Search

Two studies examined the degree to which pursuit of achievement goals is regulated in response to ongoing competence feedback. In Study 1, conducted in a college classroom, goal pursuit remained largely stable throughout the semester, yet poor exam performance predicted a significant decrease in mastery goal and performance-approach goal pursuit and an increase in performance-avoidance goal pursuit. In Study 2, conducted in a laboratory, negative feedback reduced participants' mastery goal pursuit. In addition, both studies showed unique benefits of 2 goals: The performance-approach goal predicted success on exams (Study 1) and a novel activity (Study 2), and the mastery goal predicted higher interest in both studies. Implications of achievement goal regulation for both theory and research methodology are discussed. Key words: goals, performance avoidance, performance approach, mastery, achievement orientation

Interviews with 1st-year university students selected as high or low in either self-handicapping or defensive pessimism identified (a) personal perspectives on the nature of self-handicapping and defensive pessimism, (b) the perceived reasons why they engage in these strategies and the perceived advantages that follow from them, and (c) the extent to which ego goals and task goals mark theft approach to their studies. The data confirm previous quantitative research and also provide important qualitative information on the congruencies and differences in goal orientation for self-handicappers and defensive pessimists, the social and academic costs of self-protective behavior, the control students feel they have over their self-protective behavior, and the roles of the family and students' culture in their tendency to self-protect.

A series of studies was conducted to compare group differences in the goal orientations of delinquent, at-risk, and not-at-risk adolescents. An Importance of Goals Scale was developed by examining the item responses of 230 high school students and validated by administering the revised scale to 80 delinquent, 90 at-risk, and 90 not-at-risk adolescents. Results identified differences in the importance attributed to different goals by the 3 groups. Delinquent and at-risk adolescents attached significantly more importance to goals associated with developing a social image (e.g., delinquency, freedom-autonomy), whereas not-at-risk adolescents were more concerned with goals associated with an academic image (e.g., educational, interpersonal). Results are discussed in terms of their implications for school achievement, peer relations, and future life paths.

In this response, the authors dispel interpretation of their critical review of research on performance-approach goals as support for a dichotomous perspective of achievement goal theory. Second, the authors challenge the suggestion that accepting recent research findings and adopting a multiple goals perspective constitutes a theoretical revision of the assumption that 'mastery goals are always good and performance goals are always bad' (J. M. Harackiewicz, K. E. Barton, P. R. Pintrich, P. R. Elliot, & T. M. Thrash, 2002, p. 643). The authors make a distinction between developments that contribute to the explanatory power of the theory and value-laden interpretations of theory and research. The authors argue that phrasing the latter in terms of the former is misleading and that it masks the necessity for a critical discussion over the desired purposes in different types of achievement contexts.

Some researchers have called for a reconceptualization of goal theory that acknowledges the positive effects of performance-approach goals. The authors of the present article review studies that indicate that performance-approach goals are associated with adaptive patterns of learning but note that, in other studies, these goals have been unrelated or negatively related to the same outcomes. There is a need to consider for whom and under what circumstances performance goals are good. There is some evidence that performance-approach goals are more facilitative for boys than for girls, for older students than for younger students, in competitive learning environments, and if mastery goals are also espoused. The authors describe the cost of performance-approach goals in terms of the use of avoidance strategies, cheating, and reluctance to cooperate with peers. They conclude that the suggested reconceptualization of goal theory is not warranted.

Do externally imposed achievement goals influence what children learn from procedural instruction? Third- and 4th-grade children's goals were manipulated toward either learning or performance. All children were then taught a procedure for solving mathematical equivalence problems (e.g., a + b + c = a + __). Children who were given learning goals were initially more likely to gain conceptual knowledge from the procedural lesson than were children who were given performance goals. After a 2-week period, however, children who were given performance goals exhibited the same conceptual gains as children who were given learning goals. Both initially and after the 2-week period, children who were given either goal were more likely to extend their knowledge beyond the taught procedure than were children who were not given goals. External sources such as teachers and parents may have the potential to foster children's learning by shaping children's goals.

Mastery goals have been linked to adaptive outcomes in normative goal theory and research; performance goals, to less adaptive outcomes. In contrast, approach performance goals may be adaptive for some outcomes under a revised goal theory perspective. The current study addresses the role of multiple goals, both mastery and approach performance goals, and links them to multiple outcomes of motivation, affect, strategy use, and performance. Data were collected over 3 waves from 8th and 9th graders (N = 150) in their math classrooms using both self-report questionnaires and actual math grades. There was a general decline in adaptive outcomes over time, but these trends were moderated by the different patterns of multiple goals. In line with normative goal theory, mastery goals were adaptive; but also in line with the revised goal theory perspective, approach performance goals, when coupled with mastery goals, were just as adaptive.

This study examined the effects of goal setting on the essays of 7th- and 8th-grade students with writing and learning disabilities. Participants wrote 3 essays, responding to a different goal for each. One half of the students used a strategy to facilitate goal attainment. Goals were designed to increase either the number of reasons supporting a paper's premise or the number of counterarguments refuted by the writer, or both. Papers written in response to goals were longer, included more supporting reasons, and were qualitatively better than essays written by students in the control condition. Students were also more likely to refute counterarguments when assigned a goal that focused on this specific element. Strategy use enhanced performance only when students were responding to a goal to refute more counterarguments. Students' writing self-efficacy was not influenced by goal setting or strategy use.