Handbook of psychology volume 7 educational psychology

The Role of Motivational Components in Classroom Learning

111

negative relations between performance goals and various

cognitive and behavioral outcomes (Ames, 1992; Dweck &

Leggett, 1988), although it did not discriminate empirically

between approach and avoidance performance goals. The

more recent research that has made the distinction between

approach and avoidance performance goals does show some

differential relations between approaching a task focused on

besting others and approaching a task focused on trying not

to look stupid or incompetent. In particular, the general

distinction between an approach and an avoidance orienta-

tion suggests that there could be some positive aspects of an

approach performance orientation. If students are approach-

ing a task trying to promote certain goals and strategies, it

might lead them to be more involved in the task than are

students who are trying to avoid certain goals, which could

lead to more withdrawal and less engagement in the task

(Harackiewicz et al., 1998; Higgins, 1997; Pintrich, 2000c).

Most of the research on performance goals that did not

distinguish between approach and avoidance versions finds

that performance goals are negatively related to students’ use

of deeper cognitive strategies (e.g., Meece et al., 1988;

Nolen, 1988; cf., however, Bouffard, Boisvert, Vezeau, &

Larouche, 1995). This finding would be expected, given that

performance goals that include items about besting others as

well as avoiding looking incompetent would guide students

away from the use of deeper strategies. Students focused on

besting others may be less likely to exert the time and effort

needed to use deeper processing strategies because the effort

needed to use these strategies could show to others that they

lack the ability, given that the inverse relation between effort-

ability is usually operative under performance goals, and try-

ing hard in terms of strategy use may signify low ability. For

students who want to avoid looking incompetent, the same

self-worth protection mechanism (Covington, 1992) may be

operating, whereby students do not exert effort in their strat-

egy use in order to have an excuse for doing poorly—lack of

effort or poor strategy use. 

However, more recent research with measures that reflect

only an approach or avoidance performance goal suggests that

there may be differential relations between these two versions

of performance goals. For example, Wolters et al. (1996) in a

correlational study of junior high students found that—inde-

pendent of the positive main effect of mastery goals—an

approach performance goal focused on besting others was

positively related to the use of deeper cognitive strategies and

more regulatory strategy use. However, Kaplan and Midgley

(1997) in a correlational study of junior high students found

no relation between an approach performance goal and adap-

tive learning strategies, but approach performance goals were

positively related to more surface processing or maladaptive

learning strategies. These two studies did not include separate

measures of avoid performance goals. In contrast, Middleton

and Midgley (1997) in a correlational study of junior high stu-

dents, found no relation between either approach or avoidance

performance goals and cognitive self-regulation. Some of the

differences in the results of these studies stem from the use of

different measures, classroom contexts, and participants,

making it difficult to synthesize the results. Clearly, there is a

need for more theoretical development in this area and empir-

ical work that goes beyond correlational self-report survey

studies to clarify these relations.

One factor that adds to the complexity of the results in dis-

cussing approach and avoidance performance goals is that in

Dweck’s original model (Dweck & Leggett, 1988), the links

between performance goals and other cognitive and achieve-

ment outcomes were assumed to be moderated by efficacy

beliefs—that is, if students had high perceptions of their

competence to do the task, then performance goals should not

be detrimental for cognition, motivation, and achievement,

and these students should show the same basic pattern as

mastery-oriented students. Performance goals were assumed

to have negative effects only when efficacy was low. Students

who believed they were unable and who were concerned with

besting others or wanted to avoid looking incompetent did

seem to show the maladaptive pattern of cognition, motiva-

tion, and behavior (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). 

Other more correlational research that followed this work

did not always explicitly test for the predicted interaction be-

tween performance goals and efficacy or did not replicate the

predicted moderator effect. For example, both Kaplan and

Midgley (1997) and Miller, Behrens, Greene, and Newman

(1993) did not find an interaction between approach perfor-

mance goals and efficacy on cognitive outcomes such as

strategy use. Harackiewicz, Elliot, and their colleagues

(Harackiewicz et al., 1998), using both experimental and cor-

relational designs, did not find moderator or mediator effects

of efficacy in relation to the effects of approach mastery or

approach performance goals on other outcomes such as ac-

tual performance.

Nevertheless, it may be that approach performance goals

could lead to deeper strategy use and cognitive self-regulation

as suggested by Wolters et al. (1996) when students are con-

fronted with overlearned classroom tasks that do not chal-

lenge them, interest them, or offer opportunities for much

self-improvement (see also Pintrich, 2000b). In this case,

the focus on an external criterion of besting others or being

the best in the class could lead them to be more involved

in these boring tasks and try to use more self-regulatory cog-

nitive strategies to accomplish this goal. On the other hand, it

may be that approach performance goals are not that strongly

112

Motivation and Classroom Learning

related to cognitive self-regulation in either a positive or neg-

ative way, as suggested by the results of Kaplan and Midgley

(1997) and Middleton and Midgley (1997). Taken together,

the conflicting results suggest that approach performance

goals do not have to be negatively related to cognitive

self-regulatory activities in comparison to avoidance perfor-

mance goals. This conclusion suggests that there may be mul-

tiple pathways between approach and avoidance performance

goals, cognitive strategy use and self-regulation, and eventual

achievement. Future research should attempt to map out these

multiple pathways and determine how approach and avoid-

ance performance goals may differentially relate to cognitive

self-regulation activities (Pintrich, 2000b, 2000c).

One of the most important behavioral outcomes is actual

achievement or performance. Goals may promote different

patterns of motivation, affect, and cognition, but they also

should be linked to actual classroom achievement. The more

experimental research on mastery goals has shown that stu-

dents in mastery conditions usually achieve or perform at

higher levels (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). In fact, given all the

positive motivational, affective, and cognitive outcomes as-

sociated with mastery goals, it would be expected that mas-

tery goals would also lead to higher levels of achievement.

However, in some of the correlational classroom studies, this

does not seem to be the case (e.g., Elliot, McGregor, &

Gable, 1999; Harackiewicz et al., 1998; Harackiewicz,

Barron, Carter, Lehto, & Elliot, 1997; Pintrich, 2000c;

VanderStoep, Pintrich, & Fagerlin, 1996). The pattern that

seems to emerge is that mastery goals are unrelated to perfor-

mance or achievement in the classroom, usually indexed by

grades or grade point average (GPA). In contrast, in some of

these studies, approach performance goals (trying to be better

than others) are associated with better grades or higher GPAs

(Elliot et al., 1999; Harackiewicz et al., 1997, 1998).

This newer research on the role of performance goals has

led some researchers to develop a revised goal theory per-

spective (e.g., Elliot, 1997; Harackiewicz et al., 1998;

Pintrich, 2000c). They have suggested that there is a need to

move beyond the simple dichotomy of mastery goals as

good-adaptive versus performance goals as bad-maladaptive

to a conceptualization of the different goals as being

adaptive or maladaptive for different types of cognitive, mo-

tivational, affective, and behavioral outcomes. In other

words, depending on what outcome is under consideration,

goals may be adaptive or maladaptive—for example, mastery

goals might lead to more interest and intrinsic motivation, but

approach performance goals might lead to better perfor-

mance (Harackiewicz et al., 1998). It is important to note that

a revised perspective on goal theory and the normative per-

spective are in complete agreement about the detrimental

effects of avoid performance goals. The main revision pro-

posed is that approach performance goals may be adaptive

for some outcomes. In addition, the concept of equifinality, or

the idea that there are multiple means to accomplish a goal,

suggests that there may be multiple pathways or trajectories

of development that are set in motion by different goals, and

these different pathways can lead to similar outcomes overall

(Pintrich, 2000c; Shah & Kruglanski, 2000). Finally, there

may be interactions between multiple goals, and these in-

teractions can lead to different patterns of outcomes that

are more complex than the simple linear relations suggested

by normative goal theory under the mastery-good and

performance-bad generalization (Pintrich, 2000c).

In contrast, Midgley, Kaplan, and Middleton (2001) have

argued that there is no need to revise goal theory and that the

basic assumption that mastery goals are adaptive and perfor-

mance goals are maladaptive is still the best overall generaliza-

tion from goal theory. They suggest that most of the research on

the positive effects of approach performance goals are for spe-

cial cases, such as for students high in self-efficacy (Dweck &

Leggett, 1988), for students high in mastery goals as well ap-

proach performance goals (Pintrich, 2000c), or in contexts

such as competitive college classrooms (Harackiewicz et al.,

1998) in which there may be an advantage to adopting per-

formance goals. Moreover, they note that classrooms and

schools are often inherently performance-oriented and com-

petitive to begin with, and that any suggestion by researchers

that approach performance goals are adaptive would encourage

teachers and school personnel to continue to stress the com-

petitive nature of schooling, with the continued many detri-

mental effects for many schoolchildren. This issue is currently

a very active area of research and there will no doubt be con-

tinued research and clarification of these issues as the field

progresses.

In summary, the research on goal orientation suggests that

at this point in time only one stable generalization can be

made, given the diversity in findings.

Generalization 2: Mastery goals are positively related to

adaptive cognitive and self-regulatory strategy use in the

classroom. Students who adopt a mastery goal and focus on

learning, understanding, and self-improvement are much

more likely to use adaptive cognitive and self-regulatory

strategies and to be deeply engaged in learning. Accordingly,

classroom contexts that foster the adoption of mastery goals

by students should facilitate motivation and learning. For ex-

ample, classrooms that encourage students to adopt goals of

learning and understanding through the reward and evalua-

tion structures (i.e., how grades are assigned, how tasks are

graded and evaluated) rather than just getting good grades or

competing with other students should foster a mastery goal

The Role of Motivational Components in Classroom Learning

113

orientation. At the same time, this generalization does not

mention higher levels of actual achievement, as indexed by

grades, because the research is still mixed on this outcome.

Task Value

Goal orientation can refer to students’ goals for a specific task

(a midterm exam) as well as a general orientation to a course

or a field. In the same way, students’ task value beliefs can be

rather specific or more general. Three components of task

value have been proposed by Eccles (1983) as important in

achievement dynamics: the individual’s perception of the im-

portance of the task, his or her personal interest in the task

(similar to intrinsic interest in intrinsic motivation theory),

and his or her perception of the utility value of the task for

future goals. These three value components may be rather

parallel in children and college students but can vary signifi-

cantly in adults (Wlodkowski, 1988).

The importance component of task value refers to individ-

uals’ perception of the task’s importance or salience for them.

The perceived importance of a task is related to a general goal

orientation, but importance could vary by goal orientation. An

individual’s orientation may guide the general direction of be-

havior, whereas value may relate to the level of involvement.

For example, a student may believe that success in a particu-

lar course is very important (or unimportant) regardless of his

or her intrinsic or extrinsic goals—that is, the student may see

success in the course as learning the material or getting a good

grade, but he or she still may attach differential importance to

these goals. Importance should be related to individuals’ per-

sistence at a task as well as choice of a task.

Student interest in the task is another aspect of task value.

Interest is assumed to be individuals’ general attitude or liking

of the task that is somewhat stable over time and a function of

personal characteristics. In an educational setting, this com-

ponent includes the individual’s interest in the course content

and reactions to the other characteristics of the course such as

the instructor (cf. Wlodkowski, 1988). Personal interest in the

task is partially a function of individuals’ preferences as well

as aspects of the task (e.g., Malone & Lepper, 1987). How-

ever, personal interest should not be confused with situational

interest, which can be generated by simple environmental fea-

tures (e.g., an interesting lecture, a fascinating speaker, a dra-

matic film) but that are not long-lasting and do not necessarily

inculcate stable personal interest (Hidi, 1990). Schiefele

(1991) has shown that students’ personal interest in the mate-

rial being studied is related to their level of involvement in

terms of the use of cognitive strategies as well as actual per-

formance. There is a current revival in research on the role of

interest in learning after a hiatus in research on this important

motivational belief (see Renninger, Hidi, & Krapp, 1992;

Sansone & Harackiewicz, 2000).

In contrast to the means or process motivational dynamic of

interest, utility value refers to the ends or instrumental motiva-

tion of the student (Eccles, 1983). Utility value is determined

by the individual’s perception of the usefulness of the task for

him or her. For students, utility value may include beliefs that

the course will be useful for them immediately in some way

(e.g., help them cope with college), in their major (e.g., they

need this information for upper-level courses), or their career

and life in general (e.g., this will help them somehow in grad-

uate school). At a task level, students may perceive different

course assignments (e.g., essay and multiple-choice exams,

term papers, lab activities, class discussion) as more or less

useful and decide to become more or less cognitively engaged

in the task.

Research on the value components has shown that they are

consistently positively related to student engagement and cog-

nition in the classroom setting (e.g., Pintrich, 1999). Not sur-

prisingly, students who believe that schoolwork or course

work is more important, interesting, and useful to them are

more likely to be cognitively engaged in the learning activi-

ties. In this work, self-efficacy has been a stronger predictor of

engagement, but task value beliefs also show positive relations

(Pintrich, 1999). In longitudinal research on the role of ex-

pectancy and value components in academic settings, Eccles

and her colleagues (Eccles et al., 1998) have found a similar

pattern of results. Their work has shown that value beliefs are

better predictors of choice behavior, whereas expectancy com-

ponents (i.e., self-efficacy and perceived competence) are

better predictors of actual achievement. In other words, task

value beliefs help to predict what courses students might take

(e.g., higher level math or science courses), but after students

actually enroll in those courses, self-efficacy and perceived

competence are better predictors of their performance. This

differential prediction of outcomes for different motivational

beliefs is an important finding in motivational research.

A related vein of research from an intrinsic motivation per-

spective (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000) has sug-

gested that interest (one of the components of task value) is an

important associated process with being intrinsically moti-

vated (enjoyment is another associated process). In this theo-

retical perspective, intrinsic motivation is represented by

individuals choosing to do a task freely and feeling self-

determined or autonomous in their behavior while doing the

task. This form of intrinsic motivation should result in the

most adaptive levels of motivation, cognition, and behavior.

Students who are intrinsically motivated should be interested

in the task, enjoy it, be more likely to be cognitively engaged,

and also perform at high levels (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Although

114

Motivation and Classroom Learning

this perspective makes some different metatheoretical as-

sumptions about human nature and human behavior, the func-

tional role of intrinsic interest is similar to that of personal

interest in an expectancy-value model.

In addition, in intrinsic motivation models, individuals can

be motivated in more extrinsic ways as well, some of which

are similar to the components of importance and utility from

expectancy-value models. Deci and Ryan recognize that not

all behavior is intrinsically motivated. They propose four lev-

els of external regulation or extrinsic motivation (Ryan &

Deci, 2000). The first level includes what they call external

regulation. For example, students initially may not want to

work on math but do so to obtain teacher rewards and avoid

punishment. These students would react well to threats of pun-

ishment or the offer of extrinsic rewards and would tend to be

compliant. They would not be intrinsically motivated or show

high interest, but they would tend to behave well and do try to

do the work to obtain rewards or avoid punishment. Obvi-

ously, the control is external in this case and there is no self-

determination on the part of the students, but this level of

motivation could result in good performance or achievement.

At the next level of extrinsic motivation, students may en-

gage in a task because they think they should and may feel

guilty if they don’t do the task (e.g., study for an exam). Deci

and Ryan call this introjected regulation because the source

of motivation is internal (feelings of should, ought, guilt) to

the person but not self-determined because these feelings

seem to be controlling the person. The person is not doing the

task solely for the rewards or to avoid punishment; the feel-

ings of guilt or should are actually internal to the person, but

the source is still somewhat external because he or she may

be doing the task to please others (teacher, parents). Again,

Deci and Ryan assume that this level of motivation also could

have some beneficial outcomes for engagement, persistence,

and achievement.

The third level or style is called identified regulation. Indi-

viduals engage in the activity because it is personally impor-

tant to them. In this case, this style is similar to what Eccles and

her colleagues (Eccles et al., 1998) call the importance and

utility aspects of task value. For example, a student may study

hours for tests in order to get good grades to be accepted into

college. This behavior represents the student’s own goal, al-

though the goal has more utility value (Wigfield & Eccles,

1992) than it does intrinsic value such as learning. The goal is

consciously chosen by the student; in this sense, the locus of

causality is somewhat more internal to the person as the person

feels it is very important to him- or herself, not just to others

such as teachers or parents. In this case, students want to do the

task because it is important to them, even if it is more for utili-

tarian reasons rather than intrinsic interest in the task.

The final level of extrinsic motivation is integrated regu-

lation, whereby individuals integrate various internal and ex-

ternal sources of information into their own self-schema and

engage in behavior because of its importance to their sense of

self. This final level is still instrumental rather than autotelic

(as in intrinsic motivation), but integrated regulation does

represent a form of self-determination and autonomy. As

such, both intrinsic motivation and integrated regulation will

result in more cognitive engagement and learning than do ex-

ternal or introjected regulation (Rigby et al., 1992; Ryan &

Deci, 2000).

These findings from both expectancy-value, interest, and

intrinsic motivation research lead to a third generalization. 

Generalization 3: Higher levels of task value (importance,

interest, and utility) are associated with adaptive cognitive

outcomes such as higher levels of self-regulatory strategy use

as well as higher levels of achievement. This generalization

may not be surprising, but it is important to formulate because

constructs like value, utility, and interest are often considered

to be unrelated to cognitive outcomes or achievement, and

they are considered to be important noncognitive outcomes. It

is of course important to foster value, utility, and interest as

outcomes in their own right, but the generalization suggests

that by facilitating the development of task value in the class-

room, an important by-product will be more cognitive en-

gagement, self-regulation, and achievement. For example, the

use of materials (e.g., tasks, texts, articles, chapters) that are

meaningful and interesting to students can foster increased

levels of task value. In addition, class activities (demonstra-

tions, small group activities) that are useful, interesting, and

meaningful to students will facilitate the development of task

value beliefs and classroom learning.