Multiple Goals Theory

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.

Based on this “rediscovery”, Elliot and Church (1997) have modified the two basic goals of goal achievement theory to incorporate these older motives for behaviour. They ended up with three basic goals: 1) mastery goals, that stem from pure motive to approach success; 2) performance avoidance goals, that stem from the desire to avoid failure; and, 3) performance approach goals, that stem from both the desire to approach a goal and to avoid failure. According to Elliot and Church (1997) the mastery goal should be wholly supportive of intrinsic motivation to perform, whereas the performance avoidance goal poses a great risk to intrinsic motivation. The third goal is one that joins these two effects and the possible danger or benefit to intrinsic motivation is determined by the dominating motive.

In effect, Elliot and Church (ibid.) divided the performance goal in two and introduced grey logic into the interpretation of goal-oriented motivation. In practice, the author proposes that most performance goals include both approach- and avoidance-oriented motives and thus Elliot and Church have merely introduced a categorisation in which performance avoidance is practically never used, and the category of performance approach, which includes both the fear of failure and desire for accomplishment, incorporates most human goal-oriented behaviour. A clearer division between performance avoidance and approach motivations would be in order, with the understanding that most human behaviour combines these two types of motivation to various extents.

Pintrich and McKeachie (2000) note that according to recent cognitive reformulations of the achievement goal theory, goals are seen as cognitive representations of the different purposes learners may adopt in different situations. Linnenbrink and Pintrich (2000) pick up Elliot and Church’s (1997) model and clarify the distinctions between mastery and performance orientation, and approach and avoidance states. Basing their work on Elliot (1999), they propose for further research a schema that introduces four different categories of goal orientations and approach and avoidance states (Table 1). In mastery orientation, the approach state is the above-described state in which the learner is interested in mastering, learning and understanding a task, as well as self-improvement. In contrast, the avoidance state of the mastery orientation would be demonstrated by people who avoid misunderstanding and not learning a task because of their own self-set standards of achievement, and their strive for perfection. On the other hand, individuals with approach

performance orientation would focus on besting others and receiving the highest grades, and those with avoidance performance orientation would try to avoid being inferior to others, mostly by avoiding tasks at which they do not excel. (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2000: 196-202.)

TABLE 3.1: Two Goal Orientations and Their Approach and Avoidance States (Linnenbrink & Pintrich 2000)

There is now also a more widespread understanding that “different goals can give rise to multiple pathways or trajectories for achievement” (the journey metaphor by Linnenbrink

& Pintrich, 2000). In practice, this adds to the consideration of the learner’s cognition in the consideration of achievement goals. Linnenbrink and Pintrich (2000) note that both approach mastery and approach performance orientations increase learner’s interest in an activity if they are successful at the task, although the research findings in case of approach performance orientation are not as strong as in the case of approach mastery orientation.

On the other hand, they point out that both avoidance mastery and avoidance performance orientations are likely to decrease further interest in the task, possibly more so in the case of avoid performance orientation. In the present research, however, it would be hard to gather enough valid information about the approach and avoidance states of the individual learners from their learning journals, so it is necessary to omit them from consideration.

Approach state (promotion focus) Avoidance state (prevention focus) Mastery Orientation Focus for mastering task,

learning, understanding

Focus on avoiding

misunderstanding, not learning, not mastering task

Use of standards of self- improvement, progress, deep understanding of task

Use of standards of not being wrong, not doing it incorrectly relative to task

Performance Orientation

Focus on being superior, besting others, being the smartest, best at task in comparison to others

Focus on avoiding inrefiority, not lookin stupid or dumb in

comparison to others Use of normative standards

such as getting best or highest grades, being top or best performer in class

Use of normative standards of not getting the worst grades, not being lowest performer in class

The theory of multiple goals was developed concurrently with a rising interest in social goals, and thus the theory considers them more deeply than the earlier stages of goal theory. Wentzel (1999) theorised that social motivation may lead to increased effort on the part of learners and proposes that social goals should be considered in a complementary role to mastery and performance goals. She proposes two different social goals: self- assertive social relationship goals, which refer to the attainment of individuality and social resources; and integrating, relationship goals, which refer to the attainment of common relationships and social commitments. We will return to these social aspects of learning in later sections.

In support of the multiple goals theory, Pintrich (2000c) found that there were no differences between learners with high mastery goals and low performance goals versus those who had high learning goals and high performance goals as far as self-efficacy, cognitive and metacognitive strategies, but slight differences in the preference of the latter group for task value. There is also evidence that learners use different strategies to adapt to difference challenges and situations. It is thus probable, and the position of the multiple goal theory, that good learning and best results require that the learners adopt both mastery and performance goals (e.g. Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000).

From the perspective of the present research, it is important to realise that all learners have several concurrent goals that they pursue, some of which may support their performance in the studies, and others that may not. From the evidence provided by earlier research, it is apparent that those with both short and long term goals, and mastery goals, will be likely to perform better than those with only performance goals, or with fewer mastery goals.