EDPSY 528

Achievement Motivation

in Education

Spring 2008

Tuesdays 4:30-6:50pm, Denny Hall 205

Short Thematic Papers - Sample #1

Ego or Performance Goals?

Researchers in achievement motivation (Midgley, Anderman, and Hicks, 1995; Rigby, Deci, Patrick, and Ryan, 1992) sometimes refer to Nicholls' (1992) concept of task versus ego involvement along with Dweck's (Elliott and Dweck, 1988) concept of learning versus performance goals as though the two sets of constructs were extremely similar ideas. Although it is certainly true that these constructs seem to be related and even to have much in common, it is also true that important differences exist between them.

These differences may even be reflective of contrasting fundamental ideas about the learning process itself. Both Nicholls' (1992) ego-involvement and Dweck's (Elliott and Dweck, 1988) performance goals invoke external sources for comparison to the self. In their 1988 experiment, for example, Elliott and Dweck claimed to highlight performance goals by informing children that "their performance was being filmed and would be evaluated by experts" (p. 7). Students in the condition intended to highlight learning goals were not given this information. The experimenters assumed that "the filming instructions would make the value of displaying competence high." The idea of displaying competence, in this case, is one which clearly involves an external set of eyes making a judgment.

In Nicholls' description of ego-orientation, on the other hand, the judgement may be made by the self. Still, others are needed for comparison. Nicholls (1992) explains that, "ego orientation is indicated if students feel successful when they show they are more able than their peers" (p.271). Again, the image which this description creates is one in which peers are present for comparison and possibly also an adult who is to be "shown" the superior ability.

Taking on the child's point of view, one might find that external, usually adult, judgments may be associated with learning itself. Although this is clearly not the case for all learning situations, children have generally, from infancy, become accustomed to relying on adult judgments as integral parts of their learning process. As a result, expressions of approval from adults may be associated with learning or with successful task performance. This association may be illustrated through Vygotsky's classic example of the infant learning to communicate (Tudge & Rogoff, 1989). In Vygotsky's description of the child learning to point, the mother's response (giving the bottle) is a vital part of the learning experience. The child did not understand the full significance of the gesture before making it, so no learning would have taken place without the mother's response.

When parents feel that they are comprehending a child's first attempts at communication, they are likely to smile or even praise the child. Thus, the child's sense that he is learning to communicate is bound up with both the actual responses of his parents as well as with their pleasure and approval. This association is likely to occur particularly when the child is learning about socially constructed tools such as language. [For contrast, one might consider Piaget's (Gruen, 19??) image of a child alone at the beach learning about conservation by counting pebbles. In that scenario, the child is interacting with objects in the environment, and no adult is needed in order for learning to occur. The child counts the pebbles several times and makes a discovery about conservation, without any feedback. These two images of learning contrast in that one requires an adult presence, and most likely an approving presence, while the other does not.]

Because Dweck's (Elliott and Dweck, 1988) conceptualization suggests that one has either performance or learning goals, this conceptualization does not seem to take into account the possibility that the child may associate adult approval with learning. Nicholls' (1992) envisioning of ego and task orientations, on the other hand, allows for the idea that an individual may be high on both ego and task orientation simultaneously. Thus, the child may seek adult approval by trying to display a comparatively high degree of competence in an activity while simultaneously seeking greater understanding or mastery of that activity. The adult's response may be part of the learning or may be vital to the child's confirmation of his own competence. This vision seems more realistic in that it allows for the complex history of interactions with adults, which contributes to the child's motivation for a given task.

The idea that performance goals and learning goals are mutually exclusive fails to acknowledge the crucial role that adults, and their approval, have played in the student's learning experiences. Interestingly, in the Elliot and Dweck (1988) study, the task which is used requires a stream of feedback from the experimenter in order for the child to know whether he/she is correct. This is a task which cannot be judged successful or unsuccessful by the child alone. In addition to considering the experimental group each child was in, it might also be interesting to investigate the perceived role of the adult experimenter through the eyes of the child. Perhaps those children who were more willing to be seen making mistakes in order to learn were also more convinced that the adult would be helpful in that learning, whereas those who did not wish to take risks perhaps saw the adult in a strictly evaluative role? Neither Nicholls nor Dweck make qualifying statements about the nature of the task at hand. Comparisons of ego versus task involvement and performance versus learning goals are apparently deemed applicable to any task or learning situation, regardless of the relative importance of the adult presence to the task.

In their 1995 study of the differences between elementary and middle schools, Midgley, Anderman, and Hicks asked students directly about their perceptions of the teacher's role and influence. Students were asked to agree or disagree with statements such as, "In this school, teachers think how much you learn is more important than test scores" (school culture stresses task goals). They were also asked about statements such as, "In this school, teachers treat students who get good grades better than other students" (school culture stresses performance goals (p.97). Among their many findings, one which they seemed to find somewhat surprising was that, particularly at the middle school, "perceiving that the school stresses task goals and holding personal performance goals also were related positively and significantly" (p.102). Thus, the student might believe that teachers want to help the student learn and might have the goal of understanding for himself, while simultaneously also believing that it is important to demonstrate superior competence. The apparent presence of both of these goals at the same time seems to support Nicholls' notion that task and ego orientations are not mutually exclusive.

Such questions about the role of the adult, as seen through the eyes of the student, are also addressed by Deci and Ryan. They examine social-contextual factors, which they believe may have a functional significance of being either autonomy-supportive or controlling (Deci and Ryan, 1987). The adult in a task or learning situation may take on either significance according to the sort of feedback they provide. In examining that feedback, a great deal of emphasis has been placed on the actual words used by the adult (Deci and Ryan, 1989). The nature of the task in consideration, however, might also contribute to the functional significance of the adult's words. Some tasks or types of learning, such as the pointing example referred to earlier, require adult input, whereas other tasks do not. One might ask the question of whether the same words used as feedback might take on a different functional significance, depending upon the type of task. In Deci et al (1982) for example, the task is a puzzle in which the students can see for themselves whether or not they have reached a correct solution. The teacher's feedback is not a necessary part of successful performance.

From personal experience, children and adults often like to solve puzzles on their own, with no outside input at all unless they are stumped and actually request some help. In this experiment, then, the teacher's feedback might have seemed especially controlling because it was unnecessary and undesired. By contrast, given a task which is very unfamiliar in nature, feedback might be truly necessary. For example, a novice sailor trying to learn how to tie knots might have difficulty seeing whether a knot he has tied is actually correct. The question, "Is this right?" along with the expert feedback might become natural parts of the learning process. In order to further our understanding of both goal orientations and feedback, it would be helpful for researchers to experiment with these latter types of tasks, in which success is not so easily determined by the student alone. Possibly differences might appear in both the type of orientation or goals adopted as well as in the preferred type of feedback, depending upon the nature of the adult's role in the particular task.
 

REFERENCES
 

Deci, E.L., Spiegel, N.H., Ryan, R.M., Koestner, R., & Kauffman, M., (1982). Effects of performance standards on teaching styles: Behavior of controlling teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74 (6), 852-859.
 

Deci, E. & Ryan, R. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024-1037.
 

Elliott, E.S. & Dweck, C.S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 5-12.
 

Gruen, G.E., (19??), Genetic epistemology and the development of intelligence. In ____________________________________
 

Midgley, C., Anderman, E., & Hicks, L. (1995). Differences between elementary and middle school teachers and students: A goal theory approach. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15(1), 90-113.
 

Nicholls, J.G. (1992). Students as educational theorists. In D. Schunk & J.L. Meece (Eds.), Student perception in the classroom. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
 

Rigby, C.S., Deci, E.L., Patrick, B.C., Ryan, R.M. (1992). Beyond the intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy: self- determination in motivation and learning. Motivation and Emotion, 16(3), 165-185.
 

Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (1989). Bridging the research traditions of task/ego involvement and intrinsic/extrinsic motivation: a comment on Butler 1987. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 265-268.
 

Tudge, J. & Rogoff, B., (1989). Peer influences on cognitive development: Piagetian and Vygotskian perspectives. In M.H. Bornstein & J.S. Bruner, Interaction in Human Development, Hillsdale:NJ, Erlbaum.