Goal Theory (Motivation)

Goal theory presents a comparatively recent conceptualisation of human motivation, albeit one that assimilates sundry variables previously posited as consequential by other theoretical frameworks (Schunk et al., 2008). This theory postulates the existence of significant interrelations amongst goals, expectations, attributions, conceptions of ability, motivational orientations, social and self-comparisons, and behaviours pertinent to academic attainment (Anderman & Wolters, 2006; Blumenfeld, 1992; Elliot, 2005; Maehr & Zusho, 2009; Pintrich, 2000a, 2000b; Pintrich & Zusho, 2002; Weiner, 1990).

Whilst goal theory evinces a degree of resemblance to goal-setting theory (Bandura, 1988; Locke & Latham, 1990, 2002), noteworthy distinctions obtain. Educational and developmental psychologists have formulated goal theory with the express purpose of elucidating and foretelling students’ attainment-related behaviours. Goal-setting theory, conversely, has drawn upon diverse disciplines, encompassing social psychology, management studies, and clinical and health psychology. A pivotal construct within goal theory resides in goal orientation, which denotes the purpose and focus underpinning an individual’s engagement in activities pertaining to academic achievement. Goal-setting theory is more particularly concerned with the manner in which goals are established and subsequently modified, and with the role of their inherent properties (e.g., specificity, difficulty, and proximity) in instigating and directing behaviour. Goal theory further considers a wide array of variables in the explication of goal-directed behaviour, some of which may not directly implicate goals (e.g., comparisons with others). Goal-setting theory typically attends to a more circumscribed set of influences upon behaviour.

A salient feature of goal theory resides in its accentuation of the manner in which disparate goal types may exert influence upon behaviour within achievement contexts (Anderman & Wolters, 2006; Elliot, 2005; Maehr & Zusho, 2009; Pintrich, 2003). Goal orientations may be conceived as the rationale underlying students' engagement in academic pursuits (Anderman, Austin, & Johnson, 2002). Divers orientations have been identified by researchers (Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Elliot & Thrash, 2001).

One discernable demarcation lies between learning and performance goals (Dweck, 1991, 1999, 2002; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Schunk, 1996; Schunk & Swartz, 1993a, 1993b). A learning goal pertains to the acquisition of knowledge, behaviour, skill, or strategy by students; conversely, a performance goal signifies the task that students are to consummate. Allied goal types referenced in academic literature, conceptually akin to learning goals, encompass mastery, task-involved, and task-focused goals (Ames & Archer, 1987; Butler, 1992; Meece, 1991; Nicholls, 1984); synonyms for performance goals include ego-involved and ability-focused goals. In the introductory scenario, Master Matt evinces a predilection for a learning goal orientation, whilst Master Jared inclines toward a performance-goal orientation.

Albeit these goal orientations may, at times, exhibit interrelation (e.g., learning engendering accelerated performance), the import of these goals for achievement behaviour and learning emanates from their consequential influence upon learners' convictions and cognitive processes (Pintrich, 2000a). Learning goals serve to concentrate students' attention upon processes and strategies conducive to the acquisition of capabilities and the amelioration of skills (Ames, 1992a). The task focus galvanises behaviour, whilst directing and sustaining attention upon task-related aspects crucial for learning. Students who pursue a learning goal are predisposed to perceive themselves as efficacious in its attainment, and are motivated to partake in task-appropriate activities (e.g., expending effort, persisting, and employing effective strategies; Bandura, 1986; Schunk, 1995). Self-efficacy is corroborated as they labour upon the task and appraise their advancement (Wentzel, 1992). Perceived advancement in skill acquisition and self-efficacy for continued learning sustain motivation and enhance skillful performance (Schunk, 1996). From a cognate vantage, students who espouse learning goals are apt to harbour a growth mindset, which reflects the conviction that one's qualities and abilities may be cultivated through diligent exertion (Dweck, 2006).

Conversely, performance goals direct attention toward the consummation of tasks. Such goals may not underscore the significance of processes and strategies fundamental to task completion, nor augment self-efficacy in the acquisition of skills (Schunk & Swartz, 1993a, 1993b).

. As students engage with tasks, they may neglect to juxtapose their present and past performances to ascertain progress. Performance goals may precipitate social comparisons of one's endeavours with those of others, with a view to determining progress. Social comparisons may engender diminished perceptions of ability amongst students who encounter difficulties, which, in turn, deleteriously impacts task motivation (Schunk, 1996). Students who pursue performance goals may subscribe to a fixed mindset, embodying the notion that one's qualities and abilities are circumscribed and immutable (Dweck, 2006).

Empirical inquiry lends credence to these notions. During science instruction, Meece, Blumenfeld, and Hoyle (1988) ascertained that students who accentuated task-mastery goals reported a more active cognitive engagement, characterised by self-regulatory activities (e.g., reviewing material not adequately comprehended). Intrinsic motivation (to be expounded upon later in this chapter) correlated positively with goals that emphasised learning and understanding.

Elliott and Dweck (1988) furnished children with feedback indicative of high or low ability, accompanied by instructions that underscored either a learning goal of competence development or a performance goal of manifesting competence. Children with learning-goal orientations endeavoured to augment competence by electing challenging tasks and employing problem-solving strategies. Children with performance-goal orientations, who received feedback indicative of high ability, persevered at the task, yet eschewed challenging tasks that might have entailed public errors. Children with performance-goal orientations, who received feedback indicative of low ability, selected easier tasks, exhibited a lack of perseverance in overcoming mistakes, and manifested negative affect.

During reading comprehension instruction, Schunk and Rice (1989) discovered that, amongst children with reading deficiencies, a process goal (e.g., learning to utilise a comprehension strategy) and a product (e.g., performance) goal (e.g., answering questions) engendered higher self-efficacy than did a general goal of productive engagement; however, the process and product conditions did not diverge. Schunk and Rice (1991) ascertained that the amalgamation of a process goal with feedback pertaining to progress toward the goal of learning to employ a strategy fostered self-efficacy and skill more effectively than did process and product goal conditions. These two studies suggest that, absent progress feedback, learning goals may not prove more efficacious than performance goals amongst students grappling with reading problems.

Schunk and Swartz (1993a, 1993b) furnished children in both mainstream and academically gifted classes with a process goal of learning to employ a paragraph-writing strategy, or a product (performance) goal of writing paragraphs. A moiety of the process-goal students periodically received feedback concerning their progress in learning the strategy. Schunk and Swartz observed that the process goal, coupled with feedback, was the most efficacious, and that the process goal, with or without feedback, engendered superior achievement outcomes than did the product goal.

Schunk (1996) provided fourth-form pupils with instruction and practice in fractions, accompanied by either a learning goal (e.g., learning how to solve problems) or a performance goal (e.g., solving problems). In the inaugural study, a moiety of the students in each goal condition evaluated their problem-solving capabilities. The learning goal, with or without self-evaluation, and the performance goal, with self-evaluation, engendered higher self-efficacy, skill, motivation, and task orientation than did the performance goal sans self-evaluation. In the subsequent study, all students in each goal condition evaluated their progress in skill acquisition. The learning goal engendered superior motivation and achievement outcomes than did the performance goal. These findings were replicated with college students by Schunk and Ertmer (1999), who ascertained that self-efficacy in the application of computer skills was enhanced when students received a process (learning) goal and an opportunity to evaluate their learning progress.

Investigators have scrutinised ancillary distinctions within the mastery–performance dichotomy (Elliot, 2005; Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Elliot & Thrash, 2001; Maehr & Zusho, 2009). Drawing upon the work of Carver and Scheier (1998), Linnenbrink and Pintrich (2002) proposed the categorisation of mastery and performance goals according to whether they entail approach or avoidance, and posited that goals elicit disparate emotional sequelae. Approach mastery goals are predicted to engender positive affect, whereas both types of avoidance goals are anticipated to precipitate negative affect. Linnenbrink and Pintrich reported substantiation for these predictions. The role of affect in goal choice and outcomes is frequently overlooked, yet the emotional ramifications of motivation for scholastic pursuits are of considerable import (Meyer & Turner, 2002).

Goal orientations fulfil a pivotal role in self-regulation, furnishing a framework within which learners interpret and respond to events (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Meece, 1994). Students who cultivate and sustain elevated self-efficacy in learning exhibit superior expectancies for success, augmented perceived control over learning, and a heightened intrinsic interest in learning (Covington, 1992; Eccles, 1983; Harter & Connell, 1984). Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter, and Elliot (2000) ascertained that mastery goals predicted immediate and protracted interest in the discipline amongst college students, whereas performance goals more accurately predicted grades. Students are more inclined to adopt a task/learning-goal orientation when they harbour the conviction that their ability may be enhanced through diligent exertion (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Meece, 1994; Nicholls & Miller, 1984). Purdie, Hattie, and Douglas (1996) discovered, amongst Australian and Japanese students, that a conception of learning as comprehension was correlated with a more extensive utilisation of learning strategies. In contradistinction to this incremental conception of ability, students with a fixed conception believe that exertion will only improve ability to a pre-ordained limit. Exertion diminishes in import when ability is fixed.

Achievement goal patterns may also galvanise self-regulatory endeavours (Zimmerman & Cleary, 2009). Furnishing students with feedback that accentuates a learning-goal orientation may augment self-efficacy, motivation, self-regulatory activities, and achievement more effectively than furnishing feedback that emphasises performance goals (Schunk & Swartz, 1993a, 1993b). Achievement goals exert influence upon students' task persistence and effort expenditure (Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Stipek & Kowalski, 1989). Under performance-oriented conditions, children with diminished perceived ability experience performance deterioration upon the onset of failure (Meece, 1994); however, this pattern is not discernible amongst learning-oriented children, irrespective of perceived ability, nor amongst performance-oriented students with elevated perceived ability. Ames and Archer (1988) ascertained that classroom mastery (learning) goal orientation correlates positively with students' reported utilisation of effective learning strategies and effort attributions.

Empirical research demonstrates that achievement goals may exert influence upon students' study habits and their learning outcomes. Learning-oriented students tend to employ deep processing strategies that foster conceptual understandings and necessitate cognitive exertion (e.g., integrating information, monitoring comprehension; Graham & Golan, 1991; Nolen, 1988, 1996; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991). Conversely, ego-oriented goal patterns are associated with such short-term and surface-level processing strategies as rehearsal and memorisation (Graham & Golan, 1991; Meece, 1994).

Factors within the domestic and scholastic environments may exert influence upon the role of learning-goal orientation in self-regulation. Learning situations that emphasise self-improvement, the discovery of novel information, and the utility of learning material may foster a learning-goal orientation (Ames & Archer, 1988; Graham & Golan, 1991; Jagacinski & Nicholls, 1984). Conversely, interpersonal competition, assessments of intellectual skills, and normative evaluations may enhance performance goals. Murdock and Anderman (2006) ascertained that performance goals correlated with academic dishonesty, whereas students who pursued mastery goals were less prone to engage in such behaviour.

In summation, empirical evidence substantiates that a learning-goal orientation facilitates achievement motivation, convictions, and skill acquisition more effectively than a performance-goal orientation, albeit performance goals bear a relationship to academic grades. We shall now consider a mechanism that may elucidate such effects.

Several investigators have posited that goal orientation is intimately connected with one's theory concerning the nature of intelligence or ability (Dweck, 1986, 1991, 1999, 2006; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Dweck & Molden, 2005; Nicholls, 1983, 1984). Dweck (1991, 2006) proposed two theories of intelligence: entity and incremental. Individuals who adhere to an entity theory (or fixed mindset) believe that intelligence is relatively fixed, stable, and unchanging over time and across task conditions. Effort serves to attain one's limit, not to progress significantly beyond it. Difficulties are regarded as impediments, potentially diminishing self-efficacy and inducing students to employ ineffective strategies, relinquish effort, or work half-heartedly.

Conversely, individuals who espouse an incremental theory (or growth mindset) broadly equate intelligence with learning. Students harbour the conviction that intelligence is susceptible to change and augmentation through experience, exertion, and learning. An upper limit to intelligence—if it exists—is sufficiently elevated and does not preclude assiduous effort towards improvement. Difficulties are perceived as challenges, capable of elevating self-efficacy if students mobilise effort, persevere with the task, and utilise effective strategies.

With certain exceptions, students who embrace a growth mindset, or an incremental perspective on intelligence, are more inclined to believe that learning will enhance their overall ability, thereby inclining them towards the adoption of learning goals. Conversely, students maintaining a fixed mindset, or an entity view, may be less disposed to adopt learning goals, predicated on their belief that learning will not elevate their overall level of ability. These predictions have garnered corroboration through research (Dweck, 1991, 1999, 2006; Dweck & Molden, 2005).

Research further elucidates significant relations amongst conceptions of ability, motivation, and achievement outcomes. Wood and Bandura (1989) engaged adults in a managerial decision-making task, informing them that decision-making ability was either fixed (reflecting their basic cognitive capabilities) or incremental (developed through practice). These conceptions of ability are frequently associated with ego and task orientations, respectively (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Jagacinski & Nicholls, 1984; Nicholls, 1983). Incremental decision-makers sustained elevated self-efficacy, established challenging goals, applied rules efficiently, and demonstrated superior performance; entity participants exhibited a decline in self-efficacy. Jourden, Bandura, and Banfield (1991) obtained analogous results amongst college students on a motor task. Participants induced to believe that performance was an acquirable skill manifested heightened self-efficacy, positive self-reactions to their performance, and greater skill acquisition and task interest; those induced to believe that performance reflected inherent aptitude demonstrated no gain in self-efficacy, minimal increase in skill and interest, and negative self-reactions. Bempechat, London, & Dweck (1991) discerned important relations between theories of intelligence and achievement beliefs and behaviours in children from kindergarten through fifth grade.