5TH International Congress on Technology - Engineering & Science - Kuala Lumpur - Malaysia (2018-02-01)

Performance Goals, Mastery Goals And L2 Motivation (a Brief Review)

Motivation is connected with goal orientations (Belmechri & Hummel, 1998). As stated by Dweck and Leggett (1988), learners enter the learning situation with various goals that result in various response patterns in skill-related activities. Ames (1992) believes that learners who have mastery goals are supposed to perform tasks in order to master new skills and knowledge as well as gaining a sense of efficacy, high intrinsic motivation, and preference for difficult and challenging tasks. Performance goals, in contrast, lead learners to maladaptive patterns of learning (decreased interest, exerting no effort in the face of difficulty, and preference for simple and easy tasks) and to attribute failure to absence of ability (Elliott & Dweck, 1988). 1. Introduction Tremblay and Gardner (1995) showed that orientation studies are related to various goal theories. Goal orientation theory involves affective, cognitive, and behavioral parts. This theory is related to explaining various academic performances and behaviors (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Two kinds of goals are often considered in the studies including performance goals and mastery goals (Ames, 1992; Maehr and Midgley, 1991). These two types of goals are different in the primary reasons for their motivational patterns and responses. Ames (1992) believes that learners who have mastery goals are supposed to perform tasks in order to master new skills and knowledge as well as gaining a sense of efficacy. Also, they assume various motivational patterns including high intrinsic motivation, perseverance on encountering failure, and preference for difficult and challenging tasks (Ames, 1992). Performance goals, in contrast, lead learners to maladaptive patterns of learning (decreased interest, exerting no effort in the face of difficulty, and preference for simple and easy tasks) and to attribute failure to absence of ability (Elliott & Dweck, 1988). Performance goals can also elicit mastery goals for various positive outcomes such as obtaining public recognition or demonstrating ability in a competence-related activity (Elliott & Dweck, 1988); therefore, a framework has been proposed by Elliott and Harackiewicz et al. (1997) that differentiate performance goals by avoidance and approach orientation. They carried out two experiments that were intrinsic motivation-related and aimed to test the predictive ability of the avoidance and approach achievement goal framework. They randomly assigned the college-level students to four experimental situations. It was hypothesized that only avoidance goals would have a damaging influence on learners intrinsic motivation and the results confirmed this hypothesis. Another experiment was performed with the aim of replicating the influences indicated in the previous (first) experiment. Results of the study showed that avoidance and approach goals were regarded as two separate motivational constructs; only participants with avoidance goal-orientation showed decrease in their intrinsic motivation. Elliott and Harackiewicz (1996) believe that similar to mastery goals, performance-approach goals show affective, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes, but these responses intend to indicate ability, obtain good grades, and achieve public recognition. Avoidance goal-oriented learners are easily affected by how others understand their ability. Learners who are apprehensive to be judged as incompetent tend to follow strategies in order to prevent demonstrating inability (Covington, 1992, 2002). Achievement goals present a clearer account of learners motivation and performance. The impacts of goals on outcomes and learning activities have been investigated in many studies, the results of which have reported that performance goals, mastery goals, and avoidance goals are associated with different motivational variables that affect learning behaviors (Barker, McIntyre, & Dowson, 2002; Elliot & Church, 1997). According to social cognitive theory learners engage in various cognitive activities based on their personal beliefs regarding their capability to process information (Wu, 2006). To improve the learning quality, mastery goal-orientated learners who undertake specific activities in an adaptive style employ various strategies, including self-regulatory strategies employed to direct interactions with the learning situation and deep processing strategies (involving skills such as critical thinking or elaboration) used to encode information (Wu, 2006). Performance goals, in contrast, are related to inefficient or the surface processing strategies (involving repetitive practice of information or rote memorization) (Ames, 1992; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Barker (2002) and his associates examined the influences of motivational goals on the recall skills of verbal information by Australian learners. The experimental research assumed that goals influence cognitive performance. Results of this investigation showed that an important and meaningful interaction occurred between students motivational goals as well as their cognition. Learners with performance approach goal had higher performance than their classmates in the avoidance goal, mastery goal, and the control groups. Elliot, McGregor, and Gable (1999) carried out two studies to explore the predictive role of the goals and the associated strategies in college classroom in the United States. Achievement goals were considered as predictors and study strategies regarded as mediators to investigate their relationship with exam performance. The participants were given an achievement goals questionnaire two weeks before their midterm exam. Results of the study showed that mastery goal-oriented learners utilized deep processing strategies. Moreover, they continued learning on encountering obstacles. Learners with approach goals achieved the best in the examination situation but the students with avoidance goals showed the lowest performance. Learners strategies acted as mediators between test results and achievement goals. Deep processing strategy was found to have a positive relation with approach and mastery goals and exam performance. Surface processing had a positive relationship with avoidance goal-oriented learners. Self-efficacy has also been a significant factor showing relationship with different kinds of achievement goals (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Bell and Kozlowski (2002) examined the relations among task performance, goal orientation, the skill of study strategies, and self-efficacy in a college environment. The findings showed that only mastery goal had a significant positive connection with task performance and self-efficacy. The researchers concluded that learning outcomes and goals had an indirect relationship when other motivational factors such as strategy and self-efficacy were included. Elliot and Harackiewicz (1996) investigated the predictive role of achievement goals on intrinsic motivation in a college setting. From the self-reported and behavioral data, they discovered that students with avoidance goal performed as well as the students with mastery goal. Learners levels of behavioral and affective investment were determined by the qualitative variations of the motivation. The findings of the research indicated that only avoidance goals reduced learners intrinsic interest and task involvement. Elliot and Church (1997) also performed a research to investigate the impacts of achievement goals on students performance and their intrinsic motivation. It was found that performance goals were considered as the strongest predictor of learners final grades and mastery goals promoted intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, performance goals represented to have negative influences on intrinsic motivation. In their longitudinal study, Harackiewicz et al. (1997) represented that performance approach goals had a positive relationship with learners performance, and learners with mastery goals showed more interest toward the class. Students who had avoidance goals showed the lowest performance. Creating interest in a particular area is considered as a significant predictor of academic success (Harackiewicz et al., 2002). Conclusion Mastery goals result in taking more risks, choosing more challenging tasks, and considering help-seeking as a strategy that foster learning (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Performance goals are connected to learners avoidance of difficult tasks and less willingness to seek help or take risks because these students are afraid that it may represent their incompetency (Ames, 1992; Pintrich and Schunk, 2002). Therefore, most researches consider mastery goals as positive predictors of achievement (e.g., Elliot & Church, 1997; Ellliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999; Harackiewicz et al., 2002; McGregor & Elliot, 2002). In the face of difficulty, approach goals have shown a negative or no connection to behaviors (Wolters, 2003), positive thoughts (McGregor & Elliot, 2002), and feelings (Harackiewicz et al., 2002). Also, the results of some studies have reported that performance goals, mastery goals, and avoidance goals are associated with different motivational variables that affect learning behaviors (Barker, McIntyre, & Dowson, 2002; Elliot & Church, 1997). References Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261-271. Barker, K. L., McInerney, D. M., Dowson, M. (2002). Performance approach, performance avoidance and depth of information processing: A fresh look at relations between students academic motivation and cognition. Educational Psychology, 22(5), 572-588. Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. 1. (2002). Goal orientation and ability: Interactive effects on self-efficacy, performance, and knowledge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 497-505. Belmechri, F., & Hummel, K. (1998). Orientations and motivation in the acquisition of English as a Second Language among high school students in Quebec City. Language Learning, 48(2), 219-244. Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. New York: Cambridge University Press. Covington, M. V. & Dray, E. (2002). The development of course of achievement motivation: A need-based approach. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of Achievement Motivation (First ed., pp. 33-56). Ann Arbor: Academic Press. Dweck, C.S., & Leggett, E.L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256-273. Elliot, A. 1., & Church, M. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218-232. Elliot, E. S., & Dweck, C.S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12. Elliot, A. 1., & Harackiewicz, 1. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 70(3), 461-475. Elliot, A. 1., McGregor, H., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam performance: A mediational analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 549-563. Harackiewicz.T. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S., Lehto, A., & Elliot, A. (1997). Determinants and consequences of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest and making the grade. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1284-1295. Harackiewicz.T. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, 1. M., & Elliot, A. 1. (2002). Predicting success in college: A longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of interest and performance from freshman year through graduation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 562-575. Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1991). Enhancing student motivation: A school wide approach. Educational Psychologist, 26, 399-427. McGregor, H. A., & Elliot, A. 1. (2002). Achievement goals as predictors of achievement-relevant processes prior to task engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 381-395. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Wolters, C. A. (2003). Understanding procrastination from a self-regulated learning perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 179-87. Wu, P. (2006). The effects of goal orientation, self-efficacy, and cognitive/metacognitive self-regulatory strategy use on EFL college students course achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.
Masoomeh Khodadad