View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Relationships between Students' Achievement Goals and Social Positioning in the Classroom

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Relationships between Students' Achievement Goals and Social Positioning in the Classroom
Language: English
Authors: Alla Hemi (ORCID 0000-0001-8678-152X), Nir Madjar (ORCID 0000-0002-4931-8904), Yisrael Rich (ORCID 0000-0002-0391-7100), Martin Daumiller (ORCID 0000-0003-0261-6143)
Source: British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2025 95(4):1047-1062.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: High Schools
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Academic Achievement, Class Rank, Goal Orientation, Social Networks, Mastery Learning, High School Students, Network Analysis, Peer Relationship, Fear of Success
DOI: 10.1111/bjep.12762
ISSN: 0007-0998
2044-8279
Abstract: Background: Academic achievement goals are important for student outcomes, including their well-being, collaboration with peers, and academic achievement. Theory and research also indicate that achievement goals are linked to students' social context, playing a role in forming and maintaining peer relationships within the school environment. Aims: We examined relationships between students' achievement goals and their positioning in social networks. Specifically, we hypothesized that mastery approach goals are positively associated, and performance avoidance goals are negatively associated with social network centrality in the classroom. Sample: 472 high-school students (52% female; M[subscript age] = 15.71) from 23 classrooms participated in the study. Methods: Multilevel Social Network Analysis examined relationships between academic achievement goals and social network centrality calculated based on sociometric data. Results: Students with higher levels of mastery approach goals tended to be more central in the classroom, reaching out to more peers (out-degree), closer to their peers (closeness) and connecting classmates who are not directly connected (betweenness). On the other hand, students with higher levels of performance avoidance goals reached out to more classmates (out-degree) but were reached out to less by their peers (in-degree). Conclusions: Students with enhanced performance avoidance goals might try to engage in more social interactions with their peers, but these attempts appear to be ineffective. These findings help illustrate the contribution of achievement goals to students' social positioning in the classroom and provide insight for interventions to support both adaptive achievement goals and central social positioning in the classroom.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1488665
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGBC2bgWguGFmExfj3kBI1IAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEDED0J-Ppb0FhIoUgIBEICBmxDCJyz99-8NDNBLgx1u80_HZaAIOJri3k_KEBSf_x8XuiC48IYp-5hh98zVVS3RqJOa5UMj_5Jy8XteqHyrx2e4sN1L0QZFM2nevWK9VcoOTnIlEFCNtEjeOCsBsMB-kor9mnQj3BNaMk6wILT_kiLbTnB6UY-4h9PEOjaxCjkqNI2eLz_HtjBmIpsWq1wyQUAASrx2aTU6Sep_
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0189133031;6kx01dec.25;2025Nov10.01:24;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0189133031-1">Relationships between students' achievement goals and social positioning in the classroom </title> <p>Background: Academic achievement goals are important for student outcomes, including their well‐being, collaboration with peers, and academic achievement. Theory and research also indicate that achievement goals are linked to students' social context, playing a role in forming and maintaining peer relationships within the school environment. Aims: We examined relationships between students' achievement goals and their positioning in social networks. Specifically, we hypothesized that mastery approach goals are positively associated, and performance avoidance goals are negatively associated with social network centrality in the classroom. Sample: 472 high‐school students (52% female; Mage = 15.71) from 23 classrooms participated in the study. Methods: Multilevel Social Network Analysis examined relationships between academic achievement goals and social network centrality calculated based on sociometric data. Results: Students with higher levels of mastery approach goals tended to be more central in the classroom, reaching out to more peers (out‐degree), closer to their peers (closeness) and connecting classmates who are not directly connected (betweenness). On the other hand, students with higher levels of performance avoidance goals reached out to more classmates (out‐degree) but were reached out to less by their peers (in‐degree). Conclusions: Students with enhanced performance avoidance goals might try to engage in more social interactions with their peers, but these attempts appear to be ineffective. These findings help illustrate the contribution of achievement goals to students' social positioning in the classroom and provide insight for interventions to support both adaptive achievement goals and central social positioning in the classroom.</p> <p>Keywords: achievement goals; peer relationships; social network centrality</p> <hd id="AN0189133031-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Achievement goals, defined as the competence‐related objectives students strive for in academic settings (Elliot, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref1">20</reflink>]), are crucial for student well‐being, constructive teamwork and academic achievement (Senko, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref2">53</reflink>]). Research on achievement goals has flourished over the past two decades, seeking to understand how these goals shape students' social and academic experiences (Bardach et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref3">4</reflink>]). There is growing evidence that achievement goals influence students' interactions within their social context, particularly in how they engage with peers and navigate classroom social dynamics (Levy et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref4">40</reflink>]; Shin & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref5">54</reflink>]).</p> <p>During their school years, students develop significant social bonds with their peers (Kilday & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref6">37</reflink>]). These peer relationships are a cornerstone of their social environment, influencing not only how students interact but also how they develop skills and beliefs (Bukowski et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref7">10</reflink>]). As students mature, their focus on peers intensifies, while they strive for independence from adults (Rodkin & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref8">50</reflink>]). This shift in social priorities coincides with the period when achievement goals become more differentiated and influential in academic settings, as students increasingly distinguish between different achievement goals (Bong et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref9">6</reflink>]) and align their goals with perceived peer norms (Hemi et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref10">27</reflink>]; Hemi, Madjar, Daumiller, & Rich, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref11">26</reflink>]), creating self‐reinforcing cycles between goal adoption and social interactions.</p> <p>The interplay between achievement goals and peer relationships is particularly salient in the classroom context. Students' goal orientations can shape how they approach and maintain social interactions and collaborate with peers (Daumiller & Hemi, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref12">17</reflink>]; Levy et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref13">40</reflink>]; Nelson & DeBacker, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref14">44</reflink>]). For instance, students with mastery approach goals tend to engage in more collaborative behaviours, potentially fostering broader social connections (Levy et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref15">40</reflink>]). Conversely, those with performance avoidance goals might exhibit social withdrawal or ineffective interaction patterns that limit peer acceptance (Shin & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref16">54</reflink>]).</p> <p>Prior research has established a connection between achievement goals and the quality and extent of peer relationships (e.g. Levy et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref17">40</reflink>]; Nelson & DeBacker, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref18">44</reflink>]; Shin & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref19">54</reflink>]). However, little is still known about how achievement goals relate to one's social position in the classroom. Therefore, the aim of this study was to address this gap. In the present study, we incorporated social network analysis (SNA), which holds promise to illuminate the connections between students' achievement goals and their social standing within the classroom. Specifically, the results of this research could pave the way for more targeted research programs. These programmes could investigate how different achievement goals are related to aspects of peer relationships and changes in a student's centrality within the classroom network. Results of this line of research could also enhance educators' ability to design interventions aimed at promoting adaptive achievement goals while simultaneously enhancing students' social integration within the classroom.</p> <p>It is important to note that the relationship between achievement goals and peer relationships is complex and likely bidirectional (Daumiller & Hemi, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref20">17</reflink>]). Several longitudinal studies have found evidence for reciprocal influences between these or similar constructs. For example, Shin and Ryan ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref21">54</reflink>]) found that friends were similar in mastery goals due to both selection and influence effects. More recent studies have begun to explore these dynamics further: Gaspard et al. ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref22">23</reflink>]) found evidence for reciprocal associations between expected social support and students' expectancies and subjective task values, highlighting the interplay between individual motivations and the social context in educational settings. Qin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref23">48</reflink>]) demonstrated that friendship processes related to learning interest were strengthened in high social–emotional competency classes, with students both selecting friends based on similar interests and affecting the interests of friends over time. Similarly, Cui et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref24">15</reflink>]) revealed a reciprocal association between perceived peer intimacy and achievement motivation in English.</p> <p>These studies suggest that while achievement goals can shape students' social positioning in the classroom, peer relationships may also influence the adoption and expression of achievement goals. The current study employs a cross‐sectional design and therefore does not aim to investigate the directionality of these relationships. We focus specifically on how achievement goals matter for social positioning in the classroom, while recognizing the potential for bidirectional effects that could be explored in future longitudinal research.</p> <hd id="AN0189133031-3">STUDENTS' ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT GOALS</hd> <p>Within the framework of achievement goal theory, students' academic pursuits are defined by the specific goals they strive to achieve during the learning process (Ames, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref25">2</reflink>]; Hulleman et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref26">32</reflink>]; Lüftenegger et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref27">42</reflink>]). While various distinctions can be made regarding goal types (Daumiller et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref28">16</reflink>]), this study focuses on a traditional 2 X 2 framework (Elliot & McGregor, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref29">21</reflink>]) distinguishing between mastery and performance, and between approach and avoidance: mastery approach goals center on acquiring new knowledge or skills and gauging progress based on internal standards (e.g. a student thinking, 'I want to understand this math concept as thoroughly as possible'); mastery avoidance goals focusing on avoiding learning less than is possible to learn (e.g. a student thinking, 'I don't want to miss out on any important details in this history lesson'); performance approach goals are driven by the desire for positive external evaluation and for outperforming others (e.g. a student striving to get the highest grade in the class on a science project); and performance avoidance goals which focus on avoiding demonstrating incompetence or appearing less capable than others (e.g. a student avoiding volunteering answers in class for fear of giving an incorrect response and looking foolish) (Elliot & McGregor, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref30">21</reflink>]; Elliot & Murayama, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref31">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>Research underscores the importance of achievement goals in academic settings. Students with mastery approach goals tend to experience positive outcomes like well‐being, help‐seeking, persistence, feelings of belonging and collaboration (Bardach et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref32">4</reflink>]; Katz‐Vago & Benita, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref33">36</reflink>]; Levy‐Tossman et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref34">41</reflink>]). For example, mastery approach goals correlate with lower test anxiety and constructive help‐seeking behaviour (Holzer et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref35">30</reflink>]; Karabenick, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref36">35</reflink>]). Mastery avoidance goals, while less studied, have shown associations with perceived competence, competitiveness, and intrinsic interest, as well as negative emotions and lower levels of help‐seeking (Baranik et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref37">3</reflink>]). Performance approach goals have mixed associations with achievement (Hulleman et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref38">32</reflink>]) and were found to be associated with negative emotions and distress (Huang, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref39">31</reflink>]; Katz‐Vago & Benita, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref40">36</reflink>]). Performance avoidance goals were linked to negative effects like exhibiting mistrust, bullying tendencies, and decreased cooperation with peers (Bardach et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref41">5</reflink>]; Huang, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref42">31</reflink>]; Levy‐Tossman et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref43">41</reflink>]), higher levels of anxiety (Huang, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref44">31</reflink>]; Sun et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref45">56</reflink>]), as well as academic dishonesty (Daumiller & Janke, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref46">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>These findings highlight the importance of promoting students' mastery approach goals while attenuating their performance avoidance goals. Beyond individual outcomes, research suggests that achievement goals can be related to students' social experiences. For example, MAP goals might foster collaboration and trust, while performance‐avoidance goals might lead to social isolation (Bardach et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref47">4</reflink>]; Levy‐Tossman et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref48">41</reflink>]). However, the relationship between achievement goals and social dynamics remains underinvestigated. This study focuses on one potential social factor: a student's position within the classroom social network. We employ SNA to examine how social connections relate to students' achievement goals. By understanding this link, we aim to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the interplay between social dynamics and academic achievement goals.</p> <hd id="AN0189133031-4">SOCIAL POSITIONING IN THE CLASSROOM</hd> <p>Social positioning in the classroom plays an important role in shaping students' academic experiences, influencing their engagement and achievement (Vignery & Laurier, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref49">60</reflink>]; Wentzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref50">61</reflink>]). Students who are more accepted by classmates generally achieve academically higher, like school more, and are more engaged in school (Kiuru et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref51">38</reflink>]; Wentzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref52">61</reflink>]). Key concepts frequently discussed in the literature include popularity (being liked or admired by peers), social status (relative standing within the group), social isolation (lack of meaningful peer connections), and brokerage (acting as a bridge between otherwise unconnected peers) (Borgatti & Everett, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref53">7</reflink>]; Cillessen & Rose, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref54">14</reflink>]). These dimensions of social positioning are not static; they are malleable and significantly influenced by students' individual attributes such as beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviours (Shin & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref55">54</reflink>]). For instance, students who exhibit prosocial behaviours or align with group norms are more likely to be accepted by their peers, while those who deviate may experience rejection or isolation (Laninga‐Wijnen et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref56">39</reflink>]; Wentzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref57">61</reflink>]). Additionally, students with higher academic achievement and motivation tend to form friendships with similarly high‐achieving peers, potentially reinforcing their social position over time (Gremmen et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref58">24</reflink>]; Vignery & Laurier, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref59">60</reflink>]). Moreover, students' personal values and attitudes towards learning can influence their choice of peer groups and their positioning within the classroom social network (Bardach et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref60">4</reflink>]; Laninga‐Wijnen et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref61">39</reflink>]; Shin & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref62">54</reflink>]). Understanding these dynamics is essential for exploring how social positioning relates to other constructs, such as achievement goals.</p> <p>SNA is emerging as a valuable tool for understanding student interaction patterns and their social positioning within classrooms. By analysing these interactions as network connections, researchers can leverage centrality measures to describe the social positioning of each student within the network of all their classmates. A meta‐analysis by Saqr et al. ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref63">51</reflink>]) analysed 19 studies that included 33 samples and examined 16 centrality measures. All studies included in the meta‐analysis found a significant positive correlation between one or more centrality measures and academic achievement. Every centrality measure was positively associated with achievement in at least one of the reviewed studies (Saqr et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref64">51</reflink>]), suggesting academic achievement is related to social positioning in the classroom. Additionally, research by Brewe et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref65">9</reflink>]), indicating that centrality can vary depending on the learning environment, highlights the potential of SNA to not only identify students' positioning in the classroom but also to explore how different teaching methods might impact classroom network structures.</p> <p>In the present study, we focus on four commonly employed centrality measures (Freeman, 1978; Saqr et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref66">51</reflink>]; Valente et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref67">57</reflink>]), each of which explores a different aspect of positioning within the network. Specifically, we are looking at how a student's position within the social structure of the classroom can be characterized by several common centrality measures: how many peers a student reaches out to (out‐degree), how many peers reach out to the student (in‐degree), a student's ability to reach out to classmates with the least amount of mediating peers (closeness), and the extent to which a student serves as a mediator between peers (betweenness).</p> <hd id="AN0189133031-5">LINKS BETWEEN ACHIEVEMENT GOALS AND SOCIAL POSITIONING IN THE CLASSROOM</hd> <p>Previous research has explored the connection between achievement goals or related motivational constructs and peer relationships. For instance, Shin and Ryan ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref68">54</reflink>]) employed a longitudinal design and found that friends tend to share similar mastery goals, suggesting a potential selection process (i.e. a student choosing a friend with similar levels of mastery goals to the student's own) or an influence process (i.e. students endorsing similar levels of mastery goals that their friends have). Additionally, their study revealed that students with higher performance avoidance goals were less likely to be nominated as friends, hinting at a possible negative association between performance avoidance goals and social integration within the peer group.</p> <p>Levy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref69">40</reflink>]) employed a qualitative research approach to examine goal orientation and student cooperation. Their findings suggest that students with a mastery orientation are more willing to cooperate with peers regardless of social groups, potentially fostering broader social connections than students with other predominant orientations. Conversely, students with high levels of performance approach or avoidance goals exhibited preferential cooperation with in‐group or high‐status peers, which might limit their social network reach. They further observed that performance‐avoidant students with low social status adopted defensive avoidance strategies within the social domain, potentially leading to further social isolation (Okuno et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref70">45</reflink>]). Additionally, Nelson and DeBacker ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref71">44</reflink>]) found that adaptive achievement motivation was related to having a good quality friendships, while maladaptive achievement motivation was associated with a poor‐quality friendships.</p> <p>Prior research links between achievement goals and the quality and extent of peer relationships. However, little is still known about how achievement goals relate to one's social position in the classroom. Students with mastery approach goals, focused on learning and growth, may actively seek out collaborative opportunities and offer social support to peers, potentially leading to more central positions in the classroom network. These students might initiate more interactions, engage in group activities, and share resources, all of which could increase their centrality in the social structure. Conversely, students with performance avoidance goals, who aim to avoid appearing incompetent, might limit their social interactions and collaborative efforts to minimize the risk of negative evaluation. This behaviour could result in these students occupying more peripheral positions in the network, with fewer connections and potentially experiencing a degree of social isolation. This study aims to investigate how a student's achievement goals relate to their position within the classroom network, as measured by SNA. By examining these connections, we aim to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the interplay between academic motivation and social dynamics.</p> <hd id="AN0189133031-6">THE CURRENT RESEARCH</hd> <p>The current research employed SNA to investigate relationships between students' academic achievement goals and their social positioning in the classroom. Some limitations of earlier research (e.g. Guo et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref72">25</reflink>]; Ryzin et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref73">58</reflink>]) were addressed in this study. Examining social positioning within classrooms suggests using nested data structures so that assumptions of independence of observations are not violated (Borgatti & Ofem, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref74">8</reflink>]); yet, research employing multilevel analysis of students' network centrality and their academic motivation is not common. Additionally, this study can extend our understanding of more detailed social network centrality indices, not relying on self‐report only, and thus providing more objective social positioning measures (Cillessen & Marks, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref75">13</reflink>]) that could contribute to knowledge on differentiated functions of different goals. We used SNA to reveal the social positioning of each student within the classroom in terms of social network centrality measures (i.e. out‐degree, in‐degree, closeness, betweenness) and their associations with students' achievement goals. Based on the reviewed literature, we propose directed hypotheses regarding mastery approach and performance avoidance goals (H1 and H4). For the remaining achievement goals (mastery avoidance and performance approach), the relationship with social network positioning is less clear based on previous literature. Therefore, we propose undirected hypotheses for mastery avoidance and performance approach (H2 and H3). Specifically, we formulated the following hypotheses:</p> <hd id="AN0189133031-7">H1</hd> <p> <emph>Mastery approach goals would be positively associated with social network centrality metrics</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0189133031-8">H2</hd> <p> <emph>Mastery avoidance goals would be associated with social network centrality metrics</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0189133031-9">H3</hd> <p> <emph>Performance approach goals would be associated with social network centrality metrics.</emph> </p> <hd id="AN0189133031-10">H4</hd> <p> <emph>Performance avoidance goals would be negatively associated with social network centrality metrics</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0189133031-11">METHOD</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189133031-12">Participants</hd> <p>Participants in this study were 472 high school students (52% girls; <emph>M</emph><subs>age</subs> = 15.71, <emph>SD</emph> = .47) from 26 classes in four public high schools located in an urban area in the centre of Israel. The vast majority of Israeli secondary school students attend public schools. Within these schools, students are typically assigned to homeroom classes, each with a designated homeroom teacher. This structure fosters a sense of belonging amongst students, who identify with their specific homeroom class. Moreover, homeroom classes often serve as the base for several core subjects, further solidifying familiarity and interaction among classmates. Israeli secondary schools have a diverse composition of students, reflecting the broader Israeli population. The student body typically comprises families from various socio‐economic backgrounds, with a significant minority of immigrant students (Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref76">33</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189133031-13">Procedure</hd> <p>Data collection occurred from April to May, when students had known each other as classmates for ~8 months. The research protocol received approval from the Office of the Israeli Ministry of Education Chief Scientist, the authors' university ethics committee, and the principals of the participating schools. Parents were notified through a detailed letter outlining the study's objectives and procedures, their right to withhold their child's participation, and contact information for the researchers and school staff in case they refused their child's participation. One parent informed us of her objection to her child's participation. Students were informed about the study's goals and their right to decline or withdraw participation at any point. Their participation was voluntary, and they received no compensation. Questionnaires were anonymous and confidential and were administered during class time. Students completed them on computers (49%), cellphones (35%), or paper (16%), according to the schools' preferences and available resources at the time of data collection. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences in responses based on the completion method for any of the study's scales (<emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref77">10</reflink>, 890) =1.75, <emph>p</emph> > .05, η<sups>2</sups> = .019). Several students chose not to participate or stopped before completion (10% did not complete the questionnaires, and another 7% were not present during data collection, resulting in an 83% response rate). These students were instructed to quietly continue schoolwork or another activity of their choice in their seats until everyone finished. The questionnaire took ~20 min to complete. One of the authors oversaw data collection and was present during all questionnaire administrations.</p> <hd id="AN0189133031-14">Instruments</hd> <p>All measures were originally developed in previous studies, and their translation to Hebrew was validated in the Israeli context (e.g. Hemi et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref78">27</reflink>]; Hemi, Madjar, & Rich, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref79">28</reflink>]; Kaplan et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref80">34</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189133031-15">Achievement goals questionnaire (AGQ‐R)</hd> <p>Four students' achievement goals: mastery approach, mastery avoidance, performance approach and performance avoidance, were assessed using a three‐item scale adapted from Elliot and Murayama ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref81">22</reflink>]) for each achievement goal. Examples of items are: 'My aim is to completely master the material presented in this class' (mastery approach; α = .79); 'My goal is to avoid learning less than it is possible to learn' (mastery avoidance; α = .73); 'My aim is to perform well relative to other students' (performance approach; α = .87); and 'My goal is to avoid performing poorly compared to others' (performance avoidance; α = .86). CFA supported a four‐factor model as an adequate fit to the data in the current sample (χ<sups>2</sups>/DF = 2.81, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .05).</p> <hd id="AN0189133031-16">Sociometric questionnaire</hd> <p>The survey included a section that gathered social network data (adapted from Carboni & Ehrlich, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref82">12</reflink>]; Woudenberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref83">59</reflink>]). Each student was given a list of all their classmates and was asked to indicate how much time they spend with each classmate during school breaks ('Do you spend time with him/her during breaks? (e.g. talk or play with him/her)') on a scale of 0 to 4 (0 = not at all, 1 = rarely (e.g. once a month), 2 = occasionally (e.g. once a week), 3 = frequently (at least twice a week), 4 = very frequently/daily), as well as outside of school ('Do you spend time with him/her outside of school?'). From these data, an asymmetrical (directed) communication matrix was constructed for each classroom. Each matrix included weighted data, rating interactions from less to more frequent (on a scale from 0 to 4 as detailed above).</p> <p>Students rated their classmates by the amount of time spent with them, facilitating our aim to examine the role of a broad range of affiliations among classmates from close relations to casual acquaintances. The method of peer ratings (i.e. each student rates each of their classmates) differs from the method of peer nominations (i.e. each student names the students they spend most time with). Peer ratings maintain the advantage of each student receiving a rating from every other classmate, so raters are less likely to forget or neglect some of their classmates (Hintze et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref84">29</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189133031-17">Statistical analysis</hd> <p>First, we employed SNA to calculate four centrality measures (in‐degree, out‐degree, closeness, betweenness) for each student in their respective classrooms. Given that students are nested in classrooms, assumptions of independence of observations needed for ordinary least squares hierarchical regression were violated (Borgatti & Ofem, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref85">8</reflink>]). Therefore, two‐level random intercept‐slope models were employed to obtain unbiased estimates of standard errors for hypothesis testing (Raudenbush & Bryk, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref86">49</reflink>]). We used R packages snatools and lme4 for these analyses.</p> <p>Hypotheses were examined by 4 two‐level models; four achievement goals (mastery approach, mastery avoidance, performance approach, performance avoidance) were entered together as independent variables in each model, and each of the social network centrality measures (in‐degree, out‐degree, closeness, betweenness) was entered as a dependent variable separately in each model. A multilevel model was used to control for the nested structure of the data, with students nested in classrooms. All variables were introduced at the individual level (level 1). No specific classroom‐level predictors were introduced. Each model contained random intercepts and slopes and was compared to a model with only fixed effects to examine improvement in model fit. According to widely used methodological recommendations (e.g. Pastor & Gagné, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref87">46</reflink>]), the difference between models was evaluated based on the Akaikes Information Criterion (AIC), the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), the loglikelihood ratio test, and deviance. For AIC, BIC, loglikelihood, and deviance, lower values indicate a model that fits better. Additionally, a <emph>p</emph>‐value associated with a χ<sups>2</sups> below the significance level (i.e..05) indicates a better fit for the model with random effects compared to the model with fixed effects.</p> <hd id="AN0189133031-18">RESULTS</hd> <p>See Table 1 for individual‐ and classroom‐level descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations. Correlation coefficients were calculated level by level to deal adequately with the nested nature of the data (Raudenbush & Bryk, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref88">49</reflink>]; Snijders & Bosker, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref89">55</reflink>]). mastery approach goals were positively correlated with out‐degree and closeness, and performance avoidance goals were positively associated with out‐degree. No statistically significant association between mastery avoidance and performance approach goals and centrality measures emerged.</p> <p>1 TABLE Descriptive statistics and correlations of centrality measures and achievement goals at the individual student level and the classroom level.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Descriptives</th><th align="left">Bivariate correlations</th></tr><tr><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>Skew</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>ICC</italic></th><th align="left">1</th><th align="left">2</th><th align="left">3</th><th align="left">4</th><th align="left">5</th><th align="left">6</th><th align="left">7</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Individual level (Level 1)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">[1] In‐degree</td><td align="left">28.58</td><td align="left">14.72</td><td align="left">.30</td><td align="left">.28</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">[2] Out‐degree</td><td align="left">28.58</td><td align="left">17.39</td><td align="left">1.18</td><td align="left">.30</td><td align="left">.38***</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">[3] Closeness</td><td align="left">.78</td><td align="left">.15</td><td align="left">−.95</td><td align="left">.16</td><td align="left">.17***</td><td align="left">.82***</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">[4] Betweenness</td><td align="left">11.24</td><td align="left">12.74</td><td align="left">2.59</td><td align="left">.06</td><td align="left">.35***</td><td align="left">.54***</td><td align="left">.45***</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">[5] Mastery approach (MAP)</td><td align="left">3.91</td><td align="left">.91</td><td align="left">−.82</td><td align="left">.05</td><td align="left">.04</td><td align="left">.12**</td><td align="left">.14**</td><td align="left">.06</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">[6] Mastery avoidance (MAV)</td><td align="left">3.55</td><td align="left">1.01</td><td align="left">−.56</td><td align="left">.03</td><td align="left">.06</td><td align="left">.07</td><td align="left">.03</td><td align="left">−.04</td><td align="left">.46***</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">[7] Performance approach (PAP)</td><td align="left">3.54</td><td align="left">1.15</td><td align="left">−.53</td><td align="left">.07</td><td align="left">−.06</td><td align="left">.03</td><td align="left">−.01</td><td align="left">−.01</td><td align="left">.35***</td><td align="left">.31***</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">[8] Performance avoidance (PAV)</td><td align="left">3.56</td><td align="left">1.14</td><td align="left">−.56</td><td align="left">.04</td><td align="left">−.04</td><td align="left">.11*</td><td align="left">.06</td><td align="left">.02</td><td align="left">.32***</td><td align="left">.40***</td><td align="left">.71***</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Classroom level (Level 2)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">[1] In‐degree</td><td align="left">25.57</td><td align="left">10.26</td><td align="left">.40</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">[2] Out‐degree</td><td align="left">25.57</td><td align="left">10.26</td><td align="left">.40</td><td align="left" /><td align="left">1.00***</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">[3] Closeness</td><td align="left">.77</td><td align="left">.07</td><td align="left">−.72</td><td align="left" /><td align="left">.69***</td><td align="left">.69***</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">[4] Betweenness</td><td align="left">10.09</td><td align="left">3.98</td><td align="left">.24</td><td align="left" /><td align="left">.58***</td><td align="left">.58***</td><td align="left">−.02</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">[5] Mastery approach (MAP)</td><td align="left">3.92</td><td align="left">.30</td><td align="left">−.19</td><td align="left" /><td align="left">.01</td><td align="left">.01</td><td align="left">−.01</td><td align="left">−.21</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">[6] Mastery avoidance (MAV)</td><td align="left">3.51</td><td align="left">.30</td><td align="left">.02</td><td align="left" /><td align="left">.39</td><td align="left">.39</td><td align="left">.24</td><td align="left">.20</td><td align="left">.58**</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">[7] Performance approach (PAP)</td><td align="left">3.55</td><td align="left">.40</td><td align="left">.25</td><td align="left" /><td align="left">−.22</td><td align="left">−.22</td><td align="left">−.42*</td><td align="left">−.09</td><td align="left">.62**</td><td align="left">.37</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">[8] Performance avoidance (PAV)</td><td align="left">3.54</td><td align="left">.34</td><td align="left">−.28</td><td align="left" /><td align="left">.07</td><td align="left">.07</td><td align="left">−.18</td><td align="left">.16</td><td align="left">.52*</td><td align="left">.61**</td><td align="left">.79***</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>: *<emph>p</emph> < .05; **<emph>p</emph> < .01; ***<emph>p</emph> < .001.</p> <p>The main hypotheses of this study were tested through four multilevel models (see Table 2). The first hypothesis positing that mastery approach goals would be positively associated with social network centrality metrics was supported. Support for this hypothesis was manifest in three centrality measures; mastery approach goals were positively associated with out‐degree, closeness and betweenness centrality measures. Namely, students with higher levels of mastery approach goals tended to be more central in the classroom network. They were closer to their peers, reached out to more peers with whom they frequently spent time and connected classmates who were not directly connected to each other.</p> <p>2 TABLE Results of model testing for the four achievement goals on each of the social network centrality measures.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Dependent independent</th><th align="left">Model 1: In‐degree</th><th align="left">Model 2: Out‐degree</th><th align="left">Model 3: Closeness</th><th align="left">Model 4: Betweenness</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Level 1</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Mastery approach</td><td align="left">1.02 (1.04)</td><td align="left">3.62** (1.35)</td><td align="left">.04*** (.01)</td><td align="left">3.92* (1.42)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Mastery avoidance</td><td align="left">.04 (.94)</td><td align="left">−1.88 (1.17) (.98)</td><td align="left">−.01 (.01)</td><td align="left">−2.21 (1.28)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Performance approach</td><td align="left">1.01 (1.03)</td><td align="left">−1.00 (1.28)</td><td align="left">−.01 (.01)</td><td align="left">−.63 (1.39)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Performance avoidance</td><td align="left">−2.09* (1.05)</td><td align="left">2.40* (1.30) (1.42)</td><td align="left">.01 (.01)</td><td align="left">.38 (1.42)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Note</emph>: Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported, followed by standard errors in parentheses. Level 2 has been controlled for in all models. *<emph>p</emph> <.05; **<emph>p</emph> <.01; ***<emph>p</emph> <.001.</p> <p>The second and third hypotheses were not supported; no significant associations were found between mastery avoidance goals or performance approach goals and any of the centrality metrics measured in this study. The fourth hypothesis, maintaining that performance avoidance goals would be negatively associated with social network centrality metrics, was only partially supported; a negative association emerged between performance avoidance goals and in‐degree centrality. Additionally, contrary to our expectations, a positive association emerged between performance avoidance goals and out‐degree centrality. Namely, students with higher levels of performance avoidance goals tended to reach out to more peers with whom they frequently spent time but at the same time, their peers reached out to them less than less performance avoidant classmates.</p> <p>The models that included random effects had a significantly better fit to the data than the models that included only fixed effects for all independent variables (in‐degree, out‐degree, closeness, betweenness). The significant improvement in model fit when including random intercepts and slopes suggests significant differences in the associations of achievement goals and network centrality metrics across various classrooms. To illustrate differences between results for different classrooms, two classrooms with significantly different slopes were selected for graphic representation for each achievement goal; Figure 1 represents links between mastery approach goals and out‐degree centrality in a class with stronger links (i.e. a bigger slope = 6.57) and another class with weaker links (i.e. a smaller slope = 1.99); Figure 2 represents links performance avoidance between goals and in‐degree centrality in a class with stronger links (i.e. a bigger slope = −3.78) and another class with weaker links (i.e. a smaller slope = −.80).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/6KX/01dec25/bjep12762-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjep12762-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Exemplary illustration of students' mastery approach goals in two selected classrooms. Higher levels of mastery approach are depicted by larger node sizes; out‐degree centrality is presented within each node, and higher levels of out‐degree centrality are depicted by a darker colour. Two classrooms with different random slopes (classroom A, with a bigger slope, 6.57, and classroom B, with a smaller slope, 1.99) for mastery approach are presented. Mirroring our general findings, in both classrooms students with higher levels of mastery goals tend to spend time with more classmates (i.e. higher out‐degree), but this relationship is significantly stronger for classroom A than for classroom B, warranting continued investigation into contextual factors possibly moderating this relationship." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/6KX/01dec25/bjep12762-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjep12762-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Exemplary illustration of students' performance avoidance goals in two selected classrooms. Higher levels of performance avoidance are depicted by larger node sizes; in‐degree centrality is presented within the nodes; higher levels of in‐degree are depicted by a darker colour. Two classrooms with different random slopes (classroom A, with a bigger slope, −3.78, and classroom B, with a smaller slope, −.80) for performance avoidance are presented. In both classrooms, students with higher levels of performance avoidance goals tend to be reached out to less by their classmates (i.e. lower in‐degree), but this relationship is significantly stronger in classroom A than in classroom B, warranting continued investigation into contextual factors possibly moderating this relationship." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189133031-21">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>This study investigated relationships between students' academic achievement goals and their social positioning in the classroom. The first hypothesis, maintaining that mastery approach goals would be positively associated with social network centrality metrics, was supported; mastery approach goals were positively associated with out‐degree, closeness and betweenness centrality measures. The second and third hypotheses were not supported; no significant associations emerged between mastery avoidance or performance approach goals and any of the network centrality metrics. The fourth hypothesis, positing that performance avoidance goals would be negatively associated with social network centrality metrics, was partially supported; a negative association emerged between performance avoidance goals and in‐degree centrality, while contrary to our expectation, a positive association emerged between performance avoidance goals and out‐degree centrality.</p> <p>Our results align with prior research demonstrating the link between achievement goals and peer relationships (e.g. Shin & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref90">54</reflink>]). Studies have shown that students' mastery approach goals were associated with positive peer relationships and supportive attitudes (Levy et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref91">40</reflink>]; Nelson & DeBacker, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref92">44</reflink>]). Students with salient mastery approach goals, focused on learning and collaboration, are less constrained by social hierarchies or selective peer preferences (Levy et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref93">40</reflink>]). This orientation aligns with brokerage roles (high betweenness), as mastery‐oriented students are more likely to connect with peers across subgroups or cliques to exchange resources and knowledge. Their intrinsic motivation to learn fosters inclusive social strategies, enabling them to act as bridges between otherwise disconnected peers (Levy et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref94">40</reflink>]). For example, a mastery‐oriented student might collaborate with both high‐ and low‐achieving peers during group work, creating pathways for knowledge sharing and social integration. Their collaborative behaviours also enhance social influence, positioning them as central figures who can efficiently reach peers (high closeness).</p> <p>Conversely, negative peer relationships and avoidant social behaviour are more likely among students with high levels of performance avoidance goals (Levy et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref95">40</reflink>]; Shin & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref96">54</reflink>]). Students with salient performance avoidance goals may avoid participating visibly or meaningfully interacting in class to minimize scrutiny, reducing their likelihood of being reached out to by peers (low in‐degree). Interestingly, students' performance avoidance goals were only negatively associated with in‐degree while positively correlated with out‐degree. It is possible that students with enhanced performance avoidance goals might be trying to engage in social interactions with their peers, but these attempts seem to be ineffective, failing to establish reciprocal relationships. These results could be related to behaviours stemming from social anxiety, which is often manifested in avoidance behaviours (Cannon et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref97">11</reflink>]), similar to the focus of avoidance goals on avoiding negative evaluation (Elliot & McGregor, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref98">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>Social anxiety, characterized by fear of negative social evaluation and avoidance of social situations (American Psychiatric Association, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref99">1</reflink>]), can hinder initiating or maintaining social interactions despite desiring connection (Cannon et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref100">11</reflink>]). Similarly, students with high performance avoidance goals are motivated to avoid negative judgements and failure (Elliot & McGregor, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref101">21</reflink>]). Saxon and Calogero ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref102">52</reflink>]) found positive correlations between social interaction anxiety, performance avoidance goals and fear of negative evaluation. Thus, both social anxiety and performance avoidance goals could lead to initiating social interactions lacking the confidence or skills for strong, reciprocal relationships, with fear of rejection hindering further connection attempts. Social anxiety manifests differently among individual students. Some might completely avoid social interactions, while others exhibit avoidant coping mechanisms like safety behaviours (e.g. excessive reassurance seeking, avoiding eye contact, rehearsing statements; Okuno et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref103">45</reflink>]). These behaviours are associated with excessively negative beliefs about social interactions and poor peer interaction quality (Okuno et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref104">45</reflink>]; Prieto‐Fidalgo & Calvete, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref105">47</reflink>]). Thus, while avoidant coping mechanisms may involve initiating interactions, these are likely less effective for building strong connections.</p> <p>Additionally, the motivation behind students' social interactions was not explored in this study and remains unclear. Students with high levels of performance avoidance goals might be initiating interactions not necessarily out of a desire for connection, but due to a fear of being isolated or ostracized. In this case, they might exhibit a lack of sincere interest in their peers, or dominantly negative emotions associated with peer interactions, focusing on fear and anxiety rather than on enjoyment (Madjar et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref106">43</reflink>]). This could explain why their attempts are not reciprocated, leading to low in‐degree centrality. Further research is needed to explore the specific reasons why students with high levels of performance avoidance goals initiate social interactions, but these interactions do not seem to be reciprocated by their peers.</p> <hd id="AN0189133031-22">Limitations and directions for future research</hd> <p>It should be noted that due to the cross‐sectional design of our study, the direction of relationships cannot be inferred. It is possible that students' achievement goals affect their social positioning. For example, a student with predominantly performance avoidance goals, focused on avoiding external evaluation of failure, could refrain from connecting to others altogether, minimizing opportunities for external evaluation in the process. However, social positioning could also affect achievement goals; a well‐connected student might feel secure enough in their social standing and therefore could be less preoccupied with the way others evaluate them, allowing them to focus on intra‐personally oriented mastery goals. Conversely, students on the periphery of the network, with fewer connections, might experience social isolation or pressure not to stand out in a negative way, which could lead to a prevalence of performance avoidance goals. Several longitudinal studies suggest bi‐directional reciprocal influences between motivation and peer relationships (e.g. Gaspard et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref107">23</reflink>]; Shin & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref108">54</reflink>]). Our study can serve as an initial step in exploring relationships between the study constructs, whereas future longitudinal studies could further examine the direction of relationships across time. Exploring these relationships could help inform interventions to support both adaptive achievement goals and central social positioning in the classroom.</p> <p>Additionally, it is important to note that the random effects in all models were significant, with random intercepts and slopes differing significantly between different classrooms (see Figures 1–2 for an illustration), warranting a continued investigation on different contextual factors of classrooms, possibly moderating the link between achievement goals and social positioning in the classroom. For example, teachers' pedagogical practices, classroom goal structures, and school climate are known to be related to students' achievement goals (e.g. Bardach et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref109">5</reflink>]; Dickhäuser et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref110">19</reflink>]; Hemi, Madjar, & Rich, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref111">28</reflink>]), and principles for promoting mastery goal structures have been suggested (Lüftenegger et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref112">42</reflink>]). They could also be important for the link between achievement goals and social positioning, for example rendering the link weaker in classrooms in which teachers promote a positive climate and adaptive motivation, because in these classrooms, students are more socially cohesive (i.e. the positive climate might mitigate the effects of achievement goals on social positioning by diminishing the gaps between less and more central students in the classroom).</p> <p>Finally, we focused on relationships with peers within the classroom only, rendering relationships with peers not in the homeroom class outside the scope of this study. However, adolescents' social networks extend beyond the homeroom class or school context, encompassing relationships and interactions with peers who attend different classes or schools (e.g. after‐school activities, online communities). Future research could investigate the associations of students' achievement goals with these broader peer interactions. Exploring how interactions and goal orientations of other peers might relate to students' achievement goals could provide valuable insights.</p> <hd id="AN0189133031-23">Conclusion and practical implications</hd> <p>To conclude, our findings illustrate the role of achievement goals for students' social positioning within the classroom network. These findings can help teachers better understand how students' goal orientations matter for class dynamics in daily school routines, emphasizing the importance of fostering adaptive achievement goals to promote positive peer connections. Our findings highlight how different achievement goals relate to various aspects of social positioning and might guide teachers in designing interventions aimed at promoting mastery approach goals (e.g. by implementing TARGET guidelines; Lüftenegger et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref113">42</reflink>]), which are associated with more central and collaborative network positions. For instance, teachers could implement collaborative work strategies that encourage students to focus on personal improvement and learning, potentially leading to more supportive and interconnected classroom networks. More specifically, an intervention targeting students with high levels of performance avoidance goals could focus on reframing their academic motivations towards mastery and providing strategies to initiate and maintain social relationships. This approach could potentially improve these students' social positioning in the classroom by addressing the underlying motivational factors that influence their social behaviours.</p> <hd id="AN0189133031-24">AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS</hd> <p> <bold>Alla Hemi:</bold> Conceptualization; investigation; writing – original draft; methodology; visualization; writing – review and editing; formal analysis. <bold>Nir Madjar:</bold> Methodology; writing – review and editing; supervision. <bold>Yisrael Rich:</bold> Writing – review and editing; supervision. <bold>Martin Daumiller:</bold> Supervision; writing – review and editing; conceptualization; formal analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0189133031-25">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.</p> <hd id="AN0189133031-26">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <ref id="AN0189133031-27"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref99" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., Text Revision). American Psychiatric Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref25" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (3), 261 – 271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.84.3.261</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref37" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Baranik, L. E., Stanley, L. J., Bynum, B. H., & Lance, C. E. (2010). Examining the construct validity of mastery‐avoidance achievement goals: A meta‐analysis. Human Performance, 23 (3), 265 – 282. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2010.488463</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref3" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bardach, L., Daumiller, M., & Lüftenegger, M. (2022). Multiple Social and Academic Achievement Goals: Students' Goal Profiles and Their Linkages. The Journal of Experimental Education, 91 (4), 1 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2022.2081959</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref41" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bardach, L., Oczlon, S., Pietschnig, J., & Lüftenegger, M. (2020). Has achievement goal theory been right? A meta‐analysis of the relation between goal structures and personal achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112 (6), 1197 – 1220. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000419</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref9" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bong, M., Woo, Y., & Shin, J. (2013). Do students distinguish between different types of performance goals? The Journal of Experimental Education, 81 (4), 464 – 489. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.745464</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref53" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Borgatti, S. P., & Everett, M. G. (2006). A graph‐theoretic perspective on centrality. Social Networks, 28 (4), 466 – 484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2005.11.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref74" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Borgatti, S. P., & Ofem, B. (2010). Overview: Social network theory and analysis. In A. J. Daly (Ed.), The ties of change: Social Network Theory and Application in Education (pp. 17 – 30). Harvard Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref65" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Brewe, E., Kramer, L., & Sawtelle, V. (2012). Investigating student communities with network analysis of interactions in a physics learning center. Physical Review Special Topics ‐ Physics Education Research, 8 (1), 010101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bukowski, W. M., Castellanos, M., Vitaro, F., & Brendgen, M. (2015). Socialization and experiences with peers. In J. E. Grusec & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of Socialization: Theory and Research (2nd ed., pp. 228 – 250). The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cannon, C. J., Makol, B. A., Keeley, L. M., Qasmieh, N., Okuno, H., Racz, S. J., & De Los Reyes, A. (2020). A paradigm for understanding adolescent social anxiety with unfamiliar peers: Conceptual foundations and directions for future research. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 23, 338 – 364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567‐020‐00314‐4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carboni, I., & Ehrlich, K. (2013). The effect of relational and team characteristics on individual performance: A social network perspective. Human Resource Management, 52 (4), 511 – 535. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21539</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cillessen, A. H. N., & Marks, P. E. L. (2017). Methodological choices in peer nomination research. In P. E. L. Marks & A. H. N. Cillessen (Eds.), New directions in peer Nomination Methodology (Vol. 157, pp. 21 – 44). New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cillessen, A. H. N., & Rose, A. J. (2005). Understanding popularity in the peer system. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14 (2), 102 – 105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963‐7214.2005.00343.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cui, T., Cheng, E. H., Shi, J., & Liu, Q. (2025). Perceived Peer relationships and achievement motivation: Subject‐specific dynamics in a Chinese high school learning context. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1 – 20. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12749</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daumiller, M., Dickhäuser, O., & Dresel, M. (2019). University instructors' achievement goals for teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111, 131 – 148. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000271</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daumiller, M., & Hemi, A. (2025). Peer relationships and student motivation: Theoretical and methodological approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. British Journal of Educational Psychology. https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/42qs9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daumiller, M., & Janke, S. (2020). Effects of performance goals and social norms on academic dishonesty in a test. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 (2), 537 – 559. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12310</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dickhäuser, O., Janke, S., Daumiller, M., & Dresel, M. (2021). Motivational school climate and teachers' achievement goal orientations: A hierarchical approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (1), 391 – 408. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12370</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of Competence and Motivation (pp. 52 – 72). Guilford Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2× 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (3), 501 – 519. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐3514.80.3.501</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique, illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 (3), 613 – 628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.100.3.613</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gaspard, H., Parrisius, C., von Keyserlingk, L., Rubach, C., Yamaguchi‐Pedroza, K., Lee, H. R., Spengler, M., Fischer, C., Heckhausen, J., & Eccles, J. S. (2025). Reciprocal associations between expected social support and academic expectancies and subjective task values: Stronger for first‐generation and transfer students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1 – 24. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12751</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gremmen, M. C., Van den Berg, Y. H., Steglich, C., Veenstra, R., & Dijkstra, J. K. (2018). The importance of near‐seated peers for elementary students' academic engagement and achievement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 57, 42 – 52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2018.04.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guo, J., Li, X., & Zhang, Y. (2022). The impact of attitude toward peer interaction on middle school students' online learning motivation and critical thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 978144. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.978144</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hemi, A., Madjar, N., Daumiller, M., & Rich, Y. (2024). Achievement goals of the social peer‐group and the entire class: Relationships with students' individual achievement goals. Learning and Individual Differences, 115, 102524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102524</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hemi, A., Madjar, N., & Rich, Y. (2023). Perceived peer and teacher goals: Relationships with students' academic achievement goals. The Journal of Experimental Education, 91 (1), 145 – 165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2021.1906199</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hemi, A., Madjar, N., & Rich, Y. (2024). Perceptions of peer and teacher goals predict academic achievement goals among adolescents. The Journal of Experimental Education, 92 (4), 692 – 712. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2023.2229778</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hintze, J. M., Stoner, G., & Bull, M. H. (2000). Analogue assessment: Research and practice in evaluating emotional and behavioral problems. In E. S. Shapiro & T. R. Kratochwill (Eds.), Behavioral assessment in schools: Theory, Research, and Clinical Foundations (pp. 104 – 138). The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holzer, J., Bürger, S., Lüftenegger, M., & Schober, B. (2022). Revealing associations between students' school‐related well‐being, achievement goals, and academic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 95, 102140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102140</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang, C. (2011). Achievement goals and achievement emotions: A meta‐analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 23 (3), 359 – 388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐011‐9155‐x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hulleman, C. S., Schrager, S. M., Bodmann, S. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). A meta‐analytic review of achievement goal measures: Different labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar labels? Psychological Bulletin, 136 (3), 422 – 449. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018947</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Israeli National Central Bureau of Statistics. (2018). Israeli Annual Statistical Report, 69.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan, A., Lichtinger, E., & Gorodetsky, M. (2009). Achievement goal orientations and self‐regulation in writing: An integrative perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (1), 51 – 69. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013200</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karabenick, S. A. (2004). Perceived achievement goal structure and college student help seeking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 (3), 569 – 581. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.96.3.569</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Katz‐Vago, I., & Benita, M. (2024). Mastery‐approach and performance‐approach goals predict distinct outcomes during personal academic goal pursuit. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 94 (2), 309 – 327. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12645</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kilday, J. E., & Ryan, A. M. (2022). The intersection of the peer ecology and teacher practices for student motivation in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 34 (4), 2095 – 2127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐022‐09712‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kiuru, N., Wang, M.‐T., Salmela‐Aro, K., Kannas, L., Ahonen, T., & Hirvonen, R. (2020). Associations between adolescents' interpersonal relationships, school well‐being, and academic achievement during educational transitions. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49 (5), 1057 – 1072. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964‐019‐01184‐y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laninga‐Wijnen, L., Ryan, A. M., Harakeh, Z., Shin, H., & Vollebergh, W. A. (2018). The moderating role of popular peers' achievement goals in 5th‐and 6th‐graders' achievement‐related friendships: A social network analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110 (2), 289 – 307. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000210</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levy, I., Kaplan, A., & Patrick, H. (2004). Early adolescents' achievement goals, social status, and attitudes towards cooperation with peers. Social Psychology of Education, 7 (2), 127 – 159.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levy‐Tossman, I., Kaplan, A., & Assor, A. (2007). Academic goal orientations, multiple goal profiles, and friendship intimacy among early adolescents. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32 (2), 231 – 252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.06.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lüftenegger, M., Van De Schoot, R., Schober, B., Finsterwald, M., & Spiel, C. (2014). Promotion of students' mastery goal orientations: Does TARGET work? Educational Psychology, 34 (4), 451 – 469. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.814189</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madjar, N., Ratelle, C. F., & Duchesne, S. (2021). A longitudinal analysis of the relationships between students' internalized symptoms and achievement goals. Motivation Science, 7 (2), 207 – 218. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000195</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nelson, R. M., & DeBacker, T. K. (2008). Achievement motivation in adolescents: The role of peer climate and best friends. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76 (2), 170 – 189. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.76.2.170‐190</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Okuno, H., Rezeppa, T., Raskin, T., & De Los Reyes, A. (2022). Adolescent safety behaviors and social anxiety: Links to psychosocial impairments and functioning with unfamiliar peer confederates. Behavior Modification, 46 (6), 1314 – 1345. https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455211054019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pastor, D. A., & Gagné, P. (2013). Mean and covariance structure mixture models.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prieto‐Fidalgo, Á., & Calvete, E. (2024). Bidirectional relationships between interpretation biases, safety behaviors, and social anxiety. Current Psychology, 43, 2597 – 2606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144‐023‐04461‐z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Qin, K., Zhang, T., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Y. (2025). Dynamic friendship processes related to learning interest: Moderating by class‐level social‐emotional competency. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12750</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (Vol. 1). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodkin, P. C., & Ryan, A. M. (2012). Child and adolescent peer relations in educational context. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, S. Graham, J. M. Royer, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, vol 2: Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors (pp. 363 – 389). American Psychological Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saqr, M., Elmoazen, R., Tedre, M., López‐Pernas, S., & Hirsto, L. (2022). How well centrality measures capture student achievement in computer‐supported collaborative learning? A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Educational Research Review, 35, 100437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100437</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saxon, L., & Calogero, R. (2020). Exploring the links between social anxiety, performance‐avoidance goal orientation, fear of negative evaluation and task persistence. Western Undergraduate Psychology Journal, 8 (1), 1 – 12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Senko, C. (2019). When do mastery and performance goals facilitate academic achievement? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59, 1 – 13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101795</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shin, H., & Ryan, A. M. (2014). Friendship networks and achievement goals: An examination of selection and influence processes and variations by gender. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43 (9), 1453 – 1464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964‐014‐0132‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sun, X., Hendrickx, M. M., Goetz, T., Wubbels, T., & Mainhard, T. (2022). Classroom social environment as student emotions' antecedent: Mediating role of achievement goals. The Journal of Experimental Education, 90 (1), 146 – 157. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2020.1724851</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valente, T. W., Coronges, K., Lakon, C., & Costenbader, E. (2008). How correlated are network centrality measures? Connect, 28 (1), 16 – 26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Ryzin, M. J., Murray, C., & Roseth, C. J. (2024). The effects of cooperative learning on self‐reported peer relations, peer support, and classroom engagement among students with disabilities. The Journal of Educational Research, 117 (6), 355 – 364. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2024.2410494</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Woudenberg, T. J., Bevelander, K. E., Burk, W. J., Smit, C. R., Buijs, L., & Buijzen, M. (2020). Comparing the measurement of different social networks: Peer nominations, online communication, and proximity data. Network Science, 8 (1), 62 – 78. https://doi.org/10.1017/nws.2019.65</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vignery, K., & Laurier, W. (2020). Achievement in student peer networks: A study of the selection process, peer effects and student centrality. International Journal of Educational Research, 99, 101499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.101499</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wentzel, K. R., Jablansky, S., & Scalise, N. R. (2021). Peer social acceptance and academic achievement: A meta‐analytic study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113 (1), 157 – 180. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000468</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Alla Hemi; Nir Madjar; Yisrael Rich and Martin Daumiller</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref110"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1488665
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Relationships between Students' Achievement Goals and Social Positioning in the Classroom
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Alla+Hemi%22">Alla Hemi</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8678-152X">0000-0001-8678-152X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nir+Madjar%22">Nir Madjar</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4931-8904">0000-0002-4931-8904</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yisrael+Rich%22">Yisrael Rich</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0391-7100">0000-0002-0391-7100</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Martin+Daumiller%22">Martin Daumiller</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0261-6143">0000-0003-0261-6143</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Journal+of+Educational+Psychology%22"><i>British Journal of Educational Psychology</i></searchLink>. 2025 95(4):1047-1062.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22High+Schools%22">High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Class+Rank%22">Class Rank</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Goal+Orientation%22">Goal Orientation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Networks%22">Social Networks</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mastery+Learning%22">Mastery Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22High+School+Students%22">High School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Network+Analysis%22">Network Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Relationship%22">Peer Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Fear+of+Success%22">Fear of Success</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/bjep.12762
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0007-0998<br />2044-8279
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: Academic achievement goals are important for student outcomes, including their well-being, collaboration with peers, and academic achievement. Theory and research also indicate that achievement goals are linked to students' social context, playing a role in forming and maintaining peer relationships within the school environment. Aims: We examined relationships between students' achievement goals and their positioning in social networks. Specifically, we hypothesized that mastery approach goals are positively associated, and performance avoidance goals are negatively associated with social network centrality in the classroom. Sample: 472 high-school students (52% female; M[subscript age] = 15.71) from 23 classrooms participated in the study. Methods: Multilevel Social Network Analysis examined relationships between academic achievement goals and social network centrality calculated based on sociometric data. Results: Students with higher levels of mastery approach goals tended to be more central in the classroom, reaching out to more peers (out-degree), closer to their peers (closeness) and connecting classmates who are not directly connected (betweenness). On the other hand, students with higher levels of performance avoidance goals reached out to more classmates (out-degree) but were reached out to less by their peers (in-degree). Conclusions: Students with enhanced performance avoidance goals might try to engage in more social interactions with their peers, but these attempts appear to be ineffective. These findings help illustrate the contribution of achievement goals to students' social positioning in the classroom and provide insight for interventions to support both adaptive achievement goals and central social positioning in the classroom.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1488665
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1488665
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/bjep.12762
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 1047
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Class Rank
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Goal Orientation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Networks
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mastery Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: High School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Network Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Fear of Success
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Relationships between Students' Achievement Goals and Social Positioning in the Classroom
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Alla Hemi
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nir Madjar
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yisrael Rich
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Martin Daumiller
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0007-0998
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2044-8279
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 95
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: British Journal of Educational Psychology
              Type: main
ResultId 1