with other children and to act independently and how to read

and write.

Dutch pupils express a stronger trust in human capabilities and effort (the belief that

intelligence is totally determined by how hard each pupil tries and how high they aim

in school) than their Swedish peers. In both countries, however, going to school is

connected with the opportunity to develop relationships with peers, to meet friends

or make new friends (Th_3) but Swedish pupils also emphasise the opportunity to be

with teachers and other adults. Teachers are expected to be in school primarily to

teach pupils but also to help them to overcome different personal problems. Dutch

pupils do not refer to adults in school.

Self-Future Goal Orientation

For both pupil groups, going to school and learning is mainly a preparation for their

lives as adults (Th_10). In both countries all acquired knowledge, including social


knowledge, skills and competencies, is considered to be means for the attainment of

future-perspective goals. The most frequently mentioned future goals for both groups

are good professions and jobs (Th_13). To acquire vocational knowledge in order to

attain a good profession in the future is, however, far more often mentioned by Dutch

pupils (Th_12). Moreover, whereas Dutch pupils emphasise the importance of going to

school in order to get their certificate, Swedish pupils focus on the importance of

receiving high grades (Th_11). For Swedish pupils high grades makes it possible for

them to choose educational tracks at higher levels or the profession and job that they

would like to have in the future. No connection between acquiring a certificate and

making choices with respect to higher education is present in the Dutch pupil

responses. Or as a Dutch pupil expressed it: ‘‘It is smarter to study as far as you can.

That has advantages if you would be without a job. And with your certificate you have

more choice in jobs that pay well and especially the jobs you like’’ (Th_15).

In both countries, to have a job is connected to the opportunity to ‘‘earn a living,

get a family, take care of oneself and/or a family’’ and to ‘‘live a good, happy and

secure life’’. Besides financial security (Th_14), to earn money is connected to the

opportunity to obtain personal freedom and become independent from others (to

‘‘leave your parents’ home and live your own life’’). To become independent from

others is, however, far more often mentioned by Swedish pupils (Th_17). Or as

Dutch pupils expressed it:

Because then you learn something so you are able to work in the future and the money

you get makes sure that you can eat.

To find a good job that you like and to take care of your family.

If you do not do your exams you cannot find a good job. To earn money you need a job.

You cannot have a good life if you do not have a good job.

To earn good money in the future and a good job. Because then you can do more of the

things that you want to do.

In both countries, getting jobs in the future is also about becoming ‘‘someone’’

(Th_16). The meaning of becoming ‘‘someone’’ for Dutch pupils seems, however, to

be determined by their capabilities as these are defined or evaluated by school. Or as


To become someone in the future and to make money.

To find a job that fits your capabilities in order to have a good future.

To get a good job in the future. Earlier I wanted to become a doctor but now I will wait a

little while. I want to see what I can do on the level they advise me.

Others-Now Goal Orientation

Going to school and learning is described as not a pleasant venture (Th_20) by either

group of pupils, but as a demand or ‘‘must’’ (Th_22). School is compulsory by law

and pupils in both countries have to go to school, otherwise they ‘‘will be punished’’

52 J. Giota

in some way. The compulsory nature of school as well as to ‘‘get punished’’ in terms

of ‘‘getting caught by the police’’ or ‘‘parents paying a fine’’ is far more often

emphasised by Dutch pupils, however (Th_23). Or as Dutch pupils expressed it:

‘‘Because you are obligated to. I don’t think anyone would go to school otherwise.

But then I wouldn’t get my certificate’’ and ‘‘They have to learn something and for

their parents and the school principal. If you don’t go someone from the school or

the police will come and get you and you have to pay money’’.

To go to school in order to have something to do during the day because staying at

home is not fun either is stressed by both pupil groups (Th_21). However, to go to

school because your friends are there is far more often mentioned by Dutch pupils.

Or, as a Dutch pupil expressed it: ‘‘Because it is compulsory, you have to learn at

school. And otherwise you would get bored all the time. You wouldn’t know what to

do without school. And because your friends are there’’. In contrast, Swedish pupils

express the belief that children go to school because school is some kind of ‘‘a

working place for children’’ as well as of teachers.

One reason why school is compulsory in the two countries is that the state wants to

give children the opportunity to acquire all necessary formal educational qualifica-

tions, which will enable them to enter higher levels of education and most

importantly to obtain good professions and employment in the future. Or expressed

differently, to enable every child to manage the demands of society and thus to

survive in their adult life.

The reason why the state is offering children this opportunity is because the Dutch

and Swedish societies are built on democratic principles and values that require that

all people, irrespective of social, cultural and/or economical background, have an

equally good life. In addition, both countries are perceived as being economically

prosperous and can afford to provide all children with schools and learning materials

of high standard. Here Swedish pupils express the belief that school is free for all

children because their parents pay taxes to the state for this purpose, whereas in the

Netherlands, pupils express the belief that parents have sufficient money to let their

children go to school.

Because all children are given opportunities to acquire an education and a job, the

two countries are expected to remain (or become) ‘‘well-educated’’, which in turn

guarantees their aim to ‘‘keep up with the development’’ of other countries or ‘‘cheat

other countries and earn a lot of money’’. The beliefs mentioned so far are much

more frequent among Swedish pupils (Th_18).

In both countries, the well-being of society is expressed by short-term and long-

term advantages of obligatory schooling (Th_19). Or, as a Dutch pupil expressed it:

‘‘Because you have to and if we didn’t go to school there would be a lot of poor

families and the country wouldn’t be wealthy either’’. The belief that children’s

education in school can be seen as fulfilling the state’s or society’s need for adaptive

and effectively functioning individuals within the existing (social) order is, however,

more frequent among Swedish pupils. While Dutch pupils more often emphasise

short-term societal advantages, Swedish pupils refer to long-term advantages such as


lower levels of violence, criminality and unemployment in the future. As Dutch

pupils expressed it: ‘‘Because they have to learn something there and don’t get bored

and won’t be a vandal’’ or ‘‘Because you have to, in other countries children don’t go

to school and end up on the streets if they don’t have a work at home and Holland

doesn’t want that’’.

Preventive-Future Goal Orientation

For both pupil groups, the absence of a proper education and the failure to get a job

in the future are connected to negative consequences such as ‘‘being a social

problem’’ or ‘‘having to live on the street and beg’’ as well as for society.

Consequently, both Dutch and Swedish pupils feel that they must go to school and

learn in order to prevent such feared situations becoming reality (Th_25). Or as


You must learn something otherwise you have to live on the streets.

If you don’t go to school you don’t have a future. You are obligated to go but even if you

didn’t have to a lot of children would still go. Me too, to have a chance to survive. And

you usually get friends in school. So you learn a lot in school, no matter if you like school

or not.

First of all you are obligated to go and of course you won’t get very far if you don’t go to

school. It is not smart to do nothing when you are in school because you will get into

trouble later.

Besides going to school and learning because of a self-defined demand (Th_26 to

Th_30), pupils in both countries go to school and learn because they are motivated

by what seems to be a social responsibility toward the state and a desire to comply

with the expectations, demands and duties set by the societies in which the children

live (Th_31). This desire may originate from the belief that pupils are not only

members of their present societies but also that ‘‘they will take over’’ and, hence,

‘‘will be the society’’ in the future. The latter belief is emphasised by the use of the

term ‘‘we’’, which is also one of the main characteristics for this orientation. Swedish

pupils far more often mention this aspect of social responsibility or the obligation

(the want) to achieve for the good of the future society. In the Netherlands they

stress the belief that if children are well educated and have good jobs, the state or

society—or even the world—will depend on them, rather than them being dependent

on society. Or as Dutch pupils expressed it:

Without us going to school the whole community will collapse. The Netherlands will get

poorer and will be nobody.

For the community in the future. If we don’t learn now the economy will get worse and

we (the Netherlands) would be a third world in twenty years.

We all have to make sure that it continues to go well for the Netherlands.

It is an obligation and it is good because otherwise the Netherlands would be a mess,

when you have a good education the world will depend on you.

54 J. Giota

Both groups emphasise the importance of acquiring social knowledge in school.

However, for Swedish pupils social knowledge involves the acquisition of ‘‘discipline,

responsibility for your own actions and good manners’’, competences which can also

be used as a means to satisfy different future requirements set by the state, whereas

for Dutch pupils acquiring social knowledge is expected to enable children to

function well as adult members of society. Or, as Dutch pupils expressed it:

Because you are obligated to go and to learn how to get along with society in the

future.

You have to learn something and to learn how to be able to function well in society when

you are grown up. You have to learn a profession to make a lot of money later. School is a

preparation for going to university.

In this goal orientation the beliefs and values of the Dutch and Swedish societies as

well as the parents with respect to children’s schooling seem to coincide with the

pupils’ own beliefs and values. Pupils holding this goal orientation identify

themselves with an authority (the state and/or the parents), which they believe

‘‘wants the best for them’’. Characteristic for both pupil groups is, however, their

willingness to make efforts to comply with the state’s and/or their parents’ wants or

demands with respect to their schooling (Th_24).

A Negative/critical Orientation

In spite of the very small number of Dutch pupils indicating this orientation (n53),

the negative and critical remarks characterising this general ‘‘avoidance’’ orientation

towards school and learning are also identified among Dutch pupils. Or, as they

expressed it:

Children have to go to school, but it is no fun at all, they could make it a lot more fun. I

hate that fucking school.

All children are forced to go. If it wasn’t for this I wouldn’t go. I like the atmosphere but I

hate the work at school and the homework.

Given the small number of pupils involved, this orientation is not included in the

statistical analyses to be presented in the next section.

Dutch and Swedish Pupils’ Perceptions of Aspects of the Educational Process

In this section a selection of closed-ended questions included in the Dutch and the

ETF Project’s pupil questionnaire will be analysed. Given the fact that these

questions differ with respect to their response alternatives, only questions with

identical response alternatives will be presented in Table 3.

As can be seen in Table 3, Dutch pupils indicate more often than their Swedish

peers that it is the teachers who talk during the biggest part of their lessons. Swedish


pupils indicate more often that they work in groups, however, while the majority of

Dutch pupils seldom or never work in groups. Dutch and Swedish pupils also differ

in the use of extra materials available in the schools. With respect to the frequency

with which pupils feel they are involved in the planning of teaching, both pupil

groups indicate that this is seldom or never the case. With respect to the frequency of

tests and homework the differences between Dutch and Swedish pupils are smaller.

For the frequency of homework and the time that pupils usually spend on doing

their homework the differences are considerable. Of the Dutch pupils, 73% indicated

that they have homework every day as compared to 44% of the Swedish pupils. This

finding relates directly to the amount of time Dutch and Swedish pupils spend on

leisure activities. While 40% of the Swedish pupils are able to participate in leisure

activities (sports, going out and so on) three or four times a week, only 10% of the

Dutch pupils are able to do so. In addition, when asked to indicate the time they

usually spend on doing their homework, 46% of the Swedish pupils indicate that

they spend approximately 1–2 hours, 36% 3–4 hours, 14% 5–6 hours and 5% of the

pupils 7 or more hours a week. In contrast, according to 46% of the Dutch pupils, 1

hour or less is spent on homework each day, while 60% of the pupils need about 2–3

hours and 4% 4–5 hours each day. With respect to their homework and how often

pupils feel they get help from parents (or others at home), 50% of the Dutch pupils

indicate that they get help from parents (or others at home) seldom or never,

contrasted with the 20% of the Swedish pupils. Approximately 25% of the Swedish

pupils say that they receive help with their homework every day, while this is the case

for only 5% of the Dutch pupils.

Table 3. Frequencies of Dutch and Swedish pupils’ perceptions of educational processes

Very often Often Some-times Seldom Never

D S D S D S D S D S

The teacher speaks to the class

during the biggest part of the

lesson

10 8 39 22 42 52 8 16 1

The pupils work in groups 3 6 5 22 38 50 47 21 7 2

The pupils work individually

on the same task

24 17 50 38 21 33 4 10 1 1

The pupils may get to know things

on their own by using books and

encyclopaedias in school

2 19 14 33 39 37 31 10 14 1

The pupils have achievement

tests or written tests on their

homework

24 22 42 38 23 33 8 6 4 1

The pupils participate in the

planning of the teaching

5 6 13 11 44 31 26 35 12 17

56 J. Giota

Conclusions and Discussion

Dutch and Swedish Pupils’ Goal Orientations, Goals and Means in the Educational

Setting

The findings of the present study suggest that 13-year-old Dutch and Swedish pupils

have similar reasons or goal orientations for going to school and learning. In spite of

the similarity in goal orientations in the two countries, and the similarity between the

different types of subgoals constituting each goal orientation, the use of subgoals (the

frequency of their appearance) or their importance (valence) within each orientation

is different. This finding is in line with research suggesting that while goal

orientations, based on cognitive processes (or mental actions such as planning,

rehearsing, organising, monitoring, making decisions, solving problems and

assessing progress) and motivational processes (individual preferences for certain

types of goals that provide impetus and direction to the physical actions) may be

culturally independent, the contents of these orientations are not (Oppenheimer,

1996).

In spite of the latter differences between the two countries, the similarity is striking

in the way Swedish and Dutch pupils express, articulate or reason about the same

subgoals for going to school and learning, as well as the way they combine different

subgoals within each goal orientation, or the means that are expected to lead to the

fulfilment of these subgoals. These findings are in line with research within action

theory showing that goals and means are conceptually valid across selves, cultures

and time. Other universalistic models have suggested that even though mean levels

vary across cultures, these findings do not indicate that the underlying factor

structures would be different (Malmberg, 1998). In the present study, differences in

mean levels are present within all goal orientations showing, for example, Dutch

Self-now oriented pupils to go to school and learn in order to develop their

intellectual abilities more often than their Swedish peers, but less often in order to

acquire specific skills. In other words, the structure of the different goal orientations

in both countries seems to be remarkably similar and thus supports the universality

stance of structural invariance across contexts.

In addition, the finding of the present study confirms, once again, research

findings within an interactionist and action theoretical approach to motivation,

showing that pupils are not only able but are also actually trying to attain a mixture of

different goals in school simultaneously (Ford, 1992; Giota, 2001; Wentzel, 1989;

see also Bliding, 2004; Dovemark, 2004).

Why Do Adolescents Develop the Goal Orientations, Goals, Means and Potential

Outcomes They Do in a Certain Context, at a Particular Time?

According to Hofstede’s five-dimensional model of cultural differences (2003),

Sweden is ranked as less individualistic, weaker in uncertainty avoidance and smaller

in power distance than the Netherlands. As concerns the fifth dimension, termed


‘‘short-term versus long-term orientation’’, Sweden is in the middle while the

Netherlands scored higher. According to the individualism dimension, children in

individualistic countries are encouraged to find their own ‘‘self’’ and explore their

own talents and abilities. Expressed differently, they are encouraged to give priority

to their personal goals over the goals of their in-groups and to behave primarily on

the basis of their attitudes and self-needs rather than the norms and duties of their in-

groups. In terms of organisational life, in highly individualistic countries, individuals

will prefer work settings in which they can make their own decisions and jobs that

will leave sufficient time for personal or family activities. In short, autonomy, variety,

pleasure and individual financial security are sought in the system.

Given the interpretation that these national values or norms can be viewed as

general guides or standards of behaviour, the Dutch pupils’ greater emphasis on the

importance of learning in school in order to increase intellectual abilities, develop

specific skills and individualistic competencies (e.g., ambition and independence,

valued by employers in an individualistic-oriented labour market), get a certificate

and a well-paid job with challenging tasks, could be an indication of how they

represent for themselves the amount of individualism and collectivism in their

country and their intention to act according to this representation.

The Swedish pupils’ greater emphasis on learning in school in order to prevent

feared situations becoming reality, referring almost exclusively to social failure as a

result of not being able to get a job in the future, could be an indication of how they

represent for themselves changes in the sociocultural and socio-economic systems

and the possibilities of exerting control over their environment. This finding could

also be an indication of a possibly ongoing shift towards a greater amount of

individualism in the Swedish society per se, causing an uncertainty among its

population.

The latter hypothesis is strengthened by the greater amount of values or norms

characterising a strong uncertainty avoidance dimension expressed in the Swedish

pupil responses to the open-ended question. This refers to the degree to which a

society prefers predictability, security and stability. In countries with high scores on

this index, the uncertainty inherent in life is felt as a continuous threat that must be

fought or prevented and there is an emotional need for rules and regulations, written

and unwritten. This experienced uncertainty, in turn, results in an inner urge to work

hard in order to make sure that one will ‘‘have a good, happy and secure life’’.

In Educational Settings

According to Hofstede (2003) the purpose of education in individualistic countries is

to teach children how to learn, while in a collectivistic culture the purpose is to

acquire the customs and norms of the society in order to function better as an in-

group member and to teach children how to do this. The latter learning tends to be

given to the young only in the hopes of passing on traditions important to

perpetuation of the society. The assumption that the purpose of education serves a

58 J. Giota

different meaning for collectivist than for individualist cultures may explain why

Swedish pupils more often mention particular types of knowledge and skills, which

can be used for long-term, but most importantly short-term, purposes, and

emphasise the concrete or practical use for the different types of knowledge and

skills to be acquired in school. That is, the importance of learning how to do things in

school in order to manage everyday situations and the lower long-term orientation

identified among the Swedish pupils.

The completion of a degree yields a different significance for individualists and

collectivists as well. Hofstede (2003) has revealed that whereas education

and diplomas in individualistic countries is a way of improving one’s economic worth

and self-respect based on ability and competence, or as a Dutch pupil expressed it:

‘‘becoming someone in society if you are smart and self-confident’’, collectivists may

use education and diplomas as a method for gaining prestige in one’s social

environment and entry to higher-status groups. That is, ‘‘a ticket to a ride’’, or as a

Swedish pupil expressed it:

Because you have to have an education if you want to have a good job. Otherwise you get

a bad job as a cleaner, a bin-man or something like that, which is badly paid. You must

be something worthwhile.

According to Triandis (2001), a culture with a vertical attitude toward individualism

or collectivism has a tendency to stress hierarchy and inequality or high power distance

and authority ranking. Sweden is a culture with a more horizontal attitude towards

collectivism and thus has a tendency to stress equal rights and equality or low power

distance. In horizontal collectivists cultures, everyone is of the same self, on an equal

basis, and a ‘‘we’’ consciousness holds sway. In the present study, the assumptions

about horizontal collectivists’ cultures may explain the Swedish pupils’ greater

emphasis on equality and democratic reasons for the existence of school and their

willingness to achieve in school for the well-being of society.

The willingness to achieve for the well-being of society and the pursuit of short- as

well as long-term social responsibility goals is central to the Others-now+Preventive-

future goal orientation. In Sweden, social responsibility goals refer to the realisation

of goals, means and outcomes set by the Swedish society, i.e. as these are

conceptualised by the pupils holding this orientation and not as they are per se. Or as

a Swedish pupil expressed it:

School is compulsory in Sweden because people have to become skilful and successful in

later occupations; if all people become skilful, then we will have better companies, and

then we wouldn’t need to pay as much unemployment benefit as we do now either.

In the Netherlands, the social goals within this orientation are connected more to

the individual and do not seem to be limited by any ‘‘strict’’ norms, values or social

obligations and responsibilities. That is, the emphasis is on developing social

knowledge, skills and competencies which can promote the development of a social


action competence and relationships between the pupils and others rather than on

the development of social responsibility goals (discipline, good manners), set by

society in its pursuit to promote its own development. In conformity with the

presented ideas about ‘‘loose’’ and ‘‘strict’’ norms in complex and less complex

cultures, one may conclude that in the Netherlands the statements within the

Others-now+Preventive-future goal orientation reflect a higher perceived ‘‘degree of

freedom’’ for the young people, while the opposite may be true for Sweden where the

youngsters express a higher level of control expectations for choosing pathways to

adulthood.

The most obvious similarities between the two countries, as regards the contents

of the themes or subgoals, are present within the Self-now goal orientation, which is

not a surprise. This orientation is primarily based on intrinsic motives or goals for

going to school and learning, which are related to internal processes of self-

actualisation and development, whereas the Others-now+Preventive-future goal

orientation is based on different types of extrinsically generated motives or goals

expressing different levels of conformity to environmental pressures or features. It is

the extrinsic motives or goals, in particular, which will be affected by societal norms,

values and customs.

Also of interest is the obtained finding that none of the reasons that have been

given for going to school and learning could be identified as ‘‘typically’’ Dutch or

Swedish in spite of the extensive efforts to discern themes or subgoals that could be

unique to each country. Consequently, in the present study it is suggested that it is

the differences in emphasis of particular themes or subgoals, i.e. the valence that

Dutch and Swedish pupils attach to the goals, means and outcomes as expressed in

the statements to the open-ended question in both countries, the use of future

perspectives, i.e. the frequency of their appearance, and so on rather than the

contents of motives or goals per se, which reflect differences in the Dutch and

Swedish societies.

This finding may not be surprising given the similarities between the Dutch and

Swedish societies. Consequently, in the course of their development children in both

countries will be subject to similar experiences. The differences we observed and

which are related to the educational practice may, thus, be marginal in comparison

with those experiences, i.e. the normative expectations regarding developmental

tasks such as getting started in an occupation or taking civic responsibility and values

such as being capable, independent and polite, emphasised in both countries, that

are really important in the formation of the children’s motivation for going to school

and learning.

Moreover, the number of Self-now as well as Negative/critical-oriented pupils in

the Dutch sample was smaller than in the Swedish sample. As suggested already, one

explanation for this finding may be that scholastic aptitude tests and evaluations of

the teachers in the final grade of elementary school and prior to their entrance into

secondary education within the Dutch educational system serve as a filter. That is,

when children are not (yet) considered capable of successfully following secondary

60 J. Giota

education as offered in school communities, they are advised to do an additional year

of preparatory studies at special schools for that purpose or to select another type of

continuing education. In other words, contrary to the Swedish educational system

(upper secondary education), entrance into secondary education in the Dutch

system is not totally free. For that reason, it seems tenable to assume that within

Dutch secondary education fewer children will be present for which this level of

education is not suited to their abilities (children with different learning problems),

or who are not motivated or able to function (yet) within a strict system of demands

involved in education and learning.

Consequently, considering the fact that no closer investigation of the relation

between objective structure and subjective processes could be conducted, the

present study has no answer to the following question. That is, whether it is actual

differences between the two educational systems, the socio-economic and the

sociocultural contexts in which these systems are embedded, the content of the

education in these countries, the educational practices and the classroom climate or

pupils’ experiences of national norms, values, goals, means and outcomes and the

educational systems and practices, that are most important in the formation of the

children’s motivation for going to school and learning.

However, by means of this study, I was able to show that there are experiences

which may be important in the formation of pupils’ motivation and which should be

assessed more fully in relation to specific aspects of the cultural milieu in which

children are acting.

Acknowledgements

The work reported here was financed by the Swedish Research Council (VR). I also

would like to express my gratitude to Professor Louis Oppenheimer and the

Department of Developmental Psychology, Amsterdam University, who helped me

to collect data in the Netherlands and made this study possible.

References

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms, goals, structures and student motivation. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 84, 261–271.

Bliding, M. (2004). Inneslutandets och uteslutandets praktik. En studie av barns relationsarbete i skolan.

Avhandling, Goteborg Studies in Educational Sciences 214. Goteborg, Sweden: Acta

Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and

research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood Press.

Dovemark, M. (2004). Ansvar – flexibilitet – valfrihet. En etnografisk studie om en skola i forandring.

Avhandling, Goteborg Studies in Educational Sciences 223. Goteborg, Sweden: Acta

Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Ford, M. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agency beliefs. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.


Giota, J. (2001). Adolescents’ perceptions of school and reasons for learning. Dissertation, Goteborg

Studies in Educational Sciences 147. Goteborg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Giota, J. (2006). Why am I in School? Relationships between adolescents’ goal-orientations,

academic achievement, and self-evaluations. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50,

441–461.

Hofstede, G. (2003). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions and

organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Harnqvist, K. (2000). Evaluation through follow-up: A longitudinal program for studying

education and career development. In C.-G. Janson (Ed.), Seven Swedish longitudinal studies in

the behavioural sciences. Stockholm: FRN.

Malmberg, L.-E. (1998). Education and students’ future-orientation: Adolescents’ future preparation,

future goals and self-evaluation in educational contexts in Finland and Polen. Dissertation, Abo

Akademi University, Vasa, Finland.

Niemivirta, M. (1998). Individual differences in motivational and cognitive factors affecting self-

regulated learning: A pattern-oriented approach. In P. Nenniger, R. S. Jager, A. Frey, &

M. Wosnitza (Eds.), Advances in motivation (pp. 23–42). Landau, Germany: Verlag

Empirische Padagogik.

Oppenheimer, L. (1996). Developmental processes in socio-cultural contexts: The need for

multidisciplinary cooperation. The Polish Quarterly of Developmental Psychology, 2, 169–180.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education. Theory, research, and applications.

Columbus, OH: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc.

Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism-collectivism and personality. Journal of Personality, 69(6),

118–128.

Wentzel, K. R. (1989). Adolescent classroom goal, standards for performance, and academic

achievement: An interactionist perspective on primary prevention. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 59, 830–841.

62 J. Giota

Adolescents' Goal Orientations in Society and the Educational Context: A Dutch‐Swedish comparative...

Documents

Transcript of Adolescents' Goal Orientations in Society and the Educational Context: A Dutch‐Swedish comparative...