Achievement goal theory and target grades

In my first blog post (about the systematic review process), I mentioned that the process had forced me to investigate some theories that relate to the topic I’m interested in. One of the theories that comes up most frequently is achievement goal theory. Hopefully this will explain it well enough.

What is achievement goal theory?

Achievement goal theory (which has been a prevailing theory in educational motivation for a few decades) gives suggestions for the reasons why a student might aim to achieve something. The theory posits that students (or anyone else really) may have goals to achieve something, and those goals will fall into one of two categories: mastery-oriented goals, and performance-oriented goals.

Mastery-oriented goals are those which result from a deeper desire to understand something, and could be related to intrinsic motivations; the student wants to achieve their goal for the personal satisfaction that will result from it, and from the enjoyment they get from learning. Performance-oriented goals, however, are those which relate from actually performing something – this doesn’t have to be a play, but could be answering some exam questions, or writing a speech etc. It’s often also seemingly rooted in comparison to others. Students may set themselves these types of goals in order to outperform their classmates, and there may be enjoyment from that, but this is distinct from enjoyment for the sake of the task.

These two aspects to the theory are often also then split in half again, into -approach and -avoidance goals. For example, a mastery-approach goal is one where someone is attempting to achieve mastery, whereas mastery-avoidance could be considered someone simply attempting to avoid not mastering something.

“Comparison is the thief of joy”

Perhaps performance-oriented goals aren’t as useful as some might think.

Where do target grades come in?

Target grades are the grades issued to students at a set point in their education as a method for motivating them, and likely result from the introduction of league tables and schools’ sudden need to outperform other schools. (They used to be called ‘minimum expected grades’, but the principle is the same). Note that these are distinct from predicted grades, which are the grades teachers actually think the student is likely to end up with.

These grades, in theory, will act as a motivator for pupils because it encourages them to believe that their target is the grade they should be aiming for, and acts as an externally-provided performance-oriented goal. The desired effect is a positive one on average. However, this isn’t always the case. Research I conducted as part of my Master’s degree showed that a significant portion (18%) of students perceived their target grades to be ‘a cap on their ability’ and so don’t believe they’re capable of achieving that grade. Others, however, saw their target as the absolute minimum they should be achieving (33%), and suggested that they should be exceeding their grade (if not at least meeting it). This disparity was unsurprising, and something I want to investigate further.

The resulting effect of these target grades is that students have an additional performance-related target that they should be achieving, and teachers may hold them to these grades. These are likely acting in addition to any intrinsic motivation they have, or any mastery-related goals they are working toward, if any. It’s clear that target grades give something students to aim for, but are they actually motivational?

What does the literature say about performance-oriented goals?

Previous research around the idea of mastery-related goals is generally pretty positive about the idea; the constant search to improve and the genuine interest in a topic / subject will encourage students to work harder at it, and the link to higher attainment is clear. That’s likely why there is a wider push in the education sector towards mastery (though this is not without its own problems; another post on this will come at some point).

Performance-oriented goals however don’t seem to have such a positive efficacy. The research seems mixed on this one. It seems like having a performance-oriented goal is better than not having any reasons for trying to achieve something, but having an intrinsic, mastery-based goal is likely better. An example of this is reviewed by Rosenzweig & Wigfield (2016) in their paper.

The jury is still out on this one.

References

Nicholls, J. G., Cheung, P. C., Lauer, J. and Patashnick, M. (1989). ‘Individual differences in academic motivation: Perceived ability, goals, beliefs, and values’. Learning and Individual Differences, 1(1), pp. 63-84.

Rosenzweig, E. Q. and Wigfield, A. (2016). ‘STEM Motivation Interventions for Adolescents: A Promising Start, but Further to Go’. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), pp. 146-163.