Running Head: CLASS GOAL ORIENTATION, INTEREST, AND PERFORMANCE 1
The Effects of Manipulated Classroom Goal Orientation on Individual Interest and Performance
Amanda Beck
The University of Akron
Running Head: CLASS GOAL ORIENTATION, INTEREST, AND PERFORMANCE 2
Abstract
This study looked at the effects of a manipulated classroom goal orientation and students’
performance and interest levels. Previous studies have found three main types of classroom goal
orientations in the achievement goal orientation theory: mastery conditions, performance
conditions and a combined approach. 135 Introduction to Psychology students were assigned to a
classroom with one of three goals: mastery, performance, or combined. Students voluntarily
completed surveys throughout the semester and test scores were obtained for performance
evaluation. The self reported interest scores, test scores, and manipulated classroom assignment
was then analyzed and two univariate analyses of variance were conducted. When looking at
performance, there was no significant difference in any of the classroom manipulations. When
looking at classroom interest, there was a significant difference in interest in both the mastery
and combined class conditions, compared to the performance condition.
Running Head: CLASS GOAL ORIENTATION, INTEREST, AND PERFORMANCE 3
The Effects of Manipulated Classroom Goal Orientation on Individual Interest and Performance
In a classroom setting, instructors should want students to not only perform well, but to
also gain interest for the material. In order to do this, goal orientation and the achievement goal
theory has been the leading structure for understanding goal orientation (Barron & Harackiewicz,
2001) and can help to explain how individuals strive to achieve competence in the classroom and
become better learners. Furthermore, achievement goal theory could possibly help to explain the
differences in student motivation in the classroom (Mattern, 2005).
The achievement goal theory considers individual goal orientations and the way they
establish a base for understanding and reacting to future events (Linnenbrink, 2005). While there
has been debate over the different types of goal orientations and the benefits of adopting each,
two main types of goal orientations have emerged: mastery goal orientation and performance
goal orientation.
Mastery goal orientation involves an individual’s goal to fully develop competence of the
subject and to gain and understand new knowledge (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001). When one
adopts a mastery goal, one attempts to develop a skill as well as to improve on existing skills
(Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001). Individuals with a mastery goal orientation are often less
concerned about illustrating their academic abilities, but rather are more focused on developing a
deeper understanding of the material and mastering the topic (Mattern, 2005). Additionally, an
individual with a mastery goal orientation would focus on avoiding misunderstanding of material
and not being able to master the task (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2001). Mastery goal individuals
are more likely to use sophisticated study skills, such as elaboration, in order to understand the
course material and will often ask for help when needed (Mattern, 2005).
Running Head: CLASS GOAL ORIENTATION, INTEREST, AND PERFORMANCE 4
Performance goal orientation involves goals of displaying competence and knowledge of
the subject as compared to others (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001). Those with a performance
orientation often evaluate themselves compared to others and rely on a normative scale for
evaluation (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2001). Students with a performance goal orientation are
often motivated to perform well in order to earn a higher grade and show others that they are able
to achieve competence over the subject (Mattern, 2005). Additionally, there is a way to combine
both the mastery goal orientation and the performance goal orientation, creating a multiple-goal
perspective (Linnenbrink, 2005).
Similarly, the way classrooms are structured and classes are taught may have underlying
goal orientations created by the instructor of the class. Classes may be taught with a classroomwide goal in mind that would help orient students towards adopting mastery or performance
based goals (Church, Elliot & Gable, 2001). Classes can be taught with a mastery emphasis, a
performance-approach emphasis or a combined emphasis on both mastery and performanceapproach goals equally weighted.
There has been previous research involving the manipulation of classroom goal
orientations and the effect on performance in young students (Linnenbrink, 2005). In this
research, when performance was evaluated using achievement, students who were in either the
performance-approach or combined goal classrooms scored in similar patterns for pretest,
posttest, and follow-up testing (Linnenbrink, 2005). Individuals in both the performanceapproach and combined classroom goal condition showed a large jump in performance scores
between the pretest and posttest, with only a small decrease in performance during the follow up
test (Linnenbring, 2005). However, individuals in the mastery classroom goal condition did not
Running Head: CLASS GOAL ORIENTATION, INTEREST, AND PERFORMANCE 5
have as high of a jump between the pretest and posttest, but they did not experience a decrease in
scores between the posttest and follow up testing (Linnenbrink, 2005).
It is important to look reexamine performance in manipulated goal orientations to
determine the effect on college students. Classroom goal orientation has not been manipulated in
a college class setting, thus creating the need to look at this sample. The original Linnenbrink
(2005) sample consisted of fifth and sixth grade students. Individuals in this age group may not
have as fully developed interests and approaches to study as individuals in a college setting.
Furthermore, younger individuals may be more willing to adapt to a new type of learning
condition, through manipulation of a classroom goal, which would decrease the power of
personal goal orientation. Individuals in college may be less open to the classroom goal
structures provided by the instructors, as they have had more time to develop their personal
approaches to learning.
Personal goal orientation has been found to have a significant effect on both interest and
performance in a college aged sample (Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, Lehto, Elliot, 1997).
Harackiewicz et al. (1997) found that individuals with a mastery goal orientation had higher
levels of interest than those with performance goal orientations. Additionally they found that
individuals with a performance goal orientation had higher levels of performance than those with
a mastery goal orientation (Harackiewicz, et al, 1997). Since classroom goals can be
manipulated, it is important to see if the effects of such a manipulation would have the same
observed effects as personal goal orientation has in past research.
Because interest can be influenced by classroom activity, it is important to look at the
effects of classroom goal orientation on interest. When students find the classroom work and
Running Head: CLASS GOAL ORIENTATION, INTEREST, AND PERFORMANCE 6
material interesting, they should want to work harder to learn and develop further knowledge for
the material, which is in line with a mastery goal orientation (Harackiewicz, et al, 1997). If a
mastery goal orientation is then promoted in a classroom, there could be effects on individual
levels of interest.
Based on previous research on the topic, I propose the following hypothesis:
H1: Interest scores will be higher, on average, in classes with a manipulated mastery or
combined classroom goal orientation than in classes with a manipulated performance
classroom goal orientation.
Additionally, I propose the following:
H2: Performance scores will be higher, on average, in classes with a manipulated
performance or combined classroom goal orientation than in classes with a manipulated
mastery classroom goal orientation.
Method
Participants
One hundred thirty-five undergraduate students were recruited from nine manipulated
Introduction to Psychology classes. Because the data is part of a larger data collection effort,
demographic information was not available (because it was not yet collected) at the time the
current analyses were conducted.
Running Head: CLASS GOAL ORIENTATION, INTEREST, AND PERFORMANCE 7
Procedure
Classroom goal orientation was manipulated by instructors of the Introduction to
Psychology classes. The instructors taught classes as they normally would, with the manipulation
occurring in two ways, (1) through class announcements before each exam and (2) through
feedback provided to students on their performance after each exam.
Instructors told each class of their classroom goal before each exam (Mastery condition:
“Our classroom goal is for all students to really understand the course material.”; Performance
condition: “Our classroom goal is for all students to achieve a score of 80% of higher on every
exam.”; Combined condition: “Our classroom goal is for students to really understand course
material and for all students to achieve a score of 80% or higher on every exam.” We reminded
students of their classroom goal orientation after each exam by giving each student received a
slip of paper with specific feedback on their test score and the classroom goal condition (Mastery
condition: “On your most recent exam, you received a score of {%} which is a {letter grade}.
Remember, our goal is to really learn and understand the course material.”; Performance
condition: “On your most recent exam, you received a score of {%} which is a {letter grade}.
Your score of {%} is {above/below} the class goal of 80%. Remember, our goal is for each
student to achieve a grade of 80% or higher on every exam.”; Combined condition: “On your
most recent exam, you received a score of {%} which is a {letter grade}. Your score of {%} is
{above/below} the class goal of 80%. Remember, our goal for this class is for each student to
really understand the course material and to achieve a grade of 80% or higher on every
exam.”).
Measures
Running Head: CLASS GOAL ORIENTATION, INTEREST, AND PERFORMANCE 8
Students completed an online survey at week 3, which measured interest using a 13-item
self report questions. Students responded using a Likert-type scale. Items on the questionnaire
included items such as “I think what we are leaning in this class is interesting” and “I would like
to take more psychology courses after this one”. The items were then averaged to create an
interest level scale score (Cronbach’s alpha = .92).
Participants allowed the researchers to have access to their test scores, which were used
as performance measures. Three test scores were averaged for each participant to determine an
overall class performance score, which is in percentage form.
Results
Interest
The mean levels of interest were calculated for each of the three classroom goal
orientations. The combined classroom goal orientation had the highest mean (5.795), followed
by the mastery condition (5.624) and the performance condition (4.948). In order to look at
levels of interest in the different classroom goal manipulations, a Univariate Analysis of
Variance was conducted to see if there was a significant difference in the mean scores of the
interest variable between the three class manipulations. It was found that there was a significant
difference between classes (F = 10.301, p < .001), which then lead to a Post Hoc analysis.
Interest and classroom goal orientation was then looked at using Tukey’s Honest Significant
Difference test. Tukey’s Post Hoc analysis revealed that there was significant difference between
the combined classroom condition and performance classroom condition (0.8474, p <.001), and
between the mastery classroom condition and performance classroom condition (0.6760, p
<.002).
Running Head: CLASS GOAL ORIENTATION, INTEREST, AND PERFORMANCE 9
Performance
In order to look at performance, the means of the first three exams were calculated for
each classroom goal orientation. The mean for the performance classroom goal condition was the
highest (78.929), followed by mastery classroom goal condition (77.274), and combined
condition (77.256). A separate Univariate Analysis of Variance was conducted to see if there
was a significant difference in the mean scores of performance between the three class
manipulations. There were no significant differences to report on performance between classes
(F = .252, p = .778). Because there were no significant differences found, further Post Hoc
analyses were not needed.
Discussion
The study had mixed results in terms of support for the hypotheses. We observed that
when there was either a mastery classroom goal orientation or combined classroom goal
orientation, interest in the material was stronger than in a performance classroom goal
orientation, as hypothesized. There was, however, no support for the second hypothesis as
performance scores were similar across all three manipulation groups.
In looking at interest levels between the class manipulations, there are a number of
reasons why higher levels of interest might occur in the mastery classroom condition and the
combined classroom condition, one of which being that the instructors are encouraging students
to learn as much as possible about the material and are promoting higher levels of interest in the
subject. If this is the case, a classroom with either a mastery condition or a combined condition
(which equally stresses the importance of developing competence and learning all that is possible
about the material) would be the best way to teach in order to promote higher levels of interest.
Running Head: CLASS GOAL ORIENTATION, INTEREST, AND PERFORMANCE 10
From this research, if the goal of the instructor is to raise interest levels in the class, then the
class should have some emphasis on mastery goal orientation, whether it be completely mastery,
or combined with performance.
Classroom goal orientation did not show significant differences in performance across the
three manipulations, thus not finding support for the performance based hypothesis. However,
this may be a result of the overall classroom goal’s inability to override personal goal
orientations for class performance. This needs to be examined in future research. If this is
demonstrated, then classroom goal orientations may not be important in terms of student
performance.
A limitation to the project was that we did not control for participants’ major in school. If
major was explored, it is possible that interest is related to major, and may explain variance in
both performance (wanting to do well in a major course) and interest (having more interest in
courses one majors in). Another limitation to the project is that demographics were not collected
early in the semester and could reveal further patterns about interest and performance in class.
Future research should look to see how personal goal orientations interact with classroom goal
orientation to effect performance and interest in the class.
Running Head: CLASS GOAL ORIENTATION, INTEREST, AND PERFORMANCE 11
References
Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation: testing
multiple goal models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 706-722.
Church, M. A., Elliot, A. J., & Gable, S. L. (2001) Perceptions of classroom enviornoment,
achievement goals, and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93
(1), 43-54.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Lehto, A. T, & Elliot, A. J. (1997). Predictors
and consequences of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest
and making the grade. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73 (6), 1284-1295).
Linnenbrink, E. A. (2005). The dilemma of performance –approach goals: The use of multiple
goal contexts to promote students’ motivation and learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 97(2), 197-213.
Linnenbrink, E. A., Pintrich, P.A., (2001). Multiple goals, multiple contexts: The dynamic
interplay between personal goals and contextual goal stresses. In S. Volet; S. Järvelä
(Eds.), Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical advances and methodological
implications (pp. 251-269). The Netherlands: Pergamon Press.
Mattern, R. A., (2005). College students’ goal orientations and achievement. International
Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17 (1), 27-32.