In this article regarding goals theory, the authors do a critical review of research that was done on performance approach goals and achievement goal theory. They were trying to achieve the end result of getting performance-approach goals and mastery goals to be on the same level of value.

 

Some of the research that they looked at seemed to make suggestions. Take performance-approach goals for example, it has been said that they bring about positive outcomes like achievement, but nothing transformative such as retaining the information or having meaningful learning. Performance-approach goals are also associated with leading to positive outcomes for older students who possess higher abilities, but not any other students.

 

There were three main arguments against this article from other authors. The first was that they believe there is a relationship between performance-approach goals and other positive outcomes. The second argument was that they believed researchers should create a multiple-goals perspective that combines high mastery goals and high performance-approach goals together. The final argument was that they felt that if a multiple-goals perspective was to be created, then that would call for a revision of the whole achievement goal theory. Another argument further along in the article, is the generalization that "mastery goals are always good, and performance goals are always bad". Therefore, because of this argument there is a suggestion to revise aspects of the achievement goal theory. The desired result would be to reach the point where "mastery goals are always good, and performance goals are always good".

 

Both sets of authors agreed that more research needs to be completed on achievement goals. Researchers need to examine areas such as achievement goals with different outcomes in different contexts, and among students with different ages, genders, ethnicities, and abilities. If all of these aspects are further researched, there should be a great improvement seen in this theory.