Using Achievement Goal Theory to Translate Psychological Principles into Practice in the Secondary Classroom.

Abstract

ABSTRACT As teachers begin to respond to educational reform efforts that stipulate the use of research-based practices in the classroom and translate them into feasible everyday approaches in the secondary classroom, many have turned to the field of educational psychology for guidance. This article uses educational psychology research on achievement goal theory and the TARGET conceptual framework, originally proposed by Ames (1992) and Epstein (1988), to model how research in these areas can help teachers create classroom environments that are focused on meaningful learning. By briefly considering the relevant research and the examples that illustrate the application of the research, teachers should be able to create learning environments that focus on mastery goals. ACHIEVEMENT GOAL THEORY According to achievement goal theory, two very different messages can be conveyed in the classroom depending on whether the environment is characterized by mastery or performance goals (Ames, 1992; Dweck, 1996; Pintrich, 2000). Mastery goals are goals that are focused on engaging in achievement behavior with the purpose of developing one's competence, while performance goals are ones where the purpose of engaging in achievement behavior is to demonstrate one's competence or avoid the demonstration of a lack of competence (Kaplan, Middleton, Urdan, & Midgley, 2002). Within environments that emphasize mastery goals, teachers convey the belief that greater effort will lead to better outcomes. Mastery-oriented environments encourage students to set standards for their own performance, to view the development of new skills as a necessary outcome of learning tasks, and to accept, and persist in, challenging learning situations. By contrast, in environments highlighting performance goals, students often perceive trying hard as indicative of a lack of ability. Performance-oriented environments define success relative to others' performance and often discourage students from taking on challenging achievement experiences (See Pintrich and Schunk, 2002, for a review of relevant studies). Because students are so concerned with looking smart, in such environments, they often avoid seeking help and may even avoid academic tasks that are too challenging. These behaviors can result in academic struggles and may eventually lead students to drop out of secondary classrooms (Kumar, Gheen, & Kaplan, 2002). In a recent investigation of high school students' perceptions about achievement goals, students reported that teachers used practices that conveyed performance goals more frequently than practices highlighting mastery goals (Deemer, in press-a; Marachi, Gheen, & Midgley, 2001). Other work (see Midgley, 2002, for a review) has consistently shown a decrease in the promotion of mastery goals over the school years. In trying to explain this finding, Gallagher (1989) suggested that the hectic schedule of secondary teachers may restrict the promotion of mastery goals because the time needed to plan for meaningful, challenging instruction is limited. He suggest that, because most high school teachers instruct five classes per day to approximately 150 students, little time is available for supporting students' effort in learning. Gallagher also found secondary science teachers' main goal was covering the textbook, not focusing on student effort and learning. In addition, because teachers in the high school setting may feel responsible for preparing students for admission to college, professional training schools, and the workplace, they may feel it is necessary to encourage performance goals so students can succeed in these environments (Grossman & Stodolsky, 1994). It is likely that teachers need to emphasize performance goals in some contexts, mastery goals in other contexts, and that they need to possess the capability to know which one to emphasize when. Exactly what balance of mastery and performance goals should exist in the classroom is unclear although optimal levels of cognitive engagement and performance have been observed when teachers and students strive for mastery goals rather than solely encouraging performance goals (Anderman & Maehr, 1994; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991; Wentzel, 1989). …