Has achievement goal theory been right? A meta-analysis of the relation between goal structures and personal achievement goals.

Abstract

Achievement goal theory includes both personal motivational features (achievement goals) and contextual features (goal structures). The theory holds that the prevailing goal structures in learning environments (such as the classroom) influence the achievement goals students adopt. This meta-analysis (k = 68, N = 47,975) examined the strength of the relationships between student ratings of goal structures (mastery-approach goal structures, mastery-avoidance goal structures, performance-approach goal structures, and performance-avoidance goal structures) and achievement goals (mastery-approach goals, mastery-avoidance goals, performance-approach goals, and performance-avoidance goals) as well as moderating variables. Results indicated that each achievement goal was most strongly related to its contextual counterpart. Educational level and world region moderated some of the relations, and for most combinations of goal structures and achievement goals, measures framing goal structures as a climate produced higher correlations than measures using the teacher as referent. Challenges and promising routes for future research and theory building are discussed.

Using video- and text-based situational judgement tests for teacher selection: a quasi-experiment exploring the relations between test format, subgroup differences, and applicant reactions

“…In addition, while we considered the effects of gender and ethnicity, an exploration of the impact of numerous other individual difference variables and their interaction with SJT presentation formats still lies ahead. We therefore believe that future research would do well to expand the insights gained in our study by considering further individual difference variables ranging from e.g., disability status, socio-economic status, or scholastic achievement to individual differences in motivational patterns, e.g., in how individuals' approach learning and achievement situations (achievement goals, e.g., Elliot, 2005; see also e.g., Bardach, Oczlon, et al, 2019; or their beliefs in their own abilities to succeed in a given task (self-efficacy, e.g., Klassen & Tze, 2014). From a methodological perspective, a further limitation relates to the sample size (around 100 applicants in each condition).…”

Researchers’ achievement goals: Prevalence, structure, and associations with job burnout/engagement and professional learning

“…Instead, research meetings, workshops, and informal counseling might actively be encouraged to support both relational goals and professional learning. Regarding these practical implications, AGT offers a useful framework as it also describes how different achievement goals are made salient through features of the surrounding context (achievement goal structures, Ames, 1992;Bardach, Oczlon, Pietschnig, & Lüftenegger, 2020;Kaplan et al, 2002). For researchers, relevant contexts might include the specific lab they work in, their department and institution, as well as their research community in general.…”

Normative and appearance performance-approach goal structures: Two-level factor structure and external linkages

“…This makes sense conceptually-why should there be a different level of differentiation on achievement goal theory's contextual and personal levels (e.g., Schwinger & Stiensmeier-Pelster, 2011)? Moreover, this pattern has been backed up empirically, with a recent meta-analysis (Bardach, Oczlon, Pietschnig, & L€ uftenegger, 2019) confirming that each goal structures type is most strongly related to its matching personal achievement goal.…”

“…In recent refinements of achievement goal theory, however, the personal PAp goal has been further divided into two sub-types in order to overcome disagreements among researchers on its essence-competence demonstration or normative performance-and contradicting empirical findings: Normative PAp goals with an emphasis on performing better than others and appearance PAp goals with an emphasis on appearing talented (e.g., Hulleman, Schrager, Bodmann, & Harackiewicz, 2010;Senko, Hulleman, & Harackiewicz, 2011;Senko & Dawson, 2017). Research on goal structures has not kept pace with this development, although claims have been made in this direction (Bardach, Oczlon et al, 2019). Providing the first empirical examination of normative and appearance PAp goal structures, the present study therefore asks whether the normativeappearance distinction can be applied to the PAp goal structure and whether such a distinction can enhance our understanding of the classroom context, its constituents and relations to student functioning.…”

“…For example, even though emotional as well as social factors are undoubtedly important in classroom settings and can overlap with goal structures (e.g., Patrick, Kaplan, & Ryan, 2011), a broader understanding of goal structures might also hinder productive theory testing. It has long been criticized that "consistent operational definitions of goal structures are elusive" (Urdan, 2010, p. 93; see also Bardach, Oczlon et al, 2019) and mixing multiple components -among those social and emotional facets-under the umbrella term of goal structure will not resolve these ambiguities. Moreover, consider that in the school context, MAp, PAp and PAv goals refer to academic achievement goals (vs.…”