Achievement Goal Theory: Where It Came From and Where It Is Going

• In Event: Motivation Theory Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: Reflections of Founders and Descendants

Abstract

Achievement goals are defined as the competence-related purposes that individuals strive to achieve in achievement contexts, such as school (Elliot, 2005; Maehr & Midgley, 1996). Mastery goals (a.k.a. learning goals) represent a concern with developing competence and skills (Ames, 1992; Meece, Blumenfeld & Hoyle, 1988). Performance goals (a.k.a. ego or ability goals) represent a concern with demonstrating competence by appearing able or outperforming others and are usually evaluated using interpersonal norms (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Nicholls et al., 1990). Mastery and performance goals each have been divided into approach and avoidance components, with the approach component representing an outcome to be attained (e.g., mastering a concept, outperforming peers) and the avoidance component representing an outcome to be avoided (i.e., failing to learn the information, being outperformed by peers) (Elliot, 1997; Pintrich, 2000).
Research examining personal achievement goals has found a generally positive constellation of correlates with mastery-approach goals, a negative pattern of motivational beliefs and behaviors associated with performance-avoidance and mastery-avoidance goals, and a mixed (and controversial) pattern of results associated with performance-approach goals (see Elliot, 2005 and Hulleman & Senko, 2010 for reviews). Mastery goals are positively correlated with interest and deep cognitive processing whereas the opposite is true when pursuing avoidance goals. Interestingly, researchers have often failed to find a correlation between mastery-approach goals and achievement, but have often found a positive association between achievement and performance-approach goals (Hulleman & Senko, 2010). This pattern of results has led to debate regarding the relative merits, and potential costs, of pursuing mastery or performance goals in achievement contexts (e.g., Harackiewicz et al., 2002; Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton, 2001).
Since the theory’s inception, researchers have examined how the achievement goals that are salient in different achievement contexts, known as achievement goal structures, affect motivation and achievement (e.g., Ames, 1992; Ames & Archer, 1988). This emphasis on the achievement context has created the assumption that goal theory has direct implications for classroom policies and practices, and has contributed to the theory’s appeal. Indeed, there is a direct link between achievement goal theory and approaches to student motivation that are currently popular, such as the work on growth mindsets (Dweck, 2006). Efforts to demonstrate the existence of classroom and school goal structures and their influence on student motivation and achievement however, have often produced ambiguous results (Urdan, 2010).
In this presentation, I will discuss how achievement goal theory emerged in the 1980s, building upon from several social-cognitive theories of motivation (e.g., attribution theory, theories of self, needs theories, goal setting theory). Then I will describe how, over the 30-year history of the theory, the emphasis has shifted from a framework for classroom and school change to an emphasis on definitional and measurement clarity. I will conclude with speculation about the future direction of achievement goal research. For example, future research should more clearly identify how the learning environment affects the achievement goals that students pursue. In addition, future research aimed at understanding the variations of goal functioning for different students is essential.

Author

• Tim Urdan, Santa Clara University