Summary of “Goal Theory, Motivation, and School Achievement: An Integrative Review” by Martin V. Covington, 2000

INTRODUCTION

“This review examines the directions and recent progress in our understanding of the motivational dynamics of school achievement. As we will see, it is the interaction between a) the kinds of social and academic goals that students bring to the classroom, b) the motivating properties of these goals, and c) the prevailing classroom reward structures that jointly influence the amount and quality of student learning, as well as the will to continue learning.”

Motives as Drives

Covington summarizes the way that theories of motivation based on physiological needs—hunger, thirst, etc.—evolved into more complex theories of motives as drives originating within the individual. Specifically, in the 1950s and 60s, it was theorized that the drive to achieve success and the drive to avoid failure interact, and whichever overpowers the other determines whether an individual approaches challenges or avoids them.

Motives as Goals

In recent decades researchers and theorists have developed an alternative way of conceptualizing motivation: as determined by external goals rather than internal drives. However, Covington points out that goal theory does not seek to invalidate drive theory; rather, the two concepts are complementary, like two sides of a coin.

ACHIEVEMENT GOAL THEORY

Academic Goals

In the 1990s psychologists asserted that achievement in school is largely determined by “cognitive self-regulation,” which “refers to students being actively engaged in their own learning, including analyzing the demands of school assignments, planning for and mobilizing their resources to meet these demands, and monitoring their progress toward completion of assignments” (174). Covington connects the older approach/avoidance model with the newer distinction between mastery goals and performance goals. That is, students working for mastery goals (also called learning goals or task goals) are focused on their own understanding, skills, and appreciation of the material, whereas those working toward performance goals (also called ego goals or self-enhancing goals) are more concerned with looking smarter or outperforming others.

Prosocial Goals

School life is not just about classwork; it is also about peers. Psychologists have identified the needs for acceptance and approval by peers as important motivations that affect behaviors such as “willingness to cooperate, to comply with rules, and to help others” (178). For many students, social motivations are even more important than academic goals. According to Covington, although it is widely recognized that prosocial goals interact significantly with academic goals as well as being valuable in their own right, “interest in this possibility has far outrun the available evidence” (179). More research is needed in this area.

Covington emphasizes the responsibility of teachers as the moderators of the learning environment, and the effects of teachers’ attitudes and emphases on students’ attitudes and goals.

SELF-PROCESS

Self-Worth Theory

As our understanding of motivation grows ever more complex, some researchers, including Covington himself and his colleagues, observe that “in our society individuals are widely considered to be only as worthy as their ability to achieve. For these reasons, the kinds of grades students achieve are the unmistakable measure by which many, if not most, youngsters judge their worth as students” (181). However, there is a difference between those who strive to become the best they can be personally and those who strive to be judged as better than their peers. Does a student compare himself or herself with previous accomplishments or potential abilities, or does he or she compete with others for status?

Self-Protective Mechanisms

Self-protective mechanisms are those performance-avoidance behaviors described in the 1950s and 60s, now refined to comprise three categories: self-worth protection, self-handicapping strategies, and defensive pessimism. Self-worth protection describes a lack of effort in a situation in which failure is seen as a possibility. If the student should fail, the failure can be attributed to lack of effort, rather than incompetency. This is likely to occur when a student’s sense of self-worth is associated with performance or achievement of success. Self-handicapping is the creation of a real or imagined obstacle or impediment to success, which may then take the blame for any failure, rather than the student accepting responsibility. Basically, this is making excuses. Defensive pessimism is a strategy of denying the importance of an assignment or discounting one’s chances of success and holding unrealistically low expectations for oneself, which also result in a lack of effort. These mechanisms, however effective they may be in the short term at protecting a student’s sense of self-worth, are ultimately detrimental in the long run as they become ingrained habitual behaviors that result in chronically low achievement, and in turn to deep-seated feelings of incompetence.

CLASSROOM INCENTIVE STRUCTURES

A variety of rewards are possible within the classroom environment, and it is up to teachers to structure these incentive systems. The author distinguishes between “the internalized satisfaction of having done one’s best (which abets learning goals)” and “public recognition for doing better than others (reinforcing of performance goals)” (184). In general, learning goals are more productive of deeper understandings, higher-order thinking skills, and life-long learning, and therefore preferable to performance goals.

Ability Games

In classroom incentive structures where there are a limited number of rewards (such as high grades, compliments, gold stars, etc.), students are essentially competing against one another for these incentives. “In such a competitive game, the main obstacles to overcome are other students, not the challenge of mastering subject-matter material,” Covington writes (185). This structure reinforces the sort of performance goals that foster shallow learning and performance-avoidance behaviors.

Equity Games

Mastery goals, and the associated deeper thinking and life-long learning, are encouraged by classroom incentive structures in which the number or amount of rewards is not limited, but everyone who puts forth the effort and meets the standards is rewarded. Students are not compared to one another, and compete only against themselves. Teachers emphasize growth and development rather than results; improvement and mastery over scores and grades.

Students do better and learn more when they have some voice and some choice in the classroom; that is, some input or options as to the means to the end. This could take the form of developing goals and topics of study, being able to choose between several different assignments to learn certain material, even choices of which books to read.

It is also important to give students the opportunity to correct their mistakes and improve their less-than-satisfactory work, and credit should be given for doing so.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH

Covington identifies several possibilities for future research, including “the nature and costs of the continuing mismatch of cultural values that confronts many minority students” (191). The effect of social goals as they interact with academic goals is also an area in which we need much more knowledge. Furthermore, we understand relatively little about those goals which are intangible, and accompany exploratory learning rather than the sort of measurable, concrete goals emphasized in the school setting. These are not the only, but perhaps the three most important directions in which Covington believes researches should look in the future.