Achievement goals and values

Task goals are the purpose of an activity that structure cognition and affect according to this purpose. Achievement goals are a kind of personal goals that reflect the purpose of individuals’ achievement behaviors (e.g., because I want to understand the subject or because I want to demonstrate that I am better than others) (Niemczyk, 2012; Scherer, 2005; Wolters & Taylor, 2012). Besides, values represent incentives that foster task accomplishment (e.g., because it is interesting per se or because it will bring me further reward) (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).

Achievement goal theory Achievement goal theory (Pintrich, 2000) describes dif-ferent types of goal orientations that influence motivation and behaviors in learners.

Two major academic goals have been described in the literature, namely mastery goals and performance goals.Mastery goalsrely on the belief that ability is improv-able and that effort leads to success (Bong, 2012). In this case, learners favor the intrinsic value of learning, i.e., they focus on improving their level of competence and developing new skills for personal reasons (i.e., the desire to understand the subject matter). In this case, the learner’s success is not assessed relative to the oth-ers’ performances. Instead, success is about feeling a sense of mastery in completing the task (Mcinerney, 2012). Failure is mainly seen as a normal learning process, a condition for improvement, rather than a consequence of low ability (Bong, 2012).

Performance goalsrely on the belief that ability is fixed and primarily depends on inherent qualities (Bong, 2012). In this case, learners favor the extrinsic value of learning, i.e., they focus on doing better than others and surpassing established stan-dards. If success indicates superiority over others, failure is mainly seen as evidence of low ability and may damage self-worth (Mcinerney, 2012).

These two main goals have been later divided into a 2 x 2 framework that distin-guishes mastery vs. performance on one axis and approach vs. avoidance on the other. Mastery-approach goals are substantially similar to the mastery goals de-scribed above (Bong, 2012; Low & Jin, 2012; Mcinerney, 2012). Mastery-avoidance

goalsrefer to the avoidance of situations that highlight difficulties in understand-ing, learning or mastering a given task (e.g., refraining from understanding a no-tion that seems too complicated). It is grounded on personal standards (Van Kleef, 2009). Perfectionists, elderly people or former high-level performers would be more susceptible to behave this way (Bong, 2012). Performance-approach goalsrefer to the willingness to perform tasks where it is possible to outperformed others so as to validate one’s superior competencies. Conversely, learners with performance-avoidance goalsorientation perform tasks so as not to appear incompetent in the eyes of others. They generally avoid risky tasks and use self-defeating strategies (e.g., I’m not well today) to explain their failure (Bong, 2012; Mcinerney, 2012).

Researchers have also focused on the factors that may influence achievement goal orientations. Such factors generally fall into two major categories, namely student-related factors and contextual factors. Student-related factorsdeal with students’

disposition or personality, while contextual factors are about instructional prac-tices or group climate (Wolters & Taylor, 2012). Concerning student-related fac-tors, performance-avoidance orientation has been related to the fear of failure, while the need for achievement rather drives mastery-approach goal orientation.

Performance-approach orientation may be induced by either fear of failure and the need for achievement. Motives concerning mastery-avoidance are less clear (Felt-man & Elliot, 2012; Wolters & Taylor, 2012). Other factors have also been reported to influence achievement goals orientations such as implicit theories about ability. For example, students who believe that ability is unchangeable (entity theory) would preferentially adopt performance goals. Conversely, students who believe that abil-ity is upgradable (incremental theory) would be more likely to adopt mastery goals (Wolters & Taylor, 2012). Concerning contextual factors, the literature indicates that instructional practices and group climate (oriented toward mastery or performance) are related to the achievement goal orientation that students are likely to adopt (mas-tery or performance goals) (Wolters & Taylor, 2012).

In the academic context, achievement goals have been reported to impact perfor-mance, behavior, cognition, and affect. Mastery-approach goals appear to be a good predictor of the level of effort and persistence dedicated to tasks as well as the use of deep cognitive, metacognitive, and self-regulating strategies. It is also related to positive affects and unrelated to negative affects. As a consequence, stu-dents would have a more adaptative approach to thorny situations, which eventu-ally would result in better learning experiences and academic performance (Low &

Jin, 2012; Wolters & Taylor, 2012). Mastery-avoidance approach is rather associated with more surface cognitive strategies, less intrinsic motivation, and more negative emotions (e.g., anxiety, worry) (Wolters & Taylor, 2012). Performance-approach also appears to have some beneficial effects on learning, such as deep-learning strategies.

These effects would be, however, counterbalanced by increased anxiety, less long-term memorization, and more disruptive behaviors (Mcinerney, 2012). Performance-approach would also promote better performance (Wolters & Taylor, 2012). Finally, performance-avoidance approach is mainly associated with negative outcomes such as less intrinsic motivation or persistence, more procrastination and more negative emotions such as test anxiety. Some studies also report less deep cognitive strategies as well as reduced academic performance (Wolters & Taylor, 2012).

Expectancy-value theory In expectancy-value theory (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000), ex-pecting and valuing success are thought to be two significant factors fostering mo-tivation. Highsuccess expectanciesinvolve strong belief to be able to be successful in a given activity. They are a prerequisite to motivation even though they are not sufficient in themselves. Indeed, high expectancies of success do not strengthen mo-tivation if the activity is considered uninteresting. Expectancies of success are then to be combined with thesubjective valueassigned to the activity to result in moti-vation in individuals (Mcinerney, 2012; Svinicki & Vogler, 2012). More specifically, subjective value globally answers the reasons why individuals want to perform the task. Different criteria intervene to address this question. The first criterion isutility value, which represents the degree to which an activity is considered important, i.e., useful and relevant. Second,intrinsic valuerefers to whether the individual finds the task enjoyable and interesting per se. Finally,attainment valuerefers to the per-sonal significance of the task or activity. Thecostof engaging in the activity is also an important component that influences subjective value. For example, a negative previous experience or an overly-demanding task can decrease substantially sub-jective value. Besides subsub-jective value, success expectanciesare beliefs about the confidence an individual has to succeed in an activity. As subjective value, success expectancies are also affected by different sources. For example, prior success in the same kind of activity is likely to increase success expectancies. It is also the case when the requirements of the task match the learner’s competencies (ability beliefs) or when a reliable source persuades the learners that they have the required skills (socialization influences) (Mcinerney, 2012; Usher & Morris, 2012).

Success expectancies and subjective value have academic consequences, shaping students’ behaviors and choices. For example, expectancy-value theory predicts that if either success expectancies or subjective value are low, it should lower overall student’s motivation. For example, if someone knows she is very good at playing the piano (high success expectancies) but does not enjoy this activity (low subjective value), she is expected to have low motivation (Svinicki & Vogler, 2012). Conversely, motivation can be enhanced by increasing either success expectancy and subjective value, although success expectancy would have a more significant impact on moti-vation (Mcinerney, 2012). In general, success expectancy and subjective value have been reported to impact engagement, persistence, choice of activity and performance (Usher & Morris, 2012).

Self-determination theory Self-determination theory proposes to explain human motivation by the fulfillment of psychological needs that drives individuals’ engage-ment in a given activity. Deci and Ryan (2002) described three innate and universal needs that are thought to be the essence of self-motivation and self-determination.

First,autonomyreflects the need to be the cause of one’s behaviors. Second, compe-tencerelates to the need to feel to be needed and efficient in what one does. Third, relatednessrefers to the need to be connected with others and belong to a group.

The satisfaction of these three needs appears to be a prerequisite for people to en-gage in self-determined tasks. The basic premise of self-determination theory is that, in an environment that fully supports autonomy, competence and relatedness, indi-viduals should have intrinsic motivation, i.e., a natural drive to engage in the task because it is interesting or satisfying per se (Mcinerney, 2012; Seel, 2012). Another type of motivation is called extrinsic motivation. Contrary tointrinsic motivation that is inherent to oneself, extrinsic motivation comes for external sources such as the prospect of obtaining external rewards.Extrinsic motivationcan be conceptualized as a continuum as it contains different levels of self-determination. At one extreme isexternally regulated motivation. In this case, motivation comes primarily from external rewards, pressures or constraints. Individuals experience little autonomy (e.g., a teenager tidies up his room to not be grounded).Introjected regulated moti-vationgoes a step further in the sense that individuals are not motivated to pursue an activity only because of external constraints. Instead, the activity is performed to maintain self-worth, although it is not accepted as personally relevant (e.g., a teenager tidies up her room because she does not want to disappoint her parents).

Then,identified regulated motivationimplies that individuals attach personal im-portance to the activity. In other terms, they are motivated to perform the activity because they believe that it is essential to reach future goals (e.g., a teenager tidies up his room because it is a way for him to get permission to go out). Finally,integrated regulated motivationrepresents the highest level of self-determined extrinsic moti-vation. In this case, external reasons motivating the achievement of activity are fully integrated into the self so that individuals internalize and assimilate their actions as congruent with their personal beliefs and values (e.g., a teenager tidies up her room because she thinks she is a tidy person). This last kind of motivation shares some similarities with intrinsic motivation. However, intrinsic motivation implies inherent interest or pleasure from doing the activity, which is not the case of inte-grated regulated motivation. However, identified regulated motivation could also turn into intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Mcinerney, 2012). Globally, more self-determined students exhibit more in-depth cognitive strategies as well as better academic performance and well-being (Kusurkar et al., 2013).