A 3 × 2 achievement goal model.

Abstract

In the present research, a 3 X 2 model of achievement goals is proposed and tested. The model is rooted in the definition and valence components of competence, and encompasses 6 goal constructs: taskapproach, task-avoidance, self-approach, self-avoidance, other-approach, and other-avoidance. The results from 2 studies provided strong support for the proposed model, most notably the need to separate task-based and self-based goals. Studies 1 and 2 yielded data establishing the 3 X 2 structure of achievement goals, and Study 2 documented the antecedents and consequences of each of the goals in the 3 X 2 model. Terminological, conceptual, and applied issues pertaining to the 3 x 2 model are discussed.For over three decades, the study of achievement goals has been an important focus of the achievement motivation literature. Several different conceptual models of achievement goals have been developed during this time, and applying these models in both laboratory and real-world contexts has taught us much about achievement motivation and its consequences. In the present research, we offer a 3 X 2 achievement goal model designed to both extend and clarify the study of achievement goals. We begin by laying out a historical overview of conceptual work on achievement goals and proceed to articulate the need for and nature of the 3X2 achievement goal model. Conceptual ContextThe achievement goal construct was developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s in independent and collaborative work by Carole Ames (1984), Carol Dweck (1986), Marty Maehr (Maehr &Nicholls, 1980), and John NichoUs (1984). Each of these theorists distinguished between two qualitatively distinct goals for achievement behavior, and the conceptualizations they offered were similar enough to be referred to together as "the dichotomous achievement goal model." In this model, achievement goal is defined as the purpose for engaging in achievement behavior (Maehr, 1989), and the two goal types delineated are mastery goals, in which the purpose is to develop competence and task mastery, and performance goals, in which the purpose is to demonstrate competence (usually normative competence). Both mastery and performance goals are construed as approach goals (Ames, 1992; NichoUs, Patashnick, Cheung, Thorkildsen, & Lauer, 1989), and the two goals are posited to have different nomological networks.In the 1990s and 2000s, EUicrt and colleagues proposed a set of achievement goal models that extended the dichotomous model through the incorporation of avoidance, as well as approach, goals. In the trichotomous achievement goal model (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996), the performance goal construct is bifurcated by approach-avoidance, leading to three separate goals: mastery, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance. In the 2 X 2 achievement goal model (EUiot, 1999), the mastery goal construct is also bifurcated by approach-avoidance, and a fourth goal is added to the trichotomy: mastery-avoidance. Each of the goals in these models is posited to have a distinct pattem ...

Moving the Achievement Goal Approach One Step Forward: Toward a Systematic Examination of the Autonomous and Controlled Reasons Underlying Achievement Goals

“…The critical difference here involves the type of standard that individuals focus 5 Reasons underlying Achievement Goals on, which could be either purely task-based or focused on individuals' intrapersonal standards. To illustrate, learners could be focused on acquiring a new math skill (i.e., taskbased criterion) or they could try to do better on a second math exam than they did on the first (i.e., intrapersonal criterion).The next logical step involved breaking down this non-differentiated mastery goal construct such that a formal distinction was made between task-based and intrapersonal standards, which were both differentiated from normative standards (Elliot et al, 2011). As a result, a 3x2 model was proposed, which is graphically displayed in Figure 1.…”

Indonesian pre-service teachers learning motivations and goal achievements: A qualitative study

“…Task avoidance goals accentuate on the avoidance of task-based inability in which student fear for performing the task poorly. Meanwhile task-approach goals address the acquisition of task-based capability in which students complete the task correctly [6]. Even though they set other avoidance goal as they consider the classroom average score, in fact they also show self-approach goal in case of attaining higher score than the classroom average score in the previous exam.…”

“…Most students in this college compare their scores to the classroom average scores. Other-based goals refer to the use of interpersonal evaluative referent, thus competence is interpreted regarding performing well or unwell comparative to others [6]. Meanwhile, avoidance-based goals focus on lack of success, and regulation called for striving to move away or deny access to this negative possibility.…”

“…It means that participants complete the task or deal with the exam in order to be better than what they did in the past. Selfapproach goals attempt to explain the acquirement of self-based capability [6].…”

“…By means of conceptual framework of self-determination theory proposed by Deci and Ryan [3] and the 3 x 2 achievement goal orientations theory developed by Elliot, Murayama, and Pekrun [6], we strive to address the following research questions:…”