Abstract:

The Audience Response System (ARS) literature states that the visible participation ensures the non-traceability of responses among peers, guaranteeing protection of self-image in the event of error in non-certificative assessments. However, the literature does not refer to a known theoretical framework to which this theory can be linked: the theory of achievement goals. The so-called performance-avoid described by Elliott and McGregor (2001) represents the negative valence of the performance orientation while the positive valence (performance prove) consists of demonstrating one's performance to others. This extrinsic orientation based on negative competitive interactions (Deutsch, 1949) is opposed to an orientation of mastery, of autonomous development of one's skills. However, it is equally divided into a positive valence (mastery prove) consisting of developing self-control, independently of mistakes made, and a negative valence (mastery avoid) showing a fear of not developing this control.
This paper proposes to explore if the achievement goals explain different identification modalities. In particular, we test three identification modalities. Two of them, patronymic traceable and pseudonymic non-traceable identifications, are imposed on students. The third modality, self-determined identification is far less controllable.

The following research questions will be considered and explored through and empirical analysis based on data collected using an ARS in a first year Bachelor course:
- Does the literature, by invoking in students only the avoidance performance orientation, invalidate the achievement goal theory that identifies four achievement goals?
- Given the plurality of achievement goals, is the pseudonymic identification modality the preferred modality of all students?
- As for the students who prefer patronymic identification, do they seek to demonstrate their performance to others by making it traceable as we assume?

The analysis will be carried out using decision trees, a learning technique for solving classification and forecasting problems. The objective is to describe the choice of identification made by the students based on their achievement goals. In particular, we want to understand whether, as the literature states, anonymity or the possibility of being recognized is chosen by different types of students.

Keywords:

The theory of achievement goals, learning and teaching analytics, Audience Response Systems, decision trees.