# data[].attributes.body
Researcher Stance: Moderate
The researchers did not really explain their personal relation to the project or the field of education in general, but they presented good rationales for exploring the issue, explaining the gap in the existing literature. They demonstrated 'goal theory' as a useful interpretive lens.

Thick Description: Strong
Descriptions provided in the 'Results' section clearly demonstrated the observations of the researchers. They included many quotes from the students interviewed/observed and descriptions of behaviors observed in and out of classroom settings. We get a good sense of the kind of data that was collected, and a good sense of student though processes.

Sample & Sampling: Moderate
The description of the sample used gave me a good sense of the size of the study and its demographics. However, the rationale for selecting this cross-section of Australian students was not provided.

Triangulation: Strong
Over 50 studies were cited, and their relations to the present study were clearly explained. Other studies have emphasized the importance of mastery, performance and avoidance goals, while some pointed to the possible importance of social goals. This study confirms that avoidance goals are maladaptive, while suggesting that social goals may determine mastery/performance goals.

# data[].attributes.headline
Dependability of Data Analysis: Moderate

# data[].attributes.subject
Dependability of Data Analysis: Moderate

# data[].attributes.body
Checks for Accuracy: Weak
I did not notice any reference to any review or audit of this study.

Transforming Data into Themes: Moderate
I appreciated that this study discussed data analysis in a simple, comprehensible way. The authors do not explicitly explain how data points were turned into the 4 resulting 'goal orientations', but they provide a good gist.

Reflection: Strong
The researchers describe a compelling reflection process that involved reflection during, and after the study. The 'inductive' research strategy required the researchers to shape their research methods and questions in response to themes identified at every stage of data collection. The researchers were constantly reflecting on themes identified at every stage, and shaping their ongoing methods in response. The study concludes with compelling reflections on the overall significance of the study i.e. identifying social goals as powerful motivators.

Engagement: Strong
The researchers describe various methods of interview and observation that were used to collect data, and the sample size was large enough to suggest that the conclusions of the research are compelling. It seems like a great deal of data was collected.

# data[].attributes.body
Thick Description: Strong
(see above)

Sampling: Moderate
(see above)

Engagement: Strong
(see above)

# data[].attributes.body
The data included both interviews (conversational, semistructured and structured) and observations. The interviews were analyzed using inductive content analysis aka “Protocol analysis”. This involved inducing coherent operational categories from students’ coded responses and from researchers coded observations. This meant initially assessing the “plain meaning” of students statements and then examining contexts in which the statements were made. The contexts of the interviews included the location of the interview and the relationship to other statements made in the interviews.

# data[].attributes.body
Was a specific coding strategy mentioned? The interviews and observations were taped and transcribed. For example cod CO:01:02:33 refers to conversation interview 1, page 2, line 33. The data collected was broken down into 4 types of goals: work avoidance (wanting to achieve academically with minimal effort), social affiliation (wanting to achieve to enhance a sense of belonging to a certain group), social responsibility (wanting to achieve out of a sense of responsibility for others) and social concern (wanting to achieve to help others) .

# data[].attributes.headline
Did the researcher use any metaphors? visual representations? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Did the researcher use any metaphors? visual representations? 

# data[].attributes.body
There were no visual representations but they used lot of metaphors for different work avoidance situations.

# data[].attributes.headline
5. What were the results/conclusions? Themes and patterns uncovered? Theories generated? Social critique exposed? Conceptual categories fulfilled?

# data[].attributes.subject
5. What were the results/conclusions? Themes and patterns uncovered? Theories generated? Social critique exposed? Conceptual categories fulfilled?

# data[].attributes.body
The biggest take away from this study is that they were able to identify specific components of the student’s social and work avoidance goals, which was not done prior to the research. It gives the next researchers a better starting point. They discovered a range of social purposes that coincide with a student’s work avoidance or achievement. The results are proven useful for looking at student’s motivations with regards to social affiliation, social responsibility, and social concern goals in academic situations.

# data[].attributes.headline
How was analysis checked for dependability of analysis? (see p. 53)

# data[].attributes.subject
How was analysis checked for dependability of analysis? (see p. 53)

# data[].attributes.body
This study used triangulation to help narrow down information from the interviews and observations. They gave a detailed example of how this helped create more accurate data on page 37 under the subtitle “Analyses”.

# data[].attributes.body
The research questions themselves aren't very explicit, but the inferred questions ask what goals students hold towards their academic achievement and what are the motivations for those goals.

# data[].attributes.headline
I noticed that Kelly answered the questions for this section under the heading "Data Collection" so I will instead answer here for the data collection questions. 

# data[].attributes.subject
I noticed that Kelly answered the questions for this section under the heading "Data Collection" so I will instead answer here for the data collection questions. 

# data[].attributes.body
There were two types of data collection: interviews and observations.
Interviews- conversational, semistructured, and structured interviews.
Observations- structured classroom schedules and unstructured field notes.

# data[].attributes.headline
How and where were the data collected? Over what period of time? 

# data[].attributes.subject
How and where were the data collected? Over what period of time? 

# data[].attributes.body
Data were collected from 86 middle school students in Sydney, Australia. They conducted 114 interviews and 24 structured observation periods, each observation period lasting 30-40 minutes.

# data[].attributes.headline
How were data recorded and checked for trustworthiness (credibility of data collection)? 

# data[].attributes.subject
How were data recorded and checked for trustworthiness (credibility of data collection)? 

# data[].attributes.body
Interviews were analyzed using inductive content analysis. This means the protocol analyses involved inducing coherent operational categories from students' coded responses and from researchers' coded observations. The initial responses were triangulated against several data sources to assess its overall meaning.
The study specifically references to the use of triangulation of multiple data sources and detailed description of coding strategies, suggests a strong level of trustworthiness.

# data[].attributes.body
In this study, researchers based their work on the theory that "goals are defined as cognitive representations of the different purposes students may adopt for their learning in achievement situations." In other words, the study focuses on how students define the reasons for - and thus purpose in - completing their work.
This can be approached using a "why" question, asked by students: "Why am I doing this [academic] task?"

I found this study to be accessible, trustworthy, and thorough, and appreciated the focus on student perspectives.

# data[].attributes.body
This section gave a the study a focused direction and built my trust by defining terms to be used moving forward. Researchers in this study focused on two answers to the student question of purpose about a given assignment. According to the theory presented here, students approach this question from two vantage points, or goal orientations:

- Mastery goal orientation: Students with this goal orientation wish to improve their levels of competence and understanding through assigned work. Through my interpretation, this indicates an intrinsic motivation that is satisfied when the student approves of their own work.

- Performance goal orientation: This goal orientation relies on external standards to validate their success such as grades, evaluations of relative ability, self-worth (as defined by external feedback, by perceived experts?), and gaining favorable judgement from others. Essentially, this group relies on external approval to understand that they have achieved their goals.

# data[].attributes.body
These two independent, but related, orientations have come in and out of favor and back in again recently within the research community. Performance avoidance orientation (associated with "work avoidance goals") includes motivation to avoid engaging in academic tasks in order to minimize the effort required to complete a given task. According to the theory here, these orientations act separately from mastery and performance goal orientations, but inform them and can affect student work. This section is thorough and sets up a strong framework for understanding the study and terminology used.

# data[].attributes.body
Social goals involve social reasons for wanting to achieve or not achieve academically. The writers of this study acknowledge that these influences have not been extensively researched. According to the literature, several orientations, including social solidarity goals, social approval, social compliance, and social concern goals, may play significant roles in student academic performance when paired with mastery or performance orientations. However, there have not been enough studies  to make a strong and specific case for these theories. This section, similar to those that follow, increased my trust in the study by acknowledging gaps in the research.

# data[].attributes.body
The writers of this study address the issue with data that has arisen from potentially inaccurate representations of students' motivational orientations due to a theoretical approach rather than one that includes the "actual words of students to develop descriptions of [their] social and work avoidance goals, including their behavioral, affective, and cognitive components." This section built my trust in the study, as researchers were honest about what they knew they did not know.

# data[].attributes.body
This study is founded upon the theory that students may approach their academic work from a variety of academic and social motivational orientations, and that information from the students themselves is needed to substantiate the claims that have been made by researchers in the past and build a strong foundation for future study. I found this conceptual framework to be in-depth, accessibly written, and focused.

# data[].attributes.body
This study is a combination of methods. It is a mixed method study involving interviews and observation. The interviews were broken into 3 types: conversational,
where the researchers asked open ended questions; semistructured interviews; and structured interviews, where students selected a pre-written statement that applies to their situation.

# data[].attributes.headline
How well does the design match the research question?

# data[].attributes.subject
How well does the design match the research question?

# data[].attributes.body
I think the design matches the the research question fairly well. The researchers' question asks what are the students' motivation towards academic achievement and this was asked with the open ended questions and structured interview.

# data[].attributes.headline
What type of study was it? Which data design was more dominant?

# data[].attributes.subject
What type of study was it? Which data design was more dominant?

# data[].attributes.body
Phenomenology seems to be the more dominant method of data. The study included a lot more interviews than observations.

# data[].attributes.body
Good work on this section, this is an in-depth summary. I can see that the authors did a very good job getting you to define the key concepts of goal theory and gain you trust as a reader. In your small group discussions were you able to focus on what is most important to write about? The goal of the critique is to write a paper of 750 - 850 words. You have detailed all of the points, for the paper use your writing summary strategies to represent the essence of the critique.

# data[].attributes.body
Good summary about this study, it is a phenomenology, with a little extra.

# data[].attributes.body
You have a very detailed description of the data collection, for the critique the goal is to summarize by using examples of evidence from the article.

# data[].attributes.body
Very good summary of the procedures for data analysis. For the paper, you may want to mention the observations in the data collection section, and focus on the interview analysis in this section. What were some of the findings of the study?

# data[].attributes.body
You used the new rubric very well, and provides specific evidence for each of the three criteria and their indicators. For the written paper how could you condense and summarize this section?

# data[].attributes.headline
The participants of this study included 86 middle school students (ages 12 to 15) across two elementary and four secondary schools in the greater metropolitan area of Sydney, Australia. (p. 36).  The ratio of female to male participants was skewed towards female (48:38) with the majority of students being Anglo-Australian.  Other than the researchers hailing from University of Western Sydney, it is not explicitly explained why the focus was on the Sydney area, nor why the students sampled were middle and high school students versus younger grades.  One might surmise that older students could better articulate their experiences during interviews and in written surveys or be overhead during higher level interactive exchanges better than younger students during field observations.  Indeed, the researchers selected a subset of their student population for more structured interviews based on responses they perceived as ‘particularly detailed or insightful.’ (p. 37).   

# data[].attributes.subject
The participants of this study included 86 middle school students (ages 12 to 15) across two elementary and four secondary schools in the greater metropolitan area of Sydney, Australia. (p. 36).  The ratio of female to male participants was skewed towards female (48:38) with the majority of students being Anglo-Australian.  Other than the researchers hailing from University of Western Sydney, it is not explicitly explained why the focus was on the Sydney area, nor why the students sampled were middle and high school students versus younger grades.  One might surmise that older students could better articulate their experiences during interviews and in written surveys or be overhead during higher level interactive exchanges better than younger students during field observations.  Indeed, the researchers selected a subset of their student population for more structured interviews based on responses they perceived as ‘particularly detailed or insightful.’ (p. 37).   

# data[].attributes.body
As mentioned, the interviews were divided into three categories: conversational, semistructured and structured.  While the majority of the 86 students sampled (i.e. 64) were recorded into conversational interviews, a smaller subset participated in the semistructured and subset of those students were involved in structured interviews such that ‘there was a core group of 8 students who participated in all three types of interviews.’ (p. 37).  I do not believe the authors did a satisfactory job delineating why some students were included in all three types of interviews other than to note that some students had ‘particularly detailed or insightful’ responses.  It would be helpful to understand their operational term of ‘detailed and/or insightful.’