Achievement Goal Theory

Contributor: Sarah A. Chauncey, School of Information Studies Syracuse University

VARIABLES

Among the variables which may be considered are those that focus on:

Mastery goals - understanding of concepts and content, and application to tasks - learning, task-involved, mastery goals, approach and avoidance performance goals, work avoidant, academic alienation
Performance relative to others - performance, relative ability, ego-involved
Outcomes - goals, attributions, self-efficacy, levels of cognitive engagement, self-regulation, affect, interest, persistence, choice behaviors.

* Note 1: "In terms of the use of dichotomies, goal theory has traditionally viewed mastery and performance goals in opposition to one another. However, the empirical results from correlational studies with survey data have found that mastery and performance goals may be negatively correlated, uncorrelated, or even positively correlated." (Pintrich, 2000: 98).* Note 2: "The field of motivational research has progressed to the point where there are clear and distinct constructs that have differential relations with one another and with achievement outcomes like choice, persistence, and behavior. These different constructs like goals, efficacy, attributions, and interest can and should be used as distinct ‘‘independent’’ or moderator variables as well as distinct mediator and dependent variables in our research. The fact that they might show consistent relations to each other does not preclude us from understanding how they might operate additively or multiplicatively in achievement dynamics. This perspective is not only important for theoretical reasons, but also for practical pedagogical ones, as we have come to understand that students are not just ‘‘motivated’’ or ‘‘unmotivated’’ in terms of some general quantity, but that in fact there are important qualitative differences in how students are motivated and these different qualities have a dramatic influence on learning and achievement. (Pintrich, 2000: 101).

DOMAINS: Psychology, Sports, Business, Education (Cognition)

DEVELOPERS

The following are names associated with early works on Achievement Goal Theory. They are mentioned in the References selected for this review. I have included citations for their early works below the Background section.

C. Ames; Diener; C, L, C. S.Dweck; E. S. Elliott; E. L. Leggett; M.L. Maehr; J.G. Nichols

BACKGROUND

"Traditional AGT, also referred to as normative goal theory (e.g. Harackiewicz et al., 2002), evolved from work (Diener & Dweck 1978; Dweck & Elliott, 1983) in which researchers sought to identify goals that lead to helpless and master patterns of responses to different achievement contexts (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). … In normative goal theory, two dichotomous achievement goals are identified: mastery and performance. Mastery goals have been labeled task-goals (Nicholls, 1984) and learning goals (Dweck & Leggett, 1988, Elliott and Dweck, 1988), whereas performance goals have been labeled ego-goals (Nicholls, 1984) and ability goals (Ames & Ames, 1984). Ames (1992) provides evidence for convergence among labels, enough to warrant adoption of the terms mastery and performance. Other researchers have followed suit (e.g. Barron & Harackiewicz., 1001; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1994, Pintrich, 2000b). Henceforth, the dichotomous goals included in AGT are referred to as mastery and performance." (Robustelli, 2006: 12) ... Robustelli's found in her review of the literature on research using normative goal theory that "...mastery goals demonstrated a consistent pattern of results relating to adaptive motivational patterns but not to increased achievement...performance goals yielded mixed results with educational outcomes; they were correlated with both maladaptive motivational patterns and increased achievement." (Robustelli, 2006: 17)

Revised Goal Theory

"Revised goal theory broke the competence-based mastery and performance goals into valenced dimensions, termed approach and avoid. Two new frameworks, the trichotomous and 2 x 2 framework, were devised to include the approach and avoid dimensions of performance and master goals. The trichotomous framework includes master, performance approach, and performance avoid goals, while the 2 x 2 framework completes the addition of approach and avoid dimensions by including master avoid goals." (Robustelli, 2006: 18)

According to Pintrich, "Achievement goals refer to the purposes or reasons an individual is pursuing an achievement task, most often operationalized in terms of academic learning tasks, although they can be applied to other achievement contexts such as athletic or business settings (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). ...achievement goal constructs represent an integrated and organized pattern of beliefs about, not just the general purposes or reasons for achievement, but also the standards or criteria (the ‘‘target’’) that will be used to judge successful performance (Urdan, 1997). ...In this sense, achievement goal constructs represent a combination of general goals or purposes like mastery or superiority (cf. these two goals in Ford’s 1992 taxonomy) as well as more specific criteria or targets by which performance will be judged [Sarah's emphasis] (e.g., progress or self-improvement vs. higher grades than others)." (Pintrich 2000: 93-94)

In her dissertation, Robustelli (2006) sites Grant, Dweck and Pintrich, noting that "achievement goals can be conceptualized differently and those conceptualizations dictate their assigned labels, underlying structures, level of analysis, and their respective contributions to AGT and achievement outcomes (Grant & Dweck, 2003; Pintrich, 2000a) (Robustelli, 2006: 11) She devotes Chapter 1 of her dissertation to terms and definitions and Chapter 2, literature review, to background on traditional AGT (normative) and Revised AGT. (Robustelli, 2006)

In the domain of education (cognition), achievement goals embody the goals of competence and mastery, and, when ego-involved, individuals may seek opportunities to demonstrate mastery to gain social recognition, to establish their superiority, to garner praise etc. According to Ames, Pintrich and others, mastery goals and performance goals may co-mingle as motivators. An Achievement Goal Theory definition of mastery tells us that, "A student who adopts a mastery goal towards learning is concerned most with the process of learning rather than the outcome. He or she considers learning to be a reward in and of itself. [in contrast] A student who adopts a performance approach goal towards learning is concerned most with the outcome of learning; in particular, he or she wants to demonstrate his or her competence to others " (Robustelli 2006, abstract) Mastery in the domain of education identifies what learners should know, understand, and be able to do.Thus, mastery requires that individuals understand concepts, have background knowledge (content), and have the ability to call on both on both to address tasks which require critical thinking, inference, induction, deduction, and application of knowledge -- to solve problems and address issues in novel situations.

"Researchers have labeled different sets of contrasting achievement goal orientations: learning versus performance (Elliot & Dweck, 1988; Miller, Behrens, Greene, & Newman, 1993); task versus ego (Fox, Goudes, Biddle, Duda, & Armstrong, 1994); deep, achieving, and surface approaches to achievement (Ainley, 1993); mastery versus performance (Ames & Archer, 1988; Cho, 1992); task mastery, ego-social, and work-avoidant (Meece et al., 1988; Meece & Holt, 1993; Nolen & Haladyna, 1990); and knowledge building, instructional, and task completion (Ng & Bereiter, 1991). The common rationale and criteria in defining those sets of contrasting achievement goal orientations is related to whether the approach or orientation perceives and values learning for other external goals. [Sarah's emphasis]" (Somuncuoglu & Yildirm, 1999: 267)

"Students' achievement goal orientations and learning strategy use are context-specific traits rather than general traits. Ames and Archer (1988) argued that (a) situational demands are the initiating factors that shape students' individual perceptions which, in turn, form up adoption of different goal orientations and (b) goal orientations finally lead into variance in students' use of learning strategies. These arguments are critical because they illustrate the dynamic interplay between social, motivational, and cognitive factors that influence learning behavior.[Sarah's emphasis]" (Somuncuoglu & Yildirm, 1999: 268)

REFERENCES

* Coded

* Lau, Shun; Liem, Arief Darmanegara; Nie, Youyan (2008).Task- and self-related pathways to deep learning:The mediating role of achievement goals, classroom attentiveness, and group participation. British Journal of Educational Psychology (2008), 78, 639–662 2008 The British Psychological Society The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
* Martin, Andrew J.; Dowson, Martin (2009). Interpersonal Relationships, Motivation, Engagement, and Achievement: Yields for Theory, Current Issues, and Educational Practice. Review of Educational Research 2009; 79; 327 DOI: 10.3102/0034654308325583 The online version of this article can be found at:http://rer.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/79/1/327
Meece, Judith L, Anderman, Eric M., Anderman, Lynley H. Classroom Goal Structure, Student Motivation, and Academic Achievement Annual Review of Psychology Vol. 57: 487-503 (Volume publication date January 2006)
First published online as a Review in Advance on August 9, 2005
Murphy, Karen, P. (2000) A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 3-53. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1019, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com.
Norwich, B. (2007). Handbook of competence and motivation. edited by andrew J. elliot, carol S. dweck, new york: Guilford press 2005, hbk £54 ISBN 1-59385-123-5. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 744.
Nicholls, J. G. 1989. The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
* Pintrich, Paul R. (2000). An Achievement Goal Theory Perspective on Issues in Motivation Terminology, Theory, and Research. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2000 Jan;25(1):92-104. Pintrich PR.The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
* Robustelli, Stacy L., PhD, (2006) There's more than one yellow brick road: Examining revised achievement goal theory and its efficacy in explaining teachers' goals, students' goals, and achievement. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. RUTGERS THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY - NEW BRUNSWICK, 2006, 0 pages; 3240264 Source: DAI-A 67/11, p. 4097, May 2007 Source Type: PhD Subjects: Educational psychology Publication Number: 3240264
* Somuncuoglu, Yesim, and Ali Yildirim. 1999. Relationship between achievement goal orientations and use of learning strategies. Journal of Educational Research 92 (5): 267-77.
* Xiang P, Lee A. (2002) Achievement goals, perceived motivational climate, and students' self-reported mastery behaviors. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2002 Mar;73(1):58-65. Department of Health and Kinesiology at Texas A & M University, College Station 77843-4243, USA. ping@hlkn.tamu.edu

References to some early articles on AGT:

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261-271. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261.
Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and adaptive motivation patterns: The role of the environment. In G. Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 161-176). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and classroom motivational climate. In J. Meece & D. Schunk (Eds.), Students' perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327-348). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-27
Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12.
Maehr, M. L. (1984). Meaning and motivation: Toward a theory of personal investment. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 1, pp. 39-73). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1991). Enhancing student motivation:A school-wide approach. Educational Psychologist, 26, 399-427.
Maehr, M. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1980). Culture and achievement motivation: A second look. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in cross cultural psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Conceptions of ability and achievement motivation. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 1, pp. 39-73). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nicholls, J. G., Patashnick, M., Cheung, P. G, Thorkildsen, T. A., & Lauer, J. M. (1989). Can achievement motivation theory succeed with only one conception of success? In F. Halisch & J. H. L. van der Bercken (Eds.), International perspectives OK achievement and task motivation (pp. 187-208). lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Google Sites

Report abuse