Are Mastery and Ability Goals Both Adaptive? Evaluation, Initial Goal Construction and the Quality of Task Engagement
Saved in:
| Title: | Are Mastery and Ability Goals Both Adaptive? Evaluation, Initial Goal Construction and the Quality of Task Engagement |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Butler, Ruth |
| Source: | British Journal of Educational Psychology. Sep 2006 76(3):595-611. |
| Availability: | British Psychological Society. St Andrews House, 48 Princess Road East, Leicester, LE1 7DR, UK. Tel: +44-116-254-9568; Fax: +44-116-247-0787; e-mail: enquiry@bps.org.uk; Web site: http://www.bps.org.uk/publications/publications_home.cfm |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 17 |
| Publication Date: | 2006 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Secondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Cues, Student Motivation, Student Evaluation, Secondary Education, Student Educational Objectives, Learning Motivation, Academic Aspiration |
| DOI: | 10.1348/000709905X52319 |
| ISSN: | 0007-0998 |
| Abstract: | Aims: The aims of this research were to examine the predictions that (a) the kind of evaluation pupils anticipate will influence their initial achievement goals and, as a result, the quality and consequences of task engagement; and (b) initial mastery goals will promote new learning and intrinsic motivation and initial ability goals will promote entity beliefs that ability is fixed. Sample: Participants were 312 secondary school pupils at ages 13-15. Methods: Pupils expected to receive normative evaluation, temporal evaluation (scores over time) or no evaluation. Mastery and ability goals were measured before pupils worked on challenging problems; intrinsic motivation and entity beliefs were measured after task completion. Results: Anticipation of temporal evaluation enhanced initial mastery goals, anticipation of normative evaluation enhanced ability goals and the no-evaluation condition undermined both. Anticipation of temporal evaluation enhanced new learning (strategy acquisition and performance gains) and intrinsic motivation both directly and by enhancing initial mastery goals; anticipation of normative evaluation enhanced entity beliefs by enhancing ability goals. Conclusions: Results confirmed that evaluation conveys potent cues as to the goals of activity. They also challenged claims that both mastery and ability goals can be adaptive by demonstrating that these were differentially associated with positive versus negative processes and outcomes. Results have theoretical and applied implications for understanding and improving evaluative practices and student motivation. |
| Abstractor: | Author |
| Entry Date: | 2007 |
| Accession Number: | EJ750358 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHCVsAmBCYb7eppJbuvw7OfAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKN9EVqE7ZeJ5KTo6wIBEICBmu2ADH8kahM_fRC_OhSANN4SzV_8AJnCFiiniRLiUVma02mXIZ2At_RFwUeCPnGZ7Hor_UUVmZGYHy_Of_7CrgP1FaCi-K2vi1hwZLsuelUgzkFdgTXoCJ8jTuxfU7w0J8JITHVotBp3cxBY1di3_4dZ004A7mhHODhHLdSJszH9vz6bWp-KKSt8wybUTntZ8230IWkk3GAjfsA= Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0022557794;6kx01sep.06;2019May28.14:21;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0022557794-1">Are mastery and ability goals both adaptive? Evaluation, initial goal construction and the quality of task engagement. </title> <p>Aims. The aims of this research were to examine the predictions that (a) the kind of evaluation pupils anticipate will influence their initial achievement goals and, as a result, the quality and consequences of task engagement; and (b) initial mastery goals will promote new learning and intrinsic motivation and initial ability goals will promote entity beliefs that ability is fixed. Sample. Participants were 312 secondary school pupils at ages 13–15. Methods. Pupils expected to receive normative evaluation, temporal evaluation (scores over time) or no evaluation. Mastery and ability goals were measured before pupils worked on challenging problems; intrinsic motivation and entity beliefs were measured after task completion. Results. Anticipation of temporal evaluation enhanced initial mastery goals, anticipation of normative evaluation enhanced ability goals and the no‐evaluation condition undermined both. Anticipation of temporal evaluation enhanced new learning (strategy acquisition and performance gains) and intrinsic motivation both directly and by enhancing initial mastery goals; anticipation of normative evaluation enhanced entity beliefs by enhancing ability goals. Conclusions. Results confirmed that evaluation conveys potent cues as to the goals of activity. They also challenged claims that both mastery and ability goals can be adaptive by demonstrating that these were differentially associated with positive versus negative processes and outcomes. Results have theoretical and applied implications for understanding and improving evaluative practices and student motivation.</p> <p>Evaluative practices are a central organizing feature of all educational contexts. The main proposal examined in this paper is that evaluation provides important information about the purposes of schoolwork that influences students' initial achievement goals and, as a result, the quality of task engagement and continuing motivation. Achievement goal theory presents students as actively engaged in constructing the purposes, or goals, of schoolwork. Most analyses have focused on the distinction between strivings to acquire and improve skills and understanding versus strivings to maintain self‐worth by demonstrating superior, or masking inferior, ability. These have been variously labelled task versus ego orientation ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref1">25</reflink>]), learning versus performance goals ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref2">13</reflink>]), or mastery versus ability goals ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref3">10</reflink>]), and we use the latter terminology in this paper. Students differ in their general goals for schoolwork, but the degree to which they pursue one or the other goal is also affected, and can thus be modified by the degree to which the context conveys that the aim of task engagement is to learn and acquire competence or to demonstrate superior ability (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref4">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>Identifying educational practices that influence initial goal construction has both theoretical and applied significance because goals function as systems of meaning within which students regulate their behaviour in learning settings ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref5">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref6">23</reflink>]). The first aim of the present study was to examine the proposal that the evaluation that pupils expect to receive is a contextual feature that is highly relevant to initial goal construction. Specifically, evaluation that implicitly or explicitly evaluates pupils relative to others should convey that the main purpose of task engagement is to demonstrate superior ability. In contrast, evaluating pupils' work relative to task requirements or personal progress should convey that the purpose of schoolwork is to learn and acquire competence. In one early study, pupils who repeatedly received numerical grades after working on initially attractive tasks were subsequently more likely to attribute their investment in the activity to strivings to demonstrate superior ability and students who received informative written comments were more likely to agree that they had wanted to learn and improve ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref7">6</reflink>]). Pupils' endorsement of ability goals for schoolwork was also related to their perceptions of their teachers as emphasizing relative ability (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref8">21</reflink>]). Such studies, however, did not isolate the effects of teachers' evaluative practices from those of other ability goal cues, such as ability grouping. In addition, both classroom surveys and experimental studies that examined students' responses <emph>after</emph> they received different kinds of evaluation confounded the effects of the information evaluation provides about the purposes of activity, on the one hand, and the quality of performance on the other, and thus did not isolate the role evaluation may play in initial goal construction.</p> <p>These limitations were addressed in the present study by examining the effects of anticipated evaluation. Pupils were told before they worked on a series of challenging reasoning problems that they would later receive either their final percentile score (normative evaluation condition) or their scores on each problem (temporal evaluation condition). The predictions that mere anticipation of temporal evaluation would enhance mastery, relative to ability goals and that anticipation of normative evaluation would promote ability, more than mastery goals were then tested by comparing pupils' initial achievement goals <emph>prior</emph> to task engagement. The design also included a third condition in which pupils did not anticipate any evaluation. Some researchers have suggested that in the absence of salient extrinsic constraints, including anticipated evaluation, the opportunity to engage in challenging activities will itself promote strivings to learn and acquire competence ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref9">12</reflink>]). In contrast, the present proposal that evaluation provides important cues as to the purposes of activity implies that contexts in which pupils do not anticipate evaluation will not promote either ability or mastery strivings, at least in part by conveying that the activity is not relevant to achievement. Thus, it was predicted that anticipation of no evaluation would undermine initial ability goals relative to anticipation of normative evaluation and would undermine initial mastery goals relative to anticipation of temporal evaluation.</p> <p>The second main aim of the present study was to examine the proposal that mere anticipation of temporal versus normative evaluation will also influence the quality and consequences of task engagement, specifically by influencing pupils' initial goals. The present study focused first on heuristic problem solving and intrinsic motivation, both because these are educationally important and because their examination in the present context was expected to contribute to current debates as to the influence of mastery versus ability goals. On the one hand, there is empirical support for the proposal that educators should promote strivings to learn and acquire competence because these are associated with more positive outcomes, including higher‐order thinking and intrinsic motivation (see [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref10">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref11">10</reflink>] for reviews). On the other hand, evidence that ability strivings enhanced performance and intrinsic motivation in some studies has led some researchers to question whether they are necessarily less adaptive than mastery goals (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref12">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>Regarding performance, some reviews of the research on the influence of mastery versus ability goals have focused on the nature of the task, and, particularly, on evidence that mastery goals were associated with superior performance on tasks that required problem solving or divergent thinking, but ability goals enhanced performance on tasks that required rote learning or the rapid application of familiar skills (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref13">30</reflink>]). In some recent studies, however, ability goals also predicted school achievement ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref14">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref15">16</reflink>]). In a recent analysis, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref16">10</reflink>] suggested that one can integrate these findings by focusing on the differential role of mastery and ability goals in facilitating new learning. She reasoned that mastery goals, which encourage students to learn and acquire worthwhile skills and understandings, also prompt them to search for new and better ways to address and solve problems. In contrast, ability goals, which focus attention on the level of one's ability, encourage students to rely on familiar knowledge and strategies. Thus, the kind of tasks that are supported by mastery goals require heuristic and divergent thinking that necessarily involves the acquisition of new ways of addressing problems. However, those that are supported by ability goals, including, in many cases, graded performance on school tests, rest more on the recall and application of familiar knowledge and algorithms.</p> <p>Pupils were indeed more likely to acquire strategies when they received worked‐out examples in a mastery goal than in an ability goal condition ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref17">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref18">11</reflink>]). No studies, however, have directly examined the proposal that mastery, but not ability goals will predict the degree to which students spontaneously learn and acquire strategies during task engagement. Thus, studies that examined goal effects on higher‐order thinking tended to measure performance level, rather than improvement, in designs that manipulated achievement goals, but did not examine the degree to which participants actually endorsed them before they began to work (see review by [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref19">10</reflink>]). In contrast, in the present study, pupils worked on a maths task in which each problem had some easy and obvious solutions that rested on application of simple and familiar algorithms, but the best solution required students to acquire a new and more complex strategy that could then be applied to subsequent problems. New learning could thus be examined by comparing strategies and performance on earlier versus later problems. In addition, the study included both a manipulation (anticipated evaluation) and measures of personal achievement goals prior to task engagement. Specifically, it was predicted that mastery and ability goal strivings might not influence performance on early problems, when most students would focus on applying the simpler algorithms. In contrast, it was predicted that mastery, but not ability goals, would be associated with performance on later problems, and thus also with improvement over time, because pupils oriented to learn would be more likely to acquire more complex strategies as they worked. In this case, if anticipation of temporal evaluation functions as a mastery cue and anticipation of normative evaluation as an ability cue, then students who anticipate temporal evaluation should be more likely to acquire strategies. Moreover, this influence of anticipated evaluation on improvement should be mediated by students' endorsement of initial mastery, but not ability goals.</p> <p>There is also some debate as to the relation between achievement goals and intrinsic motivation, usually defined in terms of perceptions of activity as inherently interesting and satisfying ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref20">12</reflink>]). The positive relation between mastery goals and intrinsic motivation has been supported by research in both experimental and classroom settings ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref21">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref22">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref23">16</reflink>]), but studies have yielded mixed findings as to whether ability goals undermined, did not affect or even enhanced interest. However, an examination of relevant studies indicates that ability goals promoted interest when people received confirmation of high ability ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref24">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref25">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref26">29</reflink>]), but undermined interest when they received negative feedback or did not anticipate further positive feedback ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref27">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref28">28</reflink>]). One interpretation (see also [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref29">10</reflink>]) is that ability goals may maintain interest as long as people receive positive feedback that confirms that they are attaining their goal of demonstrating high ability, but do not encourage people to experience task engagement as intrinsically satisfying. The present design, in which pupils anticipated, but did not receive, evaluation can provide a direct test of this proposal. Specifically, it was predicted that intrinsic motivation for the target activity would be higher after anticipation of temporal than of normative evaluation, and that this effect would be mediated, at least in part, by the degree to which pupils endorsed mastery goals prior to task engagement.</p> <p>Validation of these predictions will contribute not only to understanding the motivational influences of evaluation, but also to the debate as to whether mastery and ability goals are more adaptive. In addition, the present study examined the novel hypothesis that the kind of evaluation pupils anticipate will also influence their beliefs about ability. Dweck and her colleagues (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref30">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref31">15</reflink>]) have demonstrated that people differ in the degree to which they construe ability (or intelligence) as a fixed trait (entity theorists), or as a malleable capacity that is acquired through effortful learning (incremental theorists). These implicit theories, like achievement goal orientations, reflect a reasonably stable dimension of individual differences, but can also be influenced by contextual cues. Thus, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref32">24</reflink>] found that telling children that their success on a task showed that they were smart enhanced subsequent entity beliefs relative to a condition in which their success was attributed to effort.</p> <p>The implication that pupils' beliefs about school‐related abilities can be modified by evaluative cues in the learning environment is important because incremental beliefs are associated with more adaptive processes and outcomes than entity beliefs ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref33">14</reflink>]). Most pertinent in the present context, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref34">15</reflink>] proposed that implicit theories affect achievement goals, because believing that ability is fixed encourages pupils to prove that they have high ability and believing that ability is acquired inspires them to learn and improve. Manipulating beliefs about intelligence did indeed affect students' achievement goals ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref35">15</reflink>]). However, one can venture that the relations between beliefs about ability and about the purposes of learning are bidirectional. Thus, pupils who construe an activity as relevant to demonstrating superior ability should be more likely than pupils who adopt mastery goals to construe task‐relevant abilities as fixed. The most common measure of implicit theories measures agreement with entity beliefs (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref36">14</reflink>]). Thus, it was predicted both that endorsement of entity beliefs after task engagement will be higher among pupils who anticipated normative evaluation than among those who anticipated temporal evaluation and that the relation between anticipated evaluation and entity beliefs would be mediated by pupils' endorsement of initial ability goals. In this case, the earlier prediction that both mastery and ability strivings will be relatively low when pupils do not anticipate any evaluation suggests the further predictions that, in this condition, entity beliefs will be lower than in the anticipated normative evaluation condition and performance improvement and intrinsic motivation will be lower than in the anticipated temporal evaluation condition.</p> <p>To summarize, the study had two main aims. The first was to test predictions that mere anticipation of temporal versus normative versus no evaluation will affect pupils' initial mastery versus ability achievement goals for task engagement, and subsequent performance gains, intrinsic motivation, and beliefs about ability. The second was to examine the specific ways in which anticipation of temporal versus normative evaluation influences competence acquisition, intrinsic motivation and beliefs about ability by influencing pupils' initial goals.</p> <hd id="AN0022557794-2">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0022557794-3">Participants</hd> <p>The sample comprised 312 pupils in Grades 7 and 8 (152 boys, 160 girls, mean age 13;9) in nine classes in four junior high schools in Jerusalem that serve similar, socially heterogeneous populations. Informed consent was obtained from the municipality, head teachers, parents, and all participating pupils.</p> <hd id="AN0022557794-4">Procedure</hd> <p>Procedures were group administered during class hours by one of four female college students. Pupils were assigned to experimental condition by row, such that adjacent pupils received the same instructions. Pupils in the normative evaluation condition read, 'We shall be asking you to work on 10 reasoning problems. We shall then collect and evaluate your work. Each pupil will receive his or her percentile score'. A table presented three sample scores (<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref37">90</reflink>, 50, 10) and the explanation that a score of 90 indicates that the pupil scored higher than 90% of other pupils in Grade 7 (or 8) who had worked on the same tasks, and so on. Pupils in the temporal evaluation condition read that pupils would receive their scores (from 0 to 3) on each problem, in order of presentation. A table presented three patterns (ascending, no change, declining) and the explanation that they indicated that problem solving had improved, remained stable or deteriorated, respectively, as they worked. Pupils in these two conditions also read that booklets were numbered according to the class seating plan, and that they would receive evaluation in an envelope with the same serial number. Pupils in the no evaluation condition read that they would be able to keep their work.</p> <p>The next pages presented the experimental task, which was described as a 'heuristic problem‐solving task'. Students read that heuristic problem solving entails identifying different strategies for solving problems and determining the best strategy. Pupils were told that the task consisted of 10 water jar problems of equivalent difficulty level (these were chosen from the base used by [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref38">9</reflink>]), in which the aim was to fill a target container to some designated capacity using three jars in as few moves as possible. Problems were constructed such that each had several solutions that differed in the number of transfers required; in all cases, the shortest solution required students to transfer quantities between the three jars, before transferring quantities to the target container (e.g. filling to a volume of 14 by pouring water from a 20‐litre jar to a 4‐litre jar and then to a 2‐litre jar before pouring the remainder into the target), the next shortest solution involved direct transfers using two jars (in the above example, pouring water three times from the 4‐litre jar and once from the 2‐litre jar), and the longest solution involved direct transfers from one jar alone (pouring water seven times from the 2‐litre jar). Instructions presented a description of the task, conventions for recording solutions, and the explanation that each problem had three correct solutions that differed in the number of transfers required. Thus, the shortest solution would receive a score of 3, the next shortest a score of 2, the longest correct solution a score of 1, and incorrect solutions would be scored 0. Pupils also read that the best and shortest solution to all problems was based on the same strategy. These features enabled examination of strategy acquisition and increased the relevance of anticipated feedback by increasing uncertainty about the quality of solutions and strategies. To discourage pupils from comparing or copying solutions, they were told that different pupils would receive different problem sets of equivalent difficulty. Sets were created by varying the order of presentation of the 10 problems.</p> <p>Pupils then read, 'Before you start to work, we are interested in your thoughts about the task. Different pupils have different goals when they work on problem‐solving tasks. Please rate for each of the following the degree to which it is an important goal for you'. Pupils rated the importance of five goals considered <emph>a priori</emph> to reflect mastery strivings to learn and acquire competence, three goals that reflected strivings to demonstrate superior ability and two that reflected strivings to avoid the demonstration of inferior ability (see Table 1) on separate scales anchored at 1 (<emph>not at all important</emph>) and 7 (<emph>very important</emph>).</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Pupils then worked on the problems. On completion, they first rated their perceived performance on a scale anchored at 1 (<emph>very poor</emph>) and 7 (<emph>excellent</emph>). Four questions measured intrinsic motivation. Pupils responded to the questions: 'how much did you enjoy working on the problems?', 'would you like to receive extra problems to work on in your free time?', and 'how willing would you be to work on extra problems during recess?' on scales anchored at 1 (<emph>not at all)</emph> and 7 (<emph>to a great extent</emph>) and then indicated how many extra pages of problems they would like to receive (from 0 to 6). Finally, pupils responded to a measure of beliefs about intelligence ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref39">14</reflink>]), adapted to refer to 'heuristic problem‐solving ability'. After reading that people have different views about the nature of this ability, pupils rated their agreement (scores from 1 to 6) with each of three items ('everyone has a certain amount of heuristic problem‐solving ability, and one can't do much to change this amount', 'one's heuristic problem‐solving ability is something about oneself that one can't change very much', and 'people can learn new strategies, but they can't change their basic heuristic problem‐solving ability'). On completion, the experimenters described the study's aims and methods, explained why pupils would not receive evaluation, and gave additional problems to pupils who requested them.</p> <hd id="AN0022557794-5">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0022557794-6">Effects of anticipation of normative, temporal, or no evaluation</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0022557794-7">Initial goal orientation</hd> <p>Two principal components analyses of responses to the initial goals questionnaire using oblique and varimax rotation, respectively, yielded almost identical patterns, so results are reported for the latter. The analysis yielded two factors (see Table 1 for items and factor loadings). The first included the five mastery items and accounted for 41% of the variance. Strivings to excel and to avoid the demonstration of poor ability loaded on the second ability goals factor, which accounted for 28% of the variance. Items from each of the two factors were averaged to form mastery (α =.89) and ability (α =.82) scales. The correlation between the two scales was low, but significant, <emph>r</emph> (<reflink idref="bib310" id="ref40">310</reflink>) =.17, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.01.</p> <p>The predictions that anticipation of normative evaluation would enhance ability more than mastery goals, anticipation of temporal evaluation would enhance mastery more than ability goals, and that neither kind of goal would be salient when pupils did not anticipate evaluation were tested with a 2 (initial goals: mastery and ability)×3 (evaluation condition)×2 (gender) ANOVA with repeated measures on the first factor. As predicted, there was a significant within‐subjects effect for initial goals by feedback condition, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref41">2</reflink>, 305) = 18.17, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.001, <emph>MSE</emph> = 1.56, η<sups>2</sups> =.11 (see Table 2 for cell means). Follow‐up analyses for each experimental condition using <emph>df</emph> and <emph>MSE</emph> for within‐subjects effects from the general analysis confirmed that pupils who anticipated normative evaluation endorsed ability more than they did mastery goals, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref42">1</reflink>, 300) = 4.34, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.05, <emph>MSE</emph> = 1.56, η<sups>2</sups> =.04, pupils who anticipated temporal evaluation endorsed mastery more than ability goals, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref43">1</reflink>, 305) = 38.34, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.001, <emph>MSE</emph> = 1.56, η<sups>2</sups> =.28, and pupils who did not anticipate feedback endorsed both goals to a similar, and moderate, degree. <emph>Post hoc</emph> comparisons of the effects of experimental condition on goal endorsement (Scheffe's range test, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.05) further confirmed that endorsement of ability goals was significantly higher in the normative than in the temporal condition, and endorsement of mastery goals was significantly higher in the temporal than in both other conditions. There was also a significant within‐subjects effect for goal orientation by gender <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref44">1</reflink>, 305) = 11.47, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.001, <emph>MSE</emph> = 1.56, η<sups>2</sups> =.04. Follow‐up analyses revealed weak, but significant tendencies for boys to endorse ability goals more than did girls, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref45">1</reflink>, 305) = 6.28, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.01, <emph>MSE</emph> = 1.56 η<sups>2</sups> =.02 (<emph>M</emph> = 3.97 <emph>SD</emph> = 1.45 and <emph>M</emph> = 3.61 <emph>SD</emph> = 1.31) and for girls to endorse mastery goals more than did boys <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref46">1</reflink>, 305) = 4.25, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.05, <emph>MSE</emph> = 1.56, η<sups>2</sups> =.01 (<emph>M</emph> = 4.26 <emph>SD</emph> = 1.40 and <emph>M</emph> = 3.91 <emph>SD</emph> = 1.64). There were no other significant effects.</p> <p>Graph</p> <hd id="AN0022557794-8">Performance</hd> <p>It was predicted that problem solving would improve mainly among pupils in the temporal evaluation condition, because these would be most likely to acquire better strategies as they worked. Thus, it was also predicted that evaluation condition would influence scores for later, more than earlier problems. Scores for earlier versus later problems were analysed with a 2 (time: score for problems 1 to 5; score for Problems 6 to 10)×3 (evaluation condition)×2 (gender) ANOVA, with repeated measures on the first factor. Scores for each problem could range from 0 to 3, so scores at each time could range from 0 to 15. A significant main effect for time, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref47">2</reflink>, 306) = 35.85, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.001, was qualified, as predicted, by a large and significant within‐subjects effect for the interaction of time by evaluation condition, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref48">2</reflink>, 306) = 65.85, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.001, <emph>MSE</emph> = 1.50, η<sups>2</sups> =.30 (see Table 2 for cell means). There were no other significant effects. Three follow‐up analyses using <emph>df</emph> and <emph>MSE</emph> for within‐subjects effects from the general analysis compared performance on earlier versus later problems in each experimental condition. As expected, performance improved significantly and substantially for later as compared with earlier problems among students who anticipated temporal evaluation, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref49">2</reflink>, 306) = 184.13, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.001, <emph>MSE</emph> = 1.50, η<sups>2</sups> =.57 and did not change significantly over time among students in the other two conditions. The means presented in Table 2 further confirm that scores for early problems were similar in all groups, but scores for later problems were highest in the temporal evaluation condition. Moreover, examination of Table 3, which presents the percentage of answers in each score category (from 0 to 3) on early versus later problems in each experimental condition, indicates that acquisition of new strategies was marked only among pupils who anticipated temporal evaluation. Thus, only in this group did the proportion of solutions that used the simplest algorithm (scored 1) decrease and the proportion of solutions based on the most complex strategy (scored 3) increase over time. Moreover, 90% of the solutions to Problems 6 to 10 that used the best strategy were in the temporal evaluation condition.</p> <p>Graph</p> <hd id="AN0022557794-9">Intrinsic motivation</hd> <p>Responses to the four intrinsic motivation items were averaged to form a single scale (α =.75). This measure was completed after students completed the task, so the analysis also included perceived performance, defined as high or low according to a median split on responses to the relevant question. A 3 (evaluation condition) × 2 (perceived performance)×2 (gender) ANOVA yielded the predicted main effect for evaluation condition, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref50">2</reflink>, 300) = 17.87, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.001, η<sups>2</sups> =.11. <emph>Post hoc</emph> comparisons (Scheffe, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.05) confirmed that pupils who anticipated temporal evaluation expressed significantly higher intrinsic motivation than did pupils who did not expect evaluation, and the latter expressed significantly higher interest than did pupils who anticipated normative evaluation (see Table 2 for cell means). There was also a significant main effect for perceived performance, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref51">1</reflink>, 300) = 11.47, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.001, η<sups>2</sups> =.05, because pupils who thought that they had done well expressed higher interest than did those who thought they had done poorly (<emph>M</emph> = 4.64, <emph>SD</emph> = 2.21 and <emph>M</emph> = 3.65, <emph>SD</emph> = 3.91, respectively). There were no other significant effects.</p> <hd id="AN0022557794-10">Beliefs about ability</hd> <p>Responses to the three items of the implicit theories of ability measure were averaged (α =.86); higher scores indicated stronger endorsement of entity beliefs. A 3 (evaluation condition)×2 (high vs. low perceived performance)×2 (gender) ANOVA yielded a significant main effect for evaluation condition, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref52">2</reflink>, 300) = 3.28, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.05, η<sups>2</sups> =.02 (see Table 2 for cell means). <emph>Post hoc</emph> comparisons (Scheffe, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.05) confirmed that endorsement of entity beliefs was significantly stronger among pupils who had anticipated normative evaluation than among pupils who had anticipated temporal evaluation; entity beliefs in the no evaluation condition fell between those in the other conditions and did not differ significantly from either. There was also an unanticipated effect for perceived performance <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref53">1</reflink>, 300) = 10.20, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.001, η<sups>2</sups> =.03 because entity beliefs were higher at low (<emph>M</emph> = 3.74, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.29) than at high (<emph>M</emph> = 3.27, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.23) levels of perceived performance. There were no other significant effects.</p> <hd id="AN0022557794-11">From anticipated evaluation through achievement goals to performance improvement, intrinsic m...</hd> <p>The correlations presented in Table 4 confirm that mastery, but not ability goals were significantly correlated with performance improvement, represented by the difference between scores on Problems 6 to 10 versus Problems 1 to 5, and intrinsic motivation and ability, but not mastery goals, were significantly correlated with entity beliefs. These correlations are consistent with the predictions that the effects of anticipated temporal versus normative evaluation on performance gains and intrinsic motivation demonstrated by the ANOVAs reported above would be mediated, at least in part, by their effects on initial mastery goals, and the effect on entity beliefs would be mediated by initial ability goals. These predictions were then examined directly using modified path analyses, following the guidelines proposed by [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref54">20</reflink>]. In brief, they proposed that data are congruent with a mediation model when (a) the treatment variable (in this study, evaluation condition) significantly predicts the outcome measure; (b) the treatment variable significantly predicts the hypothesized mediating variables (initial goals); and (c) the mediators significantly predict the outcome measure. Mediation can then be inferred if a model that includes both treatment and mediating variables accounts for significantly more of the variance than a model including the treatment variable alone and if the association between the treatment and the outcome measure is reduced after entering the mediating variables. Full mediation is inferred if this association is no longer significant, and partial mediation is inferred if it is reduced, but still significant.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Mediation processes were examined only for participants in the two anticipated evaluation conditions because the results reported above confirmed that the differential effects of evaluation condition on both initial goals and outcomes were due mainly to the effects of anticipated normative versus temporal evaluation and there were no theoretical grounds for examining additional contrasts (e.g. between pupils who did or did not anticipate evaluation). Models did not include gender or interaction effects because preliminary analyses indicated that these did not contribute significantly to any of the models. Perceived performance was not significantly influenced by evaluation condition, and could thus not be included as a potential mediator.</p> <hd id="AN0022557794-12">Performance improvement</hd> <p>Evaluation condition was coded using a dummy variable (0 = anticipated normative evaluation, 1 = anticipated temporal evaluation). Preliminary analyses confirmed the requirements for establishing mediation ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref55">20</reflink>]). The treatment variable (anticipated evaluation) significantly predicted both performance improvement, <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> =.26, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref56">1</reflink>, 208) = 74.60, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.001 and the proposed mediators, <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> =.03, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref57">1</reflink>, 208) = 6.69, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.01 for ability goals and <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> =.10, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref58">1</reflink>, 208) = 23.18, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.001 for mastery goals, and initial goals predicted performance improvement <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> =.28, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref59">2</reflink>, 207) = 41.00, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.001. The difference score was then regressed on evaluation condition, entered in Block 1, while ability and mastery goals were entered in Block 2. The summary statistics for each model and the standardized regression coefficients (β) for each predictor are presented in Table 5. These confirm that entering initial goals contributed significantly to the model, that improvement was significantly predicted by initial mastery, but not ability goals, and that entering initial goals reduced the coefficient for anticipated evaluation. Thus, anticipation of temporal evaluation enhanced performance improvement relative to anticipation of normative evaluation both directly and by enhancing initial mastery goal strivings.</p> <p>Graph</p> <hd id="AN0022557794-13">Intrinsic motivation and beliefs about ability</hd> <p>The results of the ANOVAs reported above confirmed that anticipation of normative versus temporal evaluation significantly affected both predicted variables and both proposed mediators. Additional analyses confirmed that the proposed mediators (initial goals) significantly influenced both intrinsic motivation <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> =.49, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref60">2</reflink>, 208) = 148.04, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.001, and entity beliefs <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> =.07, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref61">2</reflink>, 208) = 11.00, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.001. Although the results reported above indicated that perceived performance influenced intrinsic motivation and entity beliefs, the evaluation condition did not significantly predict perceived performance, so this variable was not included as a potential mediator. Mediation was then examined as described for performance improvement. The analysis for intrinsic motivation confirmed that entering mastery and ability goals yielded a significant increase in <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> (see Table 5). The coefficients presented in Table 5 confirm that this effect derived from the strong association between mastery strivings and intrinsic motivation and that the association between anticipated evaluation and continued interest, although still significant, was substantially reduced. Thus, anticipation of temporal evaluation enhanced continuing interest relative to anticipation of normative evaluation both directly and by enhancing mastery goal strivings. The analysis for entity beliefs results also confirmed that entering initial goals contributed significantly to the model. The coefficients presented in Table 5 confirm that this increase derived from the significant association between ability goals and entity beliefs; the direct association with evaluation condition was no longer significant.</p> <p>The results thus confirmed that the effects of anticipated evaluation on performance improvement, intrinsic motivation, and beliefs about ability were mediated, either partially or fully, by their effects on pupils' initial goal strivings. Moreover, mastery goals were associated with more positive outcomes. This was also the case when the regression analyses were rerun using an ability goals scale that included only the three 'approach' items; results are not reported because patterns of associations were the same as those reported above.</p> <hd id="AN0022557794-14">Discussion</hd> <p>Conceptualizations of evaluative practices as communicative acts that provide potent cues as to what teachers value and thus as to what pupils should strive to achieve are not new ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref62">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref63">7</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref64">10</reflink>]), but the present study provided clear empirical evidence that this is indeed the case. In prior experimental and classroom studies, pupils actually received evaluation in designs that confounded the effects of the information that evaluation conveys about the goals of activity, on the one hand, and about pupils' performance and abilities, on the other. In contrast, the present study confirmed that merely anticipating that their work would be evaluated relative to others prompted pupils to organize their goals around strivings to demonstrate superior, rather than inferior ability. In addition, simply anticipating that they would receive evaluation relevant to monitoring their progress encouraged pupils to strive to learn and acquire competence. Moreover, pupils who did not anticipate any evaluation expressed relatively low levels of both mastery and ability goals, apparently because this condition conveyed that the task was not particularly important or relevant to achievement strivings. Thus, both evaluative acts and evaluative 'silence' provided potent cues as to the value and goals of learning.</p> <p>Demonstrating that evaluative practices influence pupils' initial goal strivings is important to the extent that such strivings have differential effects on worthwhile educational processes and outcomes. The second main aim of this study was to contribute to clarifying the motivational consequences of evaluation and to the current debate as to whether mastery goals are necessarily more adaptive than ability goals. In contrast to many prior studies, the present study examined the effects of contextual goal cues, conveyed here by anticipated evaluation, not only on outcomes, but also on initial goal strivings. This aspect of the design enabled direct examination of the paths through which initial goal strivings mediated the effects of anticipated evaluation on performance improvement, intrinsic motivation, and beliefs about ability.</p> <p>At first sight, the findings that the effect of anticipated evaluation on problem‐solving was partially mediated by initial mastery, but not ability goal strivings, seem to contradict those of some recent studies in which ability goals were associated with superior performance ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref65">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref66">16</reflink>]). Indeed, such findings led these authors to propose that ability goals may be more supportive than mastery goals of academic achievement (see also [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref67">17</reflink>]). Efforts to demonstrate superior ability did indeed enhance performance on tasks, including multiple choice examinations ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref68">16</reflink>]) and application of a simple algorithm for solving multiplication problems ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref69">4</reflink>]) that required rapid and efficient application of prior knowledge or strategies. In contrast, they undermined performance on tasks that required higher‐order thinking and heuristic problem solving ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref70">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>The present results provided converging support for the proposal that construing activity as a test of current ability undermines students' capacity for new learning and that this capacity is supported, instead, by mastery goals (see also [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref71">10</reflink>]). Anticipated evaluation did not influence scores on early problems, which almost all students solved using simple and presumably familiar strategies, and at this 'algorithmic' stage, there was a moderate positive correlation between ability goals and performance reminiscent of that reported by other researchers. At later stages of task engagement, in contrast, the performance of pupils who anticipated temporal evaluation improved because they were more likely to acquire and apply more complex strategies, but that of pupils who anticipated normative evaluation remained stable because they continued to rely on familiar algorithms that yielded correct, but inferior solutions. In this case, it is not surprising that the effects of anticipated evaluation on performance improvement were partially mediated only by initial endorsement of mastery goals. The additional finding that performance tended to decline among pupils who did not anticipate evaluation provides further support for the present framework. Thus, it seems that their relatively low level of mastery goals did not motivate these pupils to engage in the heuristic search necessary for acquiring new strategies, even in the absence of salient ability goal cues.</p> <p>There is already consensus that mastery strivings promote intrinsic motivation, but there is less agreement as to the relation between ability goals and intrinsic motivation. As discussed above, prior mixed findings have led some researchers to propose that strivings to prove high ability may also promote intrinsic motivation (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref72">18</reflink>]). In contrast, the present results provided direct support for the alternative proposal that ability goals encourage students to construe task engagement as a means to the end of demonstrating superior ability and thus will not maintain interest if pupils do not receive confirmation of high ability (see also [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref73">10</reflink>]). This interpretation may account for prior evidence that normative evaluation and other inductions of ability goals maintained interest when people received positive feedback, but undermined interest both when they received negative feedback and when they did not anticipate further positive feedback ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref74">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref75">28</reflink>]). The present framework and results may also explain why apparently neutral conditions that did not provide salient ability or extrinsic cues did not maintain intrinsic motivation over time also in other studies ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref76">6</reflink>]). Thus, such settings seem to convey that the activity is not relevant for acquiring competence, and undermine students' intrinsic motivation by failing to promote mastery goals.</p> <p>In addition to clarifying relations between achievement goals and learning and intrinsic motivation, the present study provided preliminary evidence of an additional cost of ability goals and of evaluative practices that evoke such goals. There is prior evidence that beliefs that a particular task‐relevant ability is fixed (entity theory of ability) encourage pupils to pursue ability goals for the task in question ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref77">15</reflink>]). The present results further confirmed that relations between beliefs about the nature of ability and about the purposes of learning are reciprocal. Thus, pupils who anticipated normative evaluation initially adopted ability more than mastery goals and ability strivings, in turn, caused pupils in this condition to construe 'heuristic problem‐solving ability' as a more fixed trait than did pupils who anticipated temporal evaluation. Demonstrating that pupils' beliefs about school‐related abilities were influenced by evaluative cues in the learning environment is important in view of evidence that incremental beliefs are associated with more adaptive processes and outcomes than entity beliefs, including attribution of outcomes to effort, and resilience and persistence in the event of difficulty or failure ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref78">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>In this case, the findings that entity beliefs were negatively correlated with perceived and actual performance and with performance improvement is cause for concern, because they imply that less able pupils might be particularly vulnerable to developing beliefs that they cannot improve their ability, and thus to developing increasingly maladaptive patterns of perceptions, motivation, and performance over time. These findings from a brief experimental intervention must be treated with caution, especially as the design did not include measures of general perceived or actual academic competence. However, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref79">26</reflink>] recently reported similar relations between entity beliefs, helpless responses to challenge, and loss of self‐esteem over time among college students.</p> <hd id="AN0022557794-15">Conclusions, implications, and limitations</hd> <p>Focusing on the effects of anticipated evaluation confirmed that evaluative practices convey important information about the value of different kinds of outcomes and abilities and thus about the goals, or purposes, of learning. Moreover, students' initial achievement goals then influenced their problem solving, continuing motivation and even the ways in which they construed a relevant ability in coherent ways. These findings challenge 'multiple goals' analyses that propose that mastery and ability goals are both conducive to positive involvement in schoolwork. Thus, when achievement was defined in terms of new learning, and intrinsic motivation was measured in conditions in which pupils did not receive feedback indicating high ability, both were predicted only by initial mastery strivings. They also challenge proposals that any negative effects of ability goals are associated with 'avoidance' strivings to avoid failure and the demonstration of low ability, but not with 'approach' strivings to succeed and demonstrate superior ability (e.g. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref80">17</reflink>]). Thus, both kinds of strivings loaded on the same factor (see also [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref81">25</reflink>]), and the failure of ability goals to support new learning and intrinsic motivation was replicated also in an analysis that considered only approach items. Finally, the results confirmed that pupils' constructions of the goals of learning and of the nature of ability are related ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref82">14</reflink>]). This finding supports prior evidence that theories of ability influence achievement goals by demonstrating that initial achievement goals influenced the degree to which pupils subsequently construed reasoning ability as fixed, rather than malleable.</p> <p>More generally, the findings that anticipated evaluation influenced achievement goals and entity beliefs converged with prior findings in supporting theoretical analyses that present students as actively engaged in constructing both the purposes of schoolwork and beliefs about the nature of school‐related abilities ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref83">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref84">25</reflink>]). On the one hand, students tend to organize their experiences in the form of rather stable, trait‐like achievement orientations and implicit theories of ability that influence the goals they pursue for particular activities in particular situations. Thus students' general goal orientations influenced the degree to which they endorsed mastery and ability goals for a psychology course ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref85">16</reflink>]), and their implicit theories of intelligence influenced the goals they pursued for experimental tasks ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref86">15</reflink>]). On the other hand, evidence that experimental manipulations influenced perceptions and behaviour in the same ways as do individual differences in goal orientations and implicit theories implies that the degree to which one or another goal or belief is salient at any one time depends also on features of the immediate learning context (see [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref87">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref88">14</reflink>] for relevant reviews). Thus, goals and beliefs are also situation specific. Another implication of the constructivist perspective, however, is that ongoing experience in context will also influence students' general orientations. Thus, teachers' emphases on relative ability versus personal learning and progress predicted their students' personal ability versus mastery orientations ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref89">27</reflink>]), and [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref90">3</reflink>] demonstrated that changes in goal orientations during adolescence could be attributed to the greater salience of ability goal cues in middle, as compared with elementary schools.</p> <p>On an applied level, the results confirmed that context matters and supported and extended recommendations that educators should try to promote mastery rather than ability strivings in their pupils. Indeed, the findings that only mastery goals predicted performance improvement and strategy acquisition raise serious concerns about the ways in which achievement is defined and measured in those educational settings in which ability goals were associated with higher grades. Thus, one reasonable possibility is that these settings relied mainly on curricula, teaching methods, and assignments that require the kinds of lower‐order thinking, rote learning, and surface processing strategies that are promoted by ability goals. This interpretation is consistent with evidence that achievement was predicted by ability goals in college and high school samples, but by mastery goals among younger students ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref91">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref92">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref93">22</reflink>]). Thus, at least in North America, primary schools were more likely than secondary schools to emphasize the construction of knowledge through inquiry learning and peer collaboration, and were less likely to emphasize rote learning, competition, and normative evaluation ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref94">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref95">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>Another implication is that educators should be concerned not only about the validity and reliability of different evaluative practices, but also about their motivational implications. They also need to know that although evaluating students' work is laborious and time consuming, failure to do so may convey that the teacher does not consider schoolwork to be very important. Thus, for example, portfolios can provide an excellent framework for promoting mastery goals and incremental beliefs that worthwhile abilities can be acquired and improved. The present findings, however, suggest that this will only occur if teachers provide students with ongoing evaluation that focuses on their learning and progress over time, and not, as is often the case, if teachers continue to evaluate each assignment according to normative criteria or delay evaluation until the portfolio is complete. This example also illustrates the limitations of the decision in the present study to focus only on the effects of anticipated evaluation, and, in general, the kind of price one pays for experimental rigour and control. In natural settings, pupils actually receive evaluation, and continue to construct and reconstruct their goals for schoolwork, at least in part by using evaluation to assess whether they are attaining their goals ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref96">10</reflink>]). Therefore, although anticipation of temporal evaluation promoted initial mastery strivings, such strivings will not be maintained in the classroom unless teachers actually provide pupils with information that not only encourages them to learn, but also enables them to learn and acquire competence.</p> <hd id="AN0022557794-16">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>This study was supported by a research grant from Israel Foundation Trustees.</p> <ref id="AN0022557794-17"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref4" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ames, C. Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. L. Student perceptions in the classroom 327 – 348 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum 1992.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref41" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Anderman, E. M., Maehr, M. L. Motivation and schooling in the middle grades Review of Educational Research 64 287 – 307 1994.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref90" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Anderman, E. M., Maehr, M. L., Midgley, C. Declining motivation after the transition to middle school: Schools can make a difference Journal of Research and Development in Education 32 131 – 147 1999.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref65" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Barron, K. E., Harackiewicz, J. M. Achievement goals and optimal motivation: Testing multiple goal models Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80 706 – 722 2001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref14" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bouffard, T., Vezeau, C., Bordelau, L. A developmental study of the relation between combined learning and performance goals and students' self‐regulated learning British Journal of Educational Psychology 68 309 – 319 1998.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref7" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Butler, R. Task‐involving and ego‐involving properties of evaluation: Effects of different evaluation conditions on motivational perceptions, interest and performance Journal of Educational Psychology 79 474 – 482 1987.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref27" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Butler, R. Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivation: Effects of task‐involving and ego‐involving evaluation on interest and performance British Journal of Educational Psychology 56 51 – 63 1988.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref22" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Butler, R. What young people want to know when: The effects of mastery and ability goals on social information‐seeking Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62 934 – 943 1992.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref17" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Butler, R. Information‐seeking and achievement motivation in middle childhood and adolescence: The role of conceptions of ability Developmental Psychology 35 146 – 163 1999.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Butler, R. What learners want to know: The role of achievement goals in shaping information‐seeking, performance and interest Sansone, C., Harackiewicz, J. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance 161 – 194 San Diego, CA: Academic Press 2000.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Butler, R., Neuman, O. Effects of task and ego achievement goals on help‐seeking behaviors and attitudes Journal of Educational Psychology 87 261 – 271 1995.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M. Intrinsic motivation and self‐determination in human behavior New York: Plenum 1985.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dweck, C. S. Motivational processes affecting learning American Psychologist 41 1040 – 1048 1986.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dweck, C. S. Self‐theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press 1999.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dweck, C. S., Leggett, E. A social cognitive approach to motivation and personality Psychological Review 95 256 – 273 1988.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Lehto, A. T., Elliot, A. J. Predictors and consequences of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest and making the grade Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73 1284 – 1295 1997.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. K., Elliot, A. J., Thrush, T. M. Revision of achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating Journal of Educational Psychology 94 638 – 645 2002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harackiewicz, J. M., Sansone, C. Goals and intrinsic motivation: You can get to there from here Maehr, M. L., Pintrich, P. R. Advances in motivation and achievement 7 21 – 49 Greenwich, CT: JAI Press 1991.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harter, S., Whitesell, N. R., Kowalski, P. S. Individual differences in the effects of educational transitions on young adolescents' perceptions of competence and motivational orientation American Educational Research Journal 29 777 – 807 1992.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Judd, C. M., Kenny, D. A. Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations Evaluation Review 5 602 – 619 1981.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaplan, A., Middleton, M. J., Urdan, T., Midgley, C. Achievement goals and goal structures Midgley, C. Goals, structures and patterns of adaptive learning 21 – 53 Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum 2002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meece, J., Holt, K. A pattern analysis of students' achievement goals Journal of Educational Psychology 85 582 – 590 1993.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Molden, D. C., Dweck, C. S. Meaning and motivation Sansone, C., Harackiewicz, J. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance 131 – 159 San Diego, CA: Academic Press 2000.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mueller, C. M., Dweck, C. S. Praise for intelligence can undermine children's motivation and performance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75 33 – 52 1998.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nicholls, J. G. The competitive ethos and democratic education Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1989.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robins, R. W., Pals, J. L. Implicit self‐theories in the academic domain: Implications for goal orientation, attributions, affect, and self‐esteem change Self and Identity 1 313 – 336 2002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, A. M., Gheen, M. H., Midgley, C. Why do some students avoid asking for help? An examination of the interplay between students' academic efficacy, teachers' social‐emotional role and the classroom goal structure Journal of Educational Psychology 90 1 – 8 1998.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, R. M., Koestner, R., Deci, E. L. Ego‐involved persistence: When free‐choice behavior is not intrinsically motivated Motivation and Emotion 15 185 – 205 1991.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sansone, C. A question of competence: The effects of competence and task feedback on intrinsic interest Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 918 – 931 1986.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Utman, C. H. Performance effects of motivational state: A meta‐analysis Personality and Social Psychology Review 1 170 – 182 1997.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Ruth Butler</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib310" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref95"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ750358 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Are Mastery and Ability Goals Both Adaptive? Evaluation, Initial Goal Construction and the Quality of Task Engagement – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Butler%2C+Ruth%22">Butler, Ruth</searchLink> – 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>. Sep 2006 76(3):595-611. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: British Psychological Society. St Andrews House, 48 Princess Road East, Leicester, LE1 7DR, UK. Tel: +44-116-254-9568; Fax: +44-116-247-0787; e-mail: enquiry@bps.org.uk; Web site: http://www.bps.org.uk/publications/publications_home.cfm – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 17 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2006 – 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="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cues%22">Cues</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Motivation%22">Student Motivation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Evaluation%22">Student Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Educational+Objectives%22">Student Educational Objectives</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Motivation%22">Learning Motivation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Aspiration%22">Academic Aspiration</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1348/000709905X52319 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0007-0998 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Aims: The aims of this research were to examine the predictions that (a) the kind of evaluation pupils anticipate will influence their initial achievement goals and, as a result, the quality and consequences of task engagement; and (b) initial mastery goals will promote new learning and intrinsic motivation and initial ability goals will promote entity beliefs that ability is fixed. Sample: Participants were 312 secondary school pupils at ages 13-15. Methods: Pupils expected to receive normative evaluation, temporal evaluation (scores over time) or no evaluation. Mastery and ability goals were measured before pupils worked on challenging problems; intrinsic motivation and entity beliefs were measured after task completion. Results: Anticipation of temporal evaluation enhanced initial mastery goals, anticipation of normative evaluation enhanced ability goals and the no-evaluation condition undermined both. Anticipation of temporal evaluation enhanced new learning (strategy acquisition and performance gains) and intrinsic motivation both directly and by enhancing initial mastery goals; anticipation of normative evaluation enhanced entity beliefs by enhancing ability goals. Conclusions: Results confirmed that evaluation conveys potent cues as to the goals of activity. They also challenged claims that both mastery and ability goals can be adaptive by demonstrating that these were differentially associated with positive versus negative processes and outcomes. Results have theoretical and applied implications for understanding and improving evaluative practices and student motivation. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: Author – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2007 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ750358 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ750358 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1348/000709905X52319 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 17 StartPage: 595 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Cues Type: general – SubjectFull: Student Motivation Type: general – SubjectFull: Student Evaluation Type: general – SubjectFull: Secondary Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Student Educational Objectives Type: general – SubjectFull: Learning Motivation Type: general – SubjectFull: Academic Aspiration Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Are Mastery and Ability Goals Both Adaptive? Evaluation, Initial Goal Construction and the Quality of Task Engagement Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Butler, Ruth IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 09 Type: published Y: 2006 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0007-0998 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 76 – Type: issue Value: 3 Titles: – TitleFull: British Journal of Educational Psychology Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
