Early Goal Theory

of these goals that matters. Still other researchers point out that intrinsic motivation is closely related to interest and differentiate between situational interest and individual interest (Hidi, 2000; Renninger, 2000; see also Sansone & Smith, 2000).

Extrinsic motivation is often connected with extrinsic rewards, but the specific definition of these rewards may be very different from one definition of extrinsic motivation to the next. Sansone and Harackiewicz (2000) note that there seem to be two basic definitions of extrinsic motivation. According to the first, motivation is extrinsic when it is motivated by something extrinsic to the activity, and according to the second, motivation is extrinsic when it is motivated by something extrinsic to the person (ibid. p. 445); for example, by situational interest (Hidi, 2000).

As a result of discrepancies that have arisen in motivation research based on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and despite its positive aspects and a certain clarity it has brought to understanding of reward-based intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, a different approach is needed; one that, from the start, takes into account the cognitive aspects of motivation.

and errors and evaluation norms. These elements are activated jointly – the schema and the theory – or individually, by seeking relevant information in the context . . . or my means of conscious explicit thought and knowledge about the achievement task. (Pintrich, 2000a)

Early models of goal theory can be called normative in the sense that they presume that learners can be classified according to the type of academic goal that they assume.

Subsequently, learners’ cognitive processing and regulation of learning will also show differences; highly self-regulated learners are more highly committed to their learning (Pintrich, 1999). The types of goals that these models propose are academic goals and social goals.

According to goal theory, academic goals can be divided into two main categories: 1) a mastery goal or a learning goal (I want to be good at this), 2) a performance goal or an ability goal (I want to be seen as good at this, grades define me in my own and other’s eyes) (Ames, 1992; Archer, 1994; see also Molden & Dweck, 2000; Butler, 2000). An optional third goal in this theory would be 3) an academic alienation goal (just as long as I pass, I don’t care about the grades I receive). The third goal was not included in the original achievement goal theory by Ames (ibid.), but is an addition by Archer (1994) and is often omitted because motivation research has been more interested in studying those require motivation to participate. The third category is, however, always present in real learning situations with any group of learners. The author encountered this goal on numerous occasions as he was gathering the data for the present study and has observed it in the past amongst his fellow learners. Consequently, when analysing data derived from any group of learners, it is necessary also to reflect on the effect of the various learning goals of the members of the work groups.

Those who adopt a mastery goal are interested in learning and developing themselves and thus they will use deep study methods and multiple learning strategies to understand the subject of study (Archer, 2001). Pintrich (2000c) notes that learners with a mastery goal are characterised with satisfaction upon mastery or achievement of a task, greater persistence, efficacy, interest and task value. They will also use more self-regulatory strategies than those learners who do not adopt a mastery goal.

Archer (2001) adds that, on the other hand, those who merely have performance-based goals are not as interested in the material that they study, as long as they receive good grades in tests. They will use only surface, or less adaptive, study strategies and may retreat in the face of difficulties, afraid that they will lead to an unfavourable evaluation.

Where performance-oriented learners are likely to see failure as a setback, mastery- oriented learners may see it more as a natural part of learning and as a clue about how to modify their performance for better outcomes (e.g. Ames, 1992; Molden & Dweck, 2000;

Pintrich, 2000a; Archer, 2001). This can be seen well in a real-life example in which a performance-oriented computer user may make a tentative attempt to fix the computer or re-install some software when the system shows signs of an imminent crash. If the first small attempts fail, the user may interpret them as a sign that he/she is not good enough at the tasks that he/she attempted and give up. On the other hand, someone who desires to understand computers (mastery goal) sees the crashing computer as an opportunity to learn, and will immediately attempt another strategy to find out if the problem was caused by a fault in the software at all, or if the hardware should be checked. Giving up might not be seen as an option and the mastery motivated individual may even find it hard to set the project aside until the problem is fixed.

Research has shown that learners with mastery goals are more likely to self-regulate their learning (Ames, 1992), they use more summary and paraphrasing strategies for learning (Archer, 1994), they try to understand their failures and they get more satisfaction from success (Ames, 1992). On the other hand, those who adopt a performance goal use more surface learning strategies and gain less satisfaction from success. Furthermore, Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1990) have found out that learners with mastery goals are more likely to use self-regulatory strategies to maintain their interest and motivation in the learning task. Research also shows that learners with mastery goals are more accepting of a conceptual change (Pintrich, 2000a).

The second type of goals under consideration in goal theory is so-called social goals. As of yet, understanding of the social goals that learners may have (e.g. gaining others’

acceptance, cf. Schneider, Ackerman & Kanfer, 1996) is limited, but the area is becoming increasingly important in goal-orientation studies.

However, in this skeleton form, goal theory leaves much to be desired. For one, it gives too black-and-white a picture of what may be happening inside the mind of a learner, proposing that those who approach a task with a performance goal may not use methods of study that are as sophisticated as those who approach it with a mastery goal. Too often researchers view these two forms of goal approach as distinct possibilities (Molden &

Dweck, 2000) and fail to consider the intricacies of human psychology. Recent modifications to achievement motivation theory have attempted to rectify this problem.