C. Midgley et al. (2001) raised important questions about the effects of performance-approach goals. The present authors disagree with their characterization of the research findings and implications for theory. They discuss 3 reasons to revise goal theory: (a) the importance of separating approach from avoidance strivings, (b) the positive potential of performance-approach goals, and (c) identification of the ways performance-approach goals can combine with mastery goals to promote optimal motivation. The authors review theory and research to substantiate their claim that goal theory is in need of revision, and they endorse a multiple goal perspective. The revision of goal theory is underway and offers a more complex, but necessary, perspective on important issues of motivation, learning, and achievement. In tins response. the authors dispel interpretation of their critical review of research on performance-approach goals as support for a dichotomous perspective of achievement goal theory. Second, the authors challenge the suggestion that accepting recent research findings and adopting a multiple goals perspective constitutes a theoretical revision of the assumption that mastery goals are always good and performance goals are always bad (J. M. Harackiewicz. K. E. Barron, P. R. Pintrich, P. R. Elliot, & T. M. Thrash. 2002, p. 643). The authors make a distinction between developments that contribute to the explanatory power of the theory and value-laden interpretations of theory and research. The authors argue that phrasing the latter in terms of the former is misleading and that it masks the necessity for a critical discussion over the desired purposes in different types of achievement contexts.
When individuals engage in achievement-related behaviors, such as working hard on work tasks, they have different purposes or goals in mind. Achievement goals describe these underlying aims for engaging in given achievement tasks and are thought to shape how individuals approach, experience, and react to achievement situations (Dweck and Leggett, 1988; Elliot, 2005). Performance-approach goals refer to striving to be the best relative to others, whereas performance-avoidance goals refer to a on avoiding being the worst. Mastery-approach goals take a different angle and instead on an individual learning as much as possible about a task. The most recently posited and most contested achievement goal is mastery-avoidance, defined as a focus on avoiding self-referential or task-referential incompetence ... [that entails] striving to avoid losing one's skills and abilities (or having their development stagnate), forgetting what one has learned, misunderstanding material, or leaving a task incomplete (Elliot and McGregor, 2001: 61). These achievement goals are important for workplace behavior because adoption of different goals leads to different employee outcomes such as employee production (Donovan, 2009; Payne et al., 2007), cooperation (Midgley et al., 2001), emotional well-being, help-seeking, and cognitive engagement (Linnenbrink, 2005). Understanding these goals can help managers successfully motivate employees. For example, performance-avoidant individuals tend to avoid asking for help (VandeWalle and Cummings, 1997) because they are afraid of looking incompetent in front of others. Managers who are aware of this pattern can encourage learning over perfect performance and avoid punishing mistakes, resulting in an environment where even performance-avoidant individuals are more likely to seek out help when they need it. Furthermore, since those individuals endorsing performance goals may be more competitive, managers may want to encourage a more cooperative work environment through teamwork, or by modifying approaches to performance evaluation in order to on individual rather than comparative performance. To better understand the newest achievement goal mastery-avoidance, Baranik et al. (2007) updated VandeWalle's (1997) measure of achievement goals for a work setting to include a scale for the mastery-avoidance goal. The original study alone is insufficient to support general use of the instrument in the workplace since the study relied on a college student sample, and the authors cannot assume that the properties of the scale would extend to older worker populations (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, 1999), especially when there is evidence that motivation changes across the lifespan due to the different competencies that college students are trying to master as compared to older individuals (Heckhausen, 2005). To empirically investigate whether the instrument can support inferences for other worker populations, the current paper provides a measurement invariance study comparing college-aged workers to older employees. This is a critical step in establishing the validity of the scale. If invariance is established, the existing validity evidence for the scale can be applied to worker populations, allowing management researchers greater confidence that scores from the scale accurately reflect the theoretical motivational goals. Without this work, the link between the scores on the scale and theoretical motivational goals, and therefore research using the scale, is tenuous. LITERATURE REVIEW Elliot (2005) suggested that individuals have different referents for gauging their competence on achievement-related tasks that shape which achievement goal is pursued. When using task referents (i.e., absolute standards) or self-referents (i.e., past performance), competence evaluations are linked to mastery achievement goals. …
Researchers conducted a longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures to investigate the predictors of academic success over the course of 471 students' college careers. First, researchers examined which variables that were important in predicting students' interest and performance in an introductory psychology course taken in their first semester in college. Then, researchers followed students until they graduated to examine long-term consequences in terms of continued interest in psychology courses and subsequent performance in psychology classes. Achievement goals and ability measures each contributed unique variance in predicting initial and long-term outcomes. Ability measures, however, were only linked to academic performance outcomes, but achievement goal measures were linked to both interest and performance outcomes. The impact of achievement goals, ability, and initial experiences in introductory college courses is discussed. (Contains 1 table, 3 figures, and 11 references.) (Author/SLD) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. The Interplay of Ability and Motivational Variables Over Time: A 5 Year Longitudinal Study of Predicting College Student Success Kenneth E. Barron James Madison University Judith M. Harackiewicz University of Wisconsin-Madison John M. Tauer University of St. Thomas U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement ED CATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. 1 PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
A reality of conducting motivation research in educational settings is that there are tensions between technical standards of research and practical constraints of a given situation. Although adherence to standards for high-quality measurement is critical for good-quality data to be collected, measurement also requires substantial resources to ensure quality. In the current chapter, we discuss several examples of real data collected in different educational settings using a pragmatic measurement framework. Based on contemporary measurement perspectives, the pragmatic measurement framework emphasizes building evidence-based arguments to support the use and interpretation of a measure. Example 1 explores college students' attitudes toward general education classes. Example 2 tracks students' classroom motivation over several time points. Example 3 assesses experimental differences from an online motivation intervention. Together the three examples cover a range of possible research questions that researchers may encounter. As a whole, this chapter demonstrates that important and meaningful insights can be gained using pragmatic approaches to measurement. Importantly, we discuss the trade-offs that researchers or other measure users must consider when adopting a pragmatic approach to measurement.
