The Goal Theory of Motivation - Literature review Example

Running Head: The Goal theory of Motivation Student’s Name: Instructor: Course Code and Name: Institution: Date Assignment is due: The Goal theory of Motivation Introduction The goal theory of motivation developed in the 1980s through the works of various scholars who were reacting to existing theories of motivation. The scholars came up with a number of ways to develop goals that determine ones motivation. A number of measures that determine the goals and relation to motivation were adopted through undertaking various researches on the methods. The theory can be used to assist students become motivated to engage and achieve in learning activities in an educational context. The paper tries to capture the development of the theory and its contributions in an educational context. Development of the goal theory of motivation The goal theory of motivation in its present form can be traced to the 1980s when the term goals were used in the theory. The concept of goals was in use well prior to this period. The goal theory of motivation can also be traced to the achievement motivation theory developed and advanced by McClelland (1961, p. 24). The achievement motivation theory was criticised by Maehr (1974) who noted that defining achievement motivation as a stable entity (Atkinson & Feather, 1966, p. 24) that resides within the individual may underestimate the role of situational factors in shaping motivated behaviour. In his reaction to the achievement motivation theory, (Maehr 1974, p. 889) emerged with the conceptions of goals, which were considered cognitive, rather than some internal drive or need, affected by socio-cultural, situational, informational and past performance cues. The goals can be measured by asking individuals about their goals (Nicholls, 1989). Much as Maehr attempted to develop the goals concepts, his task goals conception shared much in common with conceptualizations of intrinsic motivation. This was more so in Maehr’s conception of task goals emphasising on the achievement context as a critical influence on motivation, which had a resemblance to the existing achievement motivation theory. The roots of the goal theory of motivation can also be traced to the studies by Dweck and Legget (1988). They used achievement theory as a means of interpreting their findings that some students attribute their failure in achievement situations to a lack of ability. Using the concept of goals, Dweck was able to integrate students’ different attributional patterns, and the resultant recognitions and affective reactions, into a unified and coherent system (Dweck, 1986). Later, Dweck and Legget added the beliefs about intelligence in to their model, showing that individuals can conceive ability as a stable capacity. These conceptions of intelligence lead individuals to adopt different orientations (Dweck & Legget, 1988). The belief that intelligence is fixed orients the individual toward the concern with showing that he is knowledgeable and able, whereas the belief that intelligence can be modified, produces an orientation towards developing a task goal orientation. Nicholls (1989) described his emerging conception of goal theory as one that would incorporate the useful ideas of the existing theories, while at the same time improving on the limitations of these theories. Nicholls was also concerned with the personality theories of achievement motivation, and was specific the belief that motivated behaviour is due to the desire to achieve rational goals. Nicholls (1989) also observes that, individuals could employ either a differentiated conception of ability or an undifferentiated conception of ability after reaching a certain level of cognitive development. He believed that, which conception of ability we employed depended on our goals. Goal motivation theory also has its roots in one of the most prominent early empirical theory of motivation known as the drive theory. This theory posited that the motivation for all behaviours, such as learning, interacting with others, and performing in a game or concert, is reducible to a small number set of drives, namely, hunger, thirst, sex and the avoidance of pain. Goal theory of motivation borrowed a great a deal from this theory, and arguably can be considered to be a fundamental influence in its development. The works of the various scholars discussed above provide the basis upon which the goal theory of motivation revolves. The different conceptions were put in to research whose findings have also helped shape the development of the theory. In addition to building on the previous theories, goal theory developed at least in part as a reaction to those theories. The goal theory of motivation This is a value laden theory that is steeped in the philosophy of progressive education (Covington, 1992). This is as a result of the various achievement goal theorists who have somewhat differed in their conceptualizations of goals in their studies (Dweck & Legget, 1988). For example, some models put emphasis on the contextual factors that may affect goals that students pursue, while others frame goals as more stable orientations. Goals can be defined using a number of properties as provided by Urdan who observes: ...achievement goals represent an organized set of cognitions about the purposes of academic work and achievements; beliefs about the causes of success and failure, cognitive and affective responses to success and failure; and perceived behavioural options (Urdan, 1997, p. 103). In this sense, achievement goals are more akin to organized schemas than to particular performance objectives. The two types of goals that have received much attention, according to Urdan: ...are task and relative ability, distinguished primarily according to the role that self and ability perceptions play in directing and interpreting achievement behaviour. When pursuing relative ability goals, students are concerned with the self in relation to others (Urdan, 1997, p. 103). Achievement motivation Goal theory of motivation can well be understood through the understanding of achievement motivation. Achievement motivation has long emphasized the cognitive bases of behaviour, but recent literature has advanced an achievement goal framework that integrates cognitive and affective components of goal-directed behaviour (Dweck & Legget, 1988). According to Weiner (1986) achievement goals concern the purpose of achievement behaviour and define integrated patterns of beliefs, attributions and the effect that produces the intentions of behaviour that is reflected by different ways of approaching, engaging in, and responding to achievement. (p.35) Two contrasting achievement goal constructs have received the most attention in research. They have been differentiated by their linkage to contrasting patterns of motivational processes and have been alternatively labelled learning and performance goals (Ames, 1992). Other scholars have called them task involvement and ego involvement goals (Nicholls, 1989, p. 34) and mastery and performance goals. Conceptually, learning, task involvement and mastery goals can be distinguished from performance and ego involvement goals (Ames, 1992). Mastery and performance goals represent different conceptions of success and different reasons for approaching and engaging in achievement activities. They involve different ways of thinking about oneself, one’s task and task outcomes (Nicholls, 1989). Achievement goals are the key determinants of the goals as used in the goal motivation theory. This is a result of the knowledge that individuals set goals based on their ability and need to gain achievement, for example, students’ would have goals that reflect their desire for achievement in terms of excelling over others. Goal measurement through research Research on achievement goals has been conducted using two methodologies, namely: questionnaires and experimental manipulation. Most of the experimental manipulation studies occurred in laboratory settings, where students were given a task to perform. They were informed that the experiment was measuring how well they performed relative to others. These manipulations have been successful in orienting students towards different goals for a short period (Elliot & Harackwiewicz, 1996). Such studies may have limited ecological validity since they employ tasks that are often more engaging than typical school work, and usually lack the complex atmosphere found in a classroom environment. A well detailed research example involving the use of the experimental method is provided in Urdan (1997), who states: I recently tried a little experiment with my undergraduate developmental psychology class. They rook a quiz during the first half hour, the remainder of the class was to be spent discussing moral development, a topic not covered on the quiz....I asked my students to write down their responses to the following questions: (1) Did you do the assigned readings for today’s class? (2) Should you have done the assigned readings for the class? (3) In general, should students do class assignments? (4) Is it morally wrong not to do assigned readings? Each question was followed by the prompt”why or why not?”....Students’ anonymous responses revealed much about...their goals (Urdan, 1997, p. 99). From the above example, we can observe that, methods used in goal theory of motivation can be applied to understand the needs and goals of the students. Such information can be incorporated to be beneficial to the students and motivate them in their education. The method adopted by Urdan (1997) reflects the use of both the experimental method and questionnaires. The two methods provide relevant information that can be used to determine the goals of the subjects under study, in this case students. Survey methods have also been used to measure students’ goals in the field. As the study of goals shifted from experimental designs to survey, the measurement of goals has continued to be an imprecise and varied endeavour (Ames & Archer, 1988). The most commonly used methods is measuring task goals using questions about learning something new and solving challenging questions. The measurement of relative ability goals is quite different from the ones used to determine an individual’s ability. The definition of relative ability goals has been fairly consistent across researchers, regardless of the name given to such goals, for example, ego goals, performance goals and ability goals. The defining feature of such goals is the concern with demonstrating superior ability and skills relative to others. Nicholls (1989) developed a measure of goals that have been adopted by a number of researchers. Nicholls merged ego goals with social goals to form an Ego and Social orientation scale. The scale demonstrates ability items, social approval items, and social interaction items. Although Nicholls later expressed regret over merging of ego and social goals, this measure or its variations has been used by a number of researchers (Nollen, 1988). This has affected perceptions regarding the effects of pursuing ego oriented goals. An example of other relative ability goals measures include items that may have tapped into information other than social comparison with ability. Archer used items such as “In this class I do not like to make mistakes” and “In this class, I work hard to get a high grade” (Ames & Archer, 1988, p. 262). Other measures of relative ability goals are also adopted by Pintrich and Garcia who include extrinsic goals in their study. Pintrich and Garcia (1991) use the item “I like to work on difficult problems and tasks to show how smart I am”. This item may indicate a student’s preference for challenging tasks as much as a desire to demonstrate their ability. (p.382) Critique of the theory The theory lacks mutually agreed upon measures that can be used to determine achievement goals. This is reflected in the various cases where different scholars use different measures depending on their research. Experimentation is used as a measure to theory, but even in the relatively controlled environments in which experimental manipulations have occurred, there has been some disparity in the methods used to manipulate goals that have led to differences in results across studies. This discredits the validity of the findings that do not reflect real situations. In trying to incorporate wants and ability in determining goals using the model developed by Ames and Archer (1988, p. 262), clearly, there can be reasons for wanting to get high grades and not wanting to make mistakes that do not involve concerns with how able one appears. Conclusion The goal theory of motivation arose out of the criticism of the achievement theories in the 1980s. The theory has been developed through research and the application of a variety of measurements that reflect the motivation of individuals in line with their goals. The goal theory of motivation has been used in an educational perspective, as seen in the various research examples discussed, to help motivate students. This will enable them engage and achieve successfully in learning activities. References Ames, C.A. (1992). Classrooms, goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84. 261-271. Ames, C. & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 80, 260-267. Atkinson, J.W. & Feather, N.T. (1966). A theory of achievement motivation. New York: Wiley. Covington, M.V. (1992). Making the grade, a self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. New York: Cambridge University Press. Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. The American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048. Dweck, C.S. & Leggett, E.L. (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological review, 95, 256-273. Elliot, A.J. & Harackiewicz, J.M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goal and intrinsic motivation: A meditational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 56-65. Maehr, M.L. (1974). Culture and achievement motivation. American Psychologist, 29, 887-896. McClelland, D.C. (1961). The Achieving society. New York: The Free Press. Nicholls, J.G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nolen, S.B. (1988). Reasons for studying, motivational orientations and study dtrategies. Cognition and Instructions, 5, 269-287. Pintrich, P.R. & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal-orientation and self regulation in the college classroom. Advances in motivation and achievement, Vol. 7: Goals and sefl- regulatory processes (pp. 371-402). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Urdan, T.C. (1997). Achievement goal theory: Past result, future directions. Advances in motivation and achievement, 10, 99-141. Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer- verlag. Read More

Nicholls (1989) also observes that individuals could employ either a differentiated conception of ability or an undifferentiated conception of ability after reaching a certain level of cognitive development. He believed that which conception of ability we employed depended on our goals. Goal motivation theory also has its roots in one of the most prominent early empirical theories of motivation known as the drive theory. This theory posited that the motivation for all behaviors, such as learning, interacting with others, and performing in a game or concert, is reducible to a small number set of drives, namely, hunger, thirst, sex, and the avoidance of pain.

The goal theory of motivation borrowed a great deal from this theory and arguably can be considered to be a fundamental influence in its development. The works of the various scholars discussed above provide the basis upon which the goal theory of motivation revolves. The different conceptions were put into research whose findings have also helped shape the development of the theory. In addition to building on the previous theories, goal theory developed at least in part as a reaction to those theories.

The goal theory of motivation This is a value-laden theory that is steeped in the philosophy of progressive education (Covington, 1992). This is a result of the various achievement goal theorists who have somewhat differed in their conceptualizations of goals in their studies (Dweck & Legget, 1988). For example, some models emphasize the contextual factors that may affect the goals that students pursue, while others frame goals as more stable orientations. Goals can be defined using several properties as provided by Urdan who observes:

achievement goals represent an organized set of cognitions about the purposes of academic work and achievements; beliefs about the causes of success and failure, cognitive and affective responses to success and failure; and perceived behavioral options (Urdan, 1997, p. 103). In this sense, achievement goals are more akin to organized schemas than to particular performance objectives. The two types of goals that have received much attention, according to Urdan: .are task and relative ability, distinguished primarily according to the role that self and ability perceptions play in directing and interpreting achievement behavior.

When pursuing relative ability goals, students are concerned with the self about others (Urdan, 1997, p. 103). Achievement motivation Goal theory of motivation can well be understood through the understanding of achievement motivation. Achievement motivation has long emphasized the cognitive bases of behavior, but recent literature has advanced an achievement goal framework that integrates cognitive and affective components of goal-directed behavior (Dweck & Legget, 1988). According to Weiner (1986), achievement goals concern the purpose of achievement behavior and define integrated patterns of beliefs, attributions, and the effect that produces the intentions of behavior that are reflected by different ways of approaching, engaging in, and responding to achievement. (p.35) Two contrasting achievement goal constructs have received the most attention in research.

They have been differentiated by their linkage to contrasting patterns of motivational processes and have been alternatively labeled learning and performance goals (Ames, 1992). Other scholars have called them task involvement and ego involvement goals (Nicholls, 1989, p. 34) and mastery and performance goals. Conceptually, learning, task involvement, and mastery goals can be distinguished from performance and ego involvement goals (Ames, 1992). Mastery and performance goals represent different conceptions of success and different reasons for approaching and engaging in achievement activities.

They involve different ways of thinking about oneself, one’s task, and task outcomes (Nicholls, 1989). Achievement goals are the key determinants of the goals as used in the goal motivation theory.

Read More