Five Theories of Achievement.

Summarize the theoretical perspectives of the 5 motivational theories presented in the Morrone, & Schutz chapter Promoting Achievement Motivation.

Social Cognitive Theory:

Social cognitive theory combines four ideas; self-observation, self-judgment, self-reaction, and self-efficacy, to explain why a child will succeed or fail to succeed at a task. The key to this theory seems to be self-efficacy. Without a positive self-efficacy, the child will not believe he can succeed in a challenge, and for that reason, will not work to do so. However, if the child does have a positive self-efficacy in regards to the problem at hand, that child will react in a way to overcome his or her problem (self-reaction to the self-judgment that there is a problem [as discovered by self-observation]). Self-efficacy can not only be built by positive experiences, but it can be built by witnessing the positive experiences of others, by having your talents convinced to you by a positive teacher, parent or peer, and lastly, self-efficacy can be built by the physiological arousal that often accompanies new tasks. It should be noted if the child’s natural reaction to new ideas is anxiety, then self-efficacy will be reduced. The theory does not differentiate why different people will react differently to new situations and tasks.

Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination Theory.

If extrinsic motivation is thought of as the given reward or avoidance of punishment for which one does something, intrinsic motivation can be viewed as the internalized and personal reward for doing something. Intrinsic motivation can not be given; it has to come from within an individual. Often, it is said that “the reward is in the doing.” Self-determination is the shift from doing something for an external reason to doing it for the joy of doing it, without the need for external rewards.

In some cases, it may be wise to offer a reward for the successful completion of new tasks. This is because the student will not know whether or not the task may be enjoyable. However, once exposed to the new task or subject, hopefully, the need for an external reward will diminish as the task itself becomes enjoyable to the student (through the process of self-determination). There are ways to help a student become self-deterministic regarding a task. Offering choices as to what route the student may take to complete the task and mixing the task with an element of excitement are some ways of doing this. The text gave the example of mixing math tasks with a fantasy game to make the task more appealing to students. Research has shown that these methods of mixing educational tasks with entertainment (a term dubbed “edutainment”) create intrinsic motivation and increase self-determination within students.

Task Value.

Task value can be summed up with the phrase “is this worth it to me?” Wigfield and Eccles explain that there are three types of task value. One, intrinsic value, is the concept of whether or not the task offers an internal reward for its being done. The second, attainment value, is the importance a student gives to doing well at the task. The third, utility value, is the amount of value the student sees the task as having in relation to the students eventual goals regarding the task. In addition to considering the gains, the student considers the costs. In doing so the student will consider the amount of time he or she will have to give to the task.

Attribution Theory.

This theory answers the student’s internal question of “what made me to do this poorly (or well).” When answering this question, students look at three dimensions: causality (internal, within the student, and external, outside the student), stability (can this cause be changed?), and controllability (can I control this attribute?). Weiner additionally states that there are four perceived causes of academic outcomes. These are ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck. Students view these four causes in light of the three dimensions listed above. Ability is seen as an internal, stable, and uncontrollable attribute. Sadly, when students are faring poorly, they may say it is because they are not intelligent, and they often, through learned helplessness, don’t believe this can change, as ability is seen as an uncontrollable and stable attribute. Effort is seen as internal, unstable, and controllable. Students who view their failure in terms of this cause may do better next time as they believe they can change their level of effort.

Students may also attribute their failure or success to task difficulty and luck. For examples, if a student notices that everyone in the class did poorly on a test, he will attribute his failure to the task being difficult. If a student forgets about a test and does poorly, he may attribute that failure to the bad luck of his forgetfulness about the exam.

Achievement Goal Theory.

Achievement goal theory brings together many of the aspects of the previous theories discussed. The main emphasis of achievement goal theory is on two different types of goals. These are mastery goals and performance goals. Mastery goals can be thought of as learning or task-focused goals while performance goals can be viewed as ego-focused goals. Mastery goals are considered superior.

Students who focus on mastery goals enjoy learning for learning’s sake. Because their focus is not on their grades, they do not risk negative consequences of not being praised or receiving recognition when their work is not as good as others. Because they enjoy learning, these students often enjoy challenging materials and practice better and more permanent study habits.

Students who focus on performance goals enjoy learning when they can prove themselves or receive recognition for their high grades or performance. However, if the student fails to achieve high marks, that student, because his focus is on the praise he will not receive, is more liable to fall victim to learned helplessness and become discouraged in future work.

These points bring us to the question, “why does a student choose one type of learning goal over the other?” A popular view is that of Dweck and Leggett, who explain that students select achievement goals based on how they view intelligence. They can either view intelligence as an entity, or they can view intelligence as incremental. Those who view intelligence as an entity see their intelligence as a fixed attribute. They see it as internal and stable. These students will not be mastery oriented unless they already feel they have the abilities needed in the task. If they do not feel they have the abilities, they will feel helpless towards the task. Because of this, these students are more often performance oriented. This is because they will withdraw from a task they feel they can not do. This just avoids the situation (as apposed to getting the performance rewards of good grades), rather than negatively affecting them by internally pointing out their inabilities.

Those who view intelligence as incremental believe that their intelligence will grow as they face more challenges and attempt to learn. Viewing this from an attributional stand point, these students see intelligence as unstable yet internal. Thus, effort pays off. These students are not afraid of failing or making mistakes, because mistakes are a part of learning, and because they do not see intelligence as stable, they know they can change and grow.

Finally, others feel that we should not limit our theory of achievement to these two goals (Mastery and performance). Some state that we need to look at how academic failure or success effects us socially. Others believe that students can hold both mastery and performance goals at the same time, or may fluctuate between the two. The student may study to be accepted by the teacher (performance goal), then grow to like the topic after having succeeded and will then base further studies on his or her new interest in the subject (mastery goal). Finally, other studies show that these goals can be taught in the classroom setting, through the atmosphere and teaching styles of the instructor. Students given the mastery focus tend to want to learn for learning’s sake. Those who are in a performance environment tend to fall victim to the pitfalls of the goal – helplessness and avoidance.

Filed under: EDC 541 Curriculum and Instruction for Diverse Learners
Copyright: June, 2003 - David Profitt