Measuring a Mastery Goal Structure Using the TARGET Framework

Abstract

Abstract. In prior research, goal structures have been measured as macroscopic and holistic constructs referring to all activities in the classroom setting associated with learning and performing on a meta-level. A more comprehensive approach for identifying concrete classroom structures that should foster students’ mastery goals is provided by the multidimensional TARGET framework with its six instructional dimensions (Task, Autonomy, Recognition, Grouping, Evaluation, Time). However, measurement instruments assessing students’ perceptions of all TARGET dimensions are largely lacking. The main aim of this study was to develop and validate a new student questionnaire for comprehensive assessment of the perceived TARGET classroom structure (the Goal Structure Questionnaire – GSQ). Scales were constructed using a rational-empirical strategy based on classical conceptions of the TARGET dimensions and prior empirical research. The instrument was tested in a study using a sample of 1,080 secondary school students. Findings indicate that the scales are reliable, internally valid, and externally valid in terms of relationships with students’ achievement goals. More concretely, analyses revealed that the TARGET mastery goal structure positively predicts mastery goals, performance approach goals, and an incremental implicit theory of intelligence. No associations were found with performance avoidance goals.

Exploring achievement goal theory, ACTFL's 5 Cs, and the L2 classroom: What goals do students set?

“…In the classroom, mastery orientations are most often related to content and the learning process, while performance orientations are frequently linked to grades or comparisons with other students. The majority of research on this topic across disciplines has surveyed learners' mastery goals (Wormington & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2017) and found them to be more beneficial (Lüftenegger, Tran, Bardach, Schober, & Spiel, 2017).…”

Associations between vocational students’ perceptions of goal structures, mastery goals, and self-efficacy in five subjects—practical relevance as a potential mediator

“…An influential approach to mapping mastery goal structures is the TARGET framework (Ames 1992;Epstein 1988;Lüftenegger et al 2017). This approach identifies six dimensions of teaching principles and strategies that constitute a classroom's mastery goal structure.…”

“…Evaluation comprises teachers' evaluation strategies and includes for instance reliance on an individual reference norm when evaluating students' work. The time dimension captures the use of time, which should be flexible, allowing students to introduce their own questions or topics (Ames 1992;Epstein 1988;Lüftenegger et al 2017;Patrick et al 2011).…”

“…The beneficial motivational effects of a mastery goal structure are not restricted to mastery goals, however. By contrast, mastery goal structures have often been characterized as a "motivational climate" due to their importance for enhancing students' motivation more generally (e.g., Ames 1992; see also e.g., Bardach et al 2019a;b) and due to their relations to a broad range of other motivational constructs, such as self-efficacy, self-concept, implicit theories, interest, or personal best goals (e.g., Friedel et al 2007;Khajavy et al 2018;Lüftenegger et al 2017). Early research on mastery goal structures and their motivational impact already emphasized that mastery goal structures should particularly influence "how students view their ability" (Ames 1992, p. 263).…”

The interactive effects of achievement goals and task complexity on enjoyment, mental focus, and effort

“… While a number of alternative achievement goal frameworks exists (e.g., the 2 × 2 framework of Elliot, ), we chose to utilize the three‐dimensional framework in this study as this is the dominant model used in research for our target population (employees in organizational settings; DeShon & Gillespie, ). In addition, models including dimensions such as mastery‐avoidance are generally considered to be less relevant for younger, student populations performing tasks of a somewhat limited duration (e.g., Lee & Bong, ; Lüftenegger, Tran, Bardach, Schober, & Spiel, ).…”