Revision of achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating.

Abstract

C. Midgley et al. (2001) raised important questions about the effects of performance-approach goals. The present authors disagree with their characterization of the research findings and implications for theory. They discuss 3 reasons to revise goal theory: (a) the importance of separating approach from avoidance strivings, (b) the positive potential of performance-approach goals, and (c) identification of the ways performance-approach goals can combine with mastery goals to promote optimal motivation. The authors review theory and research to substantiate their claim that goal theory is in need of revision, and they endorse a multiple goal perspective. The revision of goal theory is underway and offers a more complex, but necessary, perspective on important issues of motivation, learning, and achievement. In tins response. the authors dispel interpretation of their critical review of research on performance-approach goals as support for a dichotomous perspective of achievement goal theory. Second, the authors challenge the suggestion that accepting recent research findings and adopting a multiple goals perspective constitutes a theoretical revision of the assumption that mastery goals are always good and performance goals are always bad (J. M. Harackiewicz. K. E. Barron, P. R. Pintrich, P. R. Elliot, & T. M. Thrash. 2002, p. 643). The authors make a distinction between developments that contribute to the explanatory power of the theory and value-laden interpretations of theory and research. The authors argue that phrasing the latter in terms of the former is misleading and that it masks the necessity for a critical discussion over the desired purposes in different types of achievement contexts.