Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 1383 – 1391

WCES 2014

Interrogating Motivational Theory in the Context of Contemporary

Educational Policy
Sam Carr, PhD a*
a
Department of Education, University of Bath, Bath, UK

Abstract

There have been calls (e.g., Gergen, 2001) for psychologists to more critically deliberate the meaning of their concepts, ideas,
predictions and data in the context of broader political debate. In educational psychology, this is important in order that our
construction of knowledge remains in touch with the storms that are raging outside of our laboratory doors. This paper sought to
interrogate a popular and significant theory of educational motivation (achievement goal theory) in the context of broader debate
around contemporary educational policy. The paper draws upon the knowledge base and data (in the area of achievement goal
theory) in relation to educational motivation, interrogating and integrating such knowledge in relation to broader sociological and
political critique of contemporary educational policy. As a consequence of such critique a number of conclusions are reached: (a)
there is a pressing need to consider policy-level representations of motivational constructs such as achievement goals, (b) such
policy-level representations may be highly significant for future directions and developments in goal theory, and (c) the
possibility that goal theory’s concepts and ideas might be “used” and “exploited” in the context of current political debate.
© 2015
© 2014TheTheAuthors.
Authors.Published
Publishedby by Elsevier
Elsevier Ltd.Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCES 2014.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCES 2014
Keywords: Motivation, educational policy, achievement goal theory.

1. Introduction

“Psychology has...amassed a sophisticated array of methods for generating predictions. The primary question
is, however, what utility the predictions have for the culture outside the laboratory...The question is not whether
hypotheses are true or false in any ultimate sense but whether the prediction have any utility outside the local game

*Dr Sam Carr. Tel.: +44 (0) 1225 383489.

E-mail address: S.Carr@bath.ac.uk

1877-0428 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCES 2014
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.653
1384 Sam Carr / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 1383 – 1391

of truth. As I see it...an effective empiricism requires a posture of culturally, ethically, and politically informed
pragmatism” (Gergen, 2001, p. 808).
The division between psychology and the social, cultural, and political sciences has been forwarded as an example
of an academic division of labour that encourages people to think that the study of what they do as individuals and
what they do in society should be compartmentalised (Parker, 1999). In the above quote, Gergen (2001) alludes to
this, contending that psychologists have been notoriously absent from the major cultural and political debates of
recent decades. He warned of the dangers of “irrelevance” and “degeneration” that await a discipline that ultimately
“closes its doors on the storms that rage around it” (2001, p. 811). In educational psychology it is critical for
theorists to reflect upon and discuss how the central tenets (and finer details) of their hypotheses might be situated in
and make an impact upon the trajectory of current educational trends. Such reflection will necessitate a
consideration of our theories in light of sociological and political issues. Accordingly, in the motivational literature,
achievement goal theorists have been mindful of the fact that this influential theory of human motivation “...has
remained mostly silent about burning issues facing the field of education” (Maehr & Zusho, 2009, p. 94). In keeping
with the spirit of Gergen's (2001) call for pragmatism, this paper therefore originates out of a recognized need for
motivation researchers to reflect upon, situate and critique how their theories’ central propositions relate to policy
formation and the debate around current issues facing the education system (e.g., Maehr & Zusho, 2009). In order to
meet these objectives I focus specifically upon one key motivational theory; achievement goal theory. The paper
begins with a brief overview of achievement goal theory and subsequently seeks to discuss some of the issues that
arise when we attempt to integrate it into debate surrounding current policy movement.

1.1. Achievement goal theory

Achievement goal approaches to the study of motivation afford competence a central role (e.g., Dweck & Elliot,
1983; Elliot & Dweck, 2005). The predominant focus of achievement goal approaches has been that achievement
goals reflect how individuals construe competence in a given situation or context (e.g., Ames, 1984; Dweck, 1986;
Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliot, 1997; Nicholls, 1989). Endorsing mastery goals (sometimes labeled task involved or
learning goals), individuals essentially focus themselves on the development and demonstration of competence via
personal improvement, self-development and learning. Elliott and Dweck (1988) have suggested that such
individuals are essentially concerned with the question “How can I best acquire this skill or master this task?” In
contrast, performance goals (sometimes referred to as ego involved goals) center around a focus on the
demonstration or proving of competence levels (or the avoidance of incompetence) relative to normative or other-
referenced standards. When performance goals are salient individuals are essentially concerned about demonstrating
success (or avoiding failure) by securing a favorable comparison of their ability with that of others. It is now well
established that achievement goals provide the framework within which individuals interpret and react to
achievement experiences and they have been implicated in evoking qualitatively different patterns of cognition,
affect, and behavior (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Nicholls, 1989). Generally, most models
predict that an adaptive pattern of outcomes is associated with mastery goals and that a less adaptive pattern is
associated with performance goals (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). A large body of research has
provided consistent support for this prediction, with mastery goals being associated with adaptive responses in
relation to an array of significant cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcome variables such as the interpretation of
effort, reaction to failure, task choice, intrinsic motivation, affective patterns, and anxiety, performance goals have
been associated with a less adaptive pattern of responses (for a review see Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988;
Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). Researchers have also devoted attention to goal frameworks incorporating a distinction
between “approach” and “avoidance” goals (e.g., Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Middleton & Midgley, 1997). For
example, Elliot’s (1997) trichotomous achievement goal framework defines mastery goals in a similar manner to
traditional dichotomous goal models (e.g., Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1984) but segregates performance goals into
performance-approach and performance-avoidance categories. According to this framework, individuals focused
upon performance-approach goals concern themselves with demonstrating their superior competence levels relative
to others, whereas individuals who are focused on performance-avoidance goals attempt to avoid appearing
inadequate and demonstrating incompetence relative to others.
 Sam Carr / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 1383 – 1391 1385

The bifurcation of the performance goal construct has generated some controversy by providing data to suggest
that while performance-avoidance goals are consistently linked to maladaptive outcomes and patterns of learning
(e.g., see Carr, 2006; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Middleton & Midgley, 1997), performance-approach goals have
provided less consistent results, being linked to positive outcomes in some studies (e.g., Elliot & McGregor, 1999;
Midgley, Arunkumar, & Urdan, 1996). Additionally, Elliot and McGregor (2001) have further extended the
trichotomous goal model to include an additional bifurcation of mastery goals incorporating a mastery-approach and
mastery-avoidance goal distinction. Within this conceptualisation, mastery-approach goals reflect a focus on striving
to achieve improvement, personal progression, and learning. Mastery-avoidance goals are conceptualised to be a
focus upon striving to avoid not demonstrating master. These multiple achievement goals are thought to be
manifestations of the underlying dispositional motives of the need to achieve and the need to avoid failure (e.g.,
Atkinson, 1957; McClelland, 1951) and the influence of these higher order motives is hypothesized to be channelled
through representational goal conceptualisations that individuals internalize in specific contexts. Achievement goals
are therefore viewed “as “focused needs,”…concretized “servants” of their higher order achievement relevant
motives” (Elliot & Church, 1997, p.219). There is also evidence to support the suggestion that adoption of
achievement goal frameworks and associated motivational responses are significantly linked to social and cultural
milieu (see Ames and Archer, 1988; Urdan & Turner, 2005). It has been suggested that individual differences in
personal achievement goals are, to some extent, a function of factors such as structural representations of goals
operating in the classroom context or through wider socialization experiences including home life and parenting
(e.g., Ablard & Parker, 1997; Ames & Archer, 1987). For example, Ames (1992) has contended that various
socializing agents (e.g., parents, peers, and teachers) can impact achievement goals through the emphasis of an
environmental goal structure. That is, through the instructional climate they provoke and personal evaluation
systems, social agents may be responsible for invoking mastery or performance oriented classroom goals. Research
has consistently verified the predictive utility of these structural representations of achievement goals and the type of
contextual emphasis children detect from their parents, peers, or teachers seems to be linked to the development of
their own achievement goals (e.g., Carr, 2006; Carr & Weigand, 2001; Papaioannou, Ampatzoglou, Kalogiannis, &
Sagovits, 2008) and to additional related motivational outcomes (e.g., Kavussanu & Roberts, 1996; Vazou,
Ntoumanis, & Duda, 2006).

1.2. The need to link goal theory to policy

As noted above, in his seminal paper, Gergen (2001) outlined that “psychological science has long been
dedicated to a posture of value neutrality” (p. 808). The result, he argued, has been a generalized avoidance of some
of the most significant moral and political debates of recent decades. For Gergen (2001), it is extremely important
that the predictions, findings, and methods of inquiry that have arisen from a value-neutral science “enter society as
guiding intelligibilities with the capacity to alter cultural life for good or ill” (p. 809). Furthermore, he argues that to
avoid major ongoing social, political, and ethical debates is irresponsible and ethically questionable and that if
particular intelligibilities favour certain ways of life or value systems then it is essential to reflect upon this.
Accordingly, evaluation, critique, and the provision of alternative ideas and philosophies are a critical part of the
evolution of educational policy and practice. It is therefore timely and prudent for achievement goal theorists to
contribute to current debate surrounding policy so that the theory (a) might help contribute to current debate and
future direction in education (Maehr and Midgley, 1996) and (b) might itself be more pragmatically shaped and
developed through participation in contemporary social, political, and moral debate.

2. Goal theory and policy: Conceptual links and important considerations

2.1. Policy-level representation of achievement goals

Pintrich (2000) has pointed out that achievement goals broadly reflect values and beliefs in relation to the
meaning of achievement and the criteria used to evaluate success. In an abstract sense, these values and beliefs need
not only be internalized, emphasized, and represented at the level of the individual but can also be structurally
1386 Sam Carr / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 1383 – 1391

represented and reflected in cultural practices such as classroom environments (e.g., Ames, 1992; Ames & Archer,
1988). Recently, Murayama and Elliot (2009) called for a more considered examination of goals at the structural
level of representation, arguing that this might result in a more “comprehensive portrait of achievement motivation”
(p. 443). While they were not explicitly referring to a policy-level structural representation of achievement goal
constructs, there is much to be gained from expanding our understanding of how the values reflected in achievement
goal constructs (that have been consistently demonstrated to play a significant role in shaping motivational and
psychological well-being) might also be reflected in macro-level, policy structures that supersede individuals and
classrooms. Adding another “layer” of goal representation (i.e., the idea that goals can operate at individual,
classroom, and policy level) is both necessary and complicated. It is necessary, in keeping with Gergen's (2001) call,
in the sense that it nudges goal theory to “plug itself into the real world” of education, carefully considering how the
abstract constructs that make up its central theses have meaning on a broader level. However, it is complicated in the
sense that it adds complexity to the ways in which goal constructs might be considered to be structurally represented
on a cultural or political level. For example, teachers are significant “agents” in the construction of structural
representations of achievement goals at the classroom level. Accordingly, it is extremely important to keep in mind
that changing classroom structures therefore also requires accessing and changing teachers' goals for children's
learning, belief systems, and broader views about the purpose of schooling in general (Ames, 1992; Nicholls,
Cheung, Lauer, & Patashnick, 1989). However, at this level of analysis it becomes important to pay attention to the
broader social, political, and organizational structures within which teachers are themselves situated and that may
have a significant bearing on the development of their belief systems about schooling in general and their goals for
children's learning. Teachers too are organizationally socialized “...to appreciate the values, abilities, expected
behaviors, and social knowledge essential for assuming an organizational role and for participating as an
organizational member” (Louis, 1980, pp. 229-230) and if achievement goal theorists are to fully realize the need to
influence and change classroom goals for the good then they will necessarily be required to better understand the
organizational, social, and political forces in which teachers are currently situated. In a paper presented at a recent
British Psychological Society seminar at Cambridge University, Remedios and McClellan (2009) argued that what is
urgently needed in the goal theory literature is a thorough examination of whether it is possible for the assumptions
espoused by achievement goal theorists to make an educational impact at classroom level when classrooms are
superseded by much broader oppositional social and political trends. For example, Ball (2003) has argued that the
increasing pressure teachers face to foster a classroom culture of “performativity” (an externally imposed orientation
towards normative standard production and accountability) is giving rise to internalized conflict in relation to the
values teachers would ideally like to espouse and those they feel pressured to espouse. In the context of goal theory,
there will be important questions to address that are clearly related to this argument. For example, in the face of the
proliferation of high stakes testing policies is teachers' ability to foster mastery oriented classroom level goal
structures inhibited? If this is the case, how do they feel it is inhibited? How might a policy-level backdrop of high
stakes testing and accountability create barriers and resistance to the development of classrooms that place mastery
orientation at the centre of learning? How can/do teachers, under increasing pressure to become agents of policies
such as NCLB, develop classrooms where they are genuinely agents of a child’s personal growth and mastery? It is
my view (a) that such questions are clearly absent from the goal theory literature as it currently stands, and (b) that
they would reflect a directional shift towards a more pragmatic consideration of goal theory that can only arise out
of a critical deliberation of the theory's relationship to current social and political debates.

2.2. Multiple goals in the context of policy-level representation

As discussed in the previous section, it may well be the case that policy-level goal representations supersede
classroom-level emphases and perhaps even “devalue” or “invalidate” teachers' personal goals. It is interesting to
speculate further about the potential consequences of this phenomenon. For example, a policy such as high stakes
testing has been viewed as the “hub” of the system as it currently operates (e.g., Hursh, 2005), around which a
multitude of day to day educational experiences and practices are ultimately shaped and focused. In a goal theory
sense, one might conceptualize this policy-level representation of achievement values as distinct from individual and
classroom-level representations in the sense that it provides a platform upon which lower level goal representations
exist, are organized and are focused. This might not only have important implications in the sense that it could be
 Sam Carr / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 1383 – 1391 1387

seen to “water down” or dampen the emphasis of mastery goals at classroom level (as discussed in the previous
section). Beyond this, there are also interesting potential connotations for the ways in which individuals and teachers
(as agents of classroom goals) might activate, utilize, and operate mastery multiple goal constructs in the context of
a performative policy-level landscape where performance goals are given precedence. For example, recent
explorations of multiple goal endorsement at the individual level of analysis have devoted attention to understanding
not only the strength of endorsement of multiple goals (typically with goal profile approaches) but also the abstract
ways in which individuals pursue such goals and the relationships that the goals share with each other. Carr's (2012)
recent qualitative examination of individuals endorsing high levels of both mastery and performance goals
(according to a dichotomous model) revealed interesting differences in relation to the ways in which certain
individuals (who statistically reflected a homogenous subgroup, endorsing high levels of both mastery and
performance goals) appeared to value and pursue multiple goals. In-depth interviews were able to access subtle, yet
significant information about individuals' multiple goal endorsement. For example, a subset of individuals revealed
that while they did gain a sense of achievement and feelings of competence from personal progression and
improvement, the meaning of such mastery oriented goals was heavily linked to their value in relation to apparently
superordinate performance goals. As Carr (2012, pp. 550-551) summarized, “...the students provided qualitative
statements that strongly suggested that they “felt successful” as a function of “working hard” or “showing clear
personal improvement” because they perceived such experiences to ultimately assist them in demonstrating their
superior ability.” Hence, for these students, mastery goals (defined in this investigation as focusing upon and gaining
a sense of competence and satisfaction from personal improvement, progression, and learning) featured heavily in
the learning context under investigation but were only given value in the sense that they “served” or “fed into”
superordinate performance goals. This study supported previous calls (e.g., Urdan & Mestas, 2006) in the goal
theory literature to more carefully consider the subtle (and often complex) relationships between multiple goals and
how individuals give meaning to the pursuit of such goals in relation to each other. In the context of the arguments
presented in this paper, issues such as the above present interesting possibilities in relation to how broader cultural
conditions might create a higher level “atmosphere” that not only influences the likelihood of certain goal structures
being emphasized but also create conditions that influence the ways in which they are pursued in relation to each
other. For example, it is interesting to speculate whether policies such as high stakes testing, which in the language
of goal theory might be seen to place performance oriented values at the forefront of educational life, might alter the
ways in which other goals are pursued in relation to performance goals. It is not inconceivable, in the context of an
education system where central policies clearly priorities performance oriented values, that teachers, individuals,
and societies might evolve and adapt, coming to appreciate mastery and learning only in relation to their value as
instrumental means to performance oriented ends (that are ultimately championed at policy level). It will be
important for researchers to establish the extent to which such hypotheses are plausible and (if they are) the extent to
which a subordination of mastery oriented values (e.g., as a means to performance oriented ends) alters the
motivational benefits that have been associated with them.

2.3. Goals in the context of high stakes testing: A Foulcauldian example

A central argument in sociological critique of high stakes testing has been, from a Foucauldian perspective that
the policy movement is reflective of the fact that schooling is ultimately a centre of “disciplinary power, ”a“
normalizing social institution that is designed to teach individuals to conceptualize the world and respond to power
in predictable ways (Allen, 2012; Foucault, 1975). In relation to this, high stakes testing has been viewed as a social
instrument whereby “a child is precisely defined according to the place he or she has reached in a prescriptive
series...the child is located in ‘cellular’ space...progression is charted through periodic examinations, ensuring that
all follow the same course” (Allen, 2012, p. 644). Ultimately, Foucauldian critics have called attention to the subtle
lessons students internalize about the hurdles they learn to negotiate (e.g., high stakes tests) in order to come to
value themselves (and to feel valued by others) in the context of their educational lives. This has been seen as both
oppressive and dehumanising as it fails to position authentic care of children as individuals at the core of the
education system (Valenzuela, 1999).
1388 Sam Carr / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 1383 – 1391

It is interesting to deliberate how ideas from achievement goal theory might be situated in the context of such
critique. The National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) in the UK argued that they “...do not take issue with
the principle of testing, but with the emphasis on published performance tables and the links between test results and
inspection outcomes.” This viewpoint has led many to contend that it is not testing children per se that is the
problem but simply how the results and data generated are utilized. Based upon this argument, Allen (2012) has
pointed out that in the UK there was a clear shift (a likely response to strong criticism of a myopic focus upon
normative high stakes testing) away from an overt, overriding emphasis on such testing, towards an increased
emphasis upon low stakes, “mastery oriented” approaches designed to close the “gap between actual and desired
levels of performance” (Wiliam & Black, 1996, p. 543) in a self-referential loop. The rhetoric around such a shift
was based upon arguments such as the following:

“Where the classroom culture focuses on rewards, ‘gold-stars’, grades or place-in-the-class ranking, then
pupils look for the ways to obtain the best marks rather than at the needs of their learning....This also
generates a ‘fear of failure’ and leads to efforts by pupils to ‘try to build up their self-esteem in other ways’.
What is needed is a culture of success, backed by the belief that all can achieve” (Black & Wiliam 1998, 8-9).

Accordingly, as Allen (2012) has pointed out, in the UK there was an increasing government shift towards
transforming such children into:

“...'mastery children' who are motivated by the desire to learn; will tackle difficult tasks in flexible and reflective
ways; are confident of success, believing that they can do it if they try. Mastery children ‘believe that you can
improve your intelligence” (Allen, 2012, p. 657).

As Allen (2012) has pointed out, at first glance one might applaud such a political shift towards low stakes, mastery
oriented approaches and suggest that they are more aligned with what goal theorists might consider to be an adaptive
approach to learning. However, in the context of Foucauldian analyses, such policy-level shifts have not been
viewed as an authentic shift in the overriding orientation of policy structures. Rather, they have been viewed with
suspicion, as a disguised attempt to transmit the very same educational goals to students under a more
“motivationally acceptable” pretext. For Allen (2012), such a shift may suggest a more pedagogically effective and
empowering transformation but the subtext is that underneath, the same ideals prevail:

“What retreats is the goad of ranking. In its place pupils learn how to enhance process and develop
themselves in apparent harmony with one other, each of them involved in personal formative cycles, occupied
in unison within individual feedback-action loops. They learn to become industrious self-enhancers,
accepting and implementing external goals. Competition is humanised and disguised and perhaps thereby
intensified by this formative technology” (Allen, 2012, p. 658).

In relation to the above, it could be argued that simply championing a focus upon “getting better” on the grounds
that it is psychologically and motivationally more adaptive than a focus upon demonstrating one's normative ability,
may in the end simply be a useful smokescreen for “disciplinary power” seeking to find softer and more acceptable
ways of achieving an instrumental and ultimately dehumanizing (in a Foucauldian sense) end. What the above
deliberations ultimately provoke is a more critical consideration of how the predictions and constructs at the heart of
goal theory might be viewed when they are considered in light of broader political debate. In the context of the
above example, we are encouraged to evaluate what might be defined as a mastery oriented focus (e.g., a focus upon
“getting better”) not only in relation to whether or not it is associated with more adaptive individual-level
psychological responses when compared to a performance oriented focus (as has been typical of traditional
laboratory studies) but also whether it aligns with political and philosophical arguments about the need for education
to move away from a culture of normalization and disciplinary power. It becomes apparent that it may also be useful
to evaluate the desirability of a construct such as mastery goals (if they are defined as “getting better”) in
accordance with the social and political usefulness of the construct for transforming educational power structures.
 Sam Carr / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 1383 – 1391 1389

Accordingly, considering the mastery goal construct in the context of a more political, philosophical and moral
platform raises interesting questions about the conceptual direction goal theory might take in order to better
contribute to such debate. For example, in relation to mastery goals, some (e.g., Flum & Kaplan, 2006) have argued
in favour of the usefulness of a less narrow conceptualization of mastery goals (i.e., a broader operationalization
based around “personal growth,” “identity development,” and “exploration”). For Flum and Kaplan (2006) this
argument is justified on the grounds that it is more likely to foster optimal development and learning. However, a
political and moral rationale for this broader conceptual definition might be that it would be less open to abuse in the
context of the notion of “disciplinary power” argued above. That is, an orientation towards a more abstract notion of
“personal growth” (in an emotional, social, psychological, physical and spiritual sense) and “identity development”
might be considered as more reflective of a system that authentically values children's humanity and individuality
than a system that ultimately seeks to establish whether or not children are “getting better” in relation to ultimately
externalized knowledge and skills. Ultimately, such arguments serve to demonstrate that in the context of significant
social and political debates the meaning of the predictions, conceptual assumptions, and findings forwarded by
achievement goal theorists changes, giving rise to critical questions in relation to the theory's value and significance
in the context of broader debate.

3. Conclusions

In summary, this article sought to heed Gergen's (2001) call for a “posture of culturally, ethically, and politically
informed pragmatism” (p. 808) by provoking critical discussion around the implications of educational policies such
as high stakes testing in the context of the central theses forwarded by achievement goal theorists. Ball (2003) has
expressed concern over a culture of “performativity” that is steadily growing in the face of an increased emphasis on
accountability, external monitoring, and standardized testing in education. That is, educational performance is
increasingly linked to what can be measured and what is thought desirable by power structures rooted in neoliberal
ideals. Crucially, for Ball (2003), performativity is not just responsible for changing how learning is undertaken; it is
also responsible for changing what learning is and who teachers are. He explains how policies such as high stakes
testing are resulting in “values schizophrenia” (p. 221), where teachers are caught in a conflict between their
instinctive educational values and an increasing pressure to orient themselves and pupils towards desirable
performance. In this article I sought to situate goal theory in the context of such debate. Major issues to reflect upon
include (a) the need to think about policy structures as “policy-level” representation of values that characterize
achievement goal constructs (and to evaluate their impact accordingly), (b) the potential for jeopardizing and
transforming the nature of mastery and multiple goals at classroom and individual level in the face of a policy-level
atmosphere that is increasingly geared towards standardization and the demonstration of normative ability, and (c)
the need to consider how goal theory's assumptions (e.g., how do we conceptualize mastery goals) align with current
political arguments emphasizing the need to move away from a culture of disciplinary power. Ultimately, the
development and evolution of goal theory might be enhanced if it is driven by pragmatics in the context of such
political and cultural debate.

References

Ablard, K. & Parker, W. (1997) Parents' achievement goals and perfectionism in their academically talented children, Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 26, 651-667.
achievement in youth sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9, 122-141.
Allen, A. (2012). Cultivating the myopic learner: The shared project of high-stakes and low-stakes assessment. British Journal of Sociology of
Ames, C. & Archer, J. (1988) Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes, Journal of
Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267.
Ames, C. (1984). Competitive, cooperative, and individualistic goal structures: A motivational analysis. In R.E. Ames and C. Ames (Eds.),
Research on motivation in education: Vol. 1. Student motivation (pp. 177-207). New York: Academic Press.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
and peer-created climate. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 215-233.
and values. Learning and Individual Differences, 1, 63-84.
Atkinson, J. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64, 359-372.
1390 Sam Carr / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 1383 – 1391

Ball, S. (2003). The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Educational Policy, 18, 215-228.
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment. London: King's College London School
of Education.
British Educational Research Journal, 22, 537-548.
Carr, S. & Weigand, D.A. (2001). Parental, peer, teacher, and sporting hero influence on the goal orientations of children in physical
Carr, S. (2006). An examination of multiple goals in children’s physical education: Motivational effects of goal profiles and the role of
Carr, S. (2012). High Task/High Ego Oriented Students’ Reasons for Endorsing Task and Ego Goals in the Context of Physical Education.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 61, 540-563.
Dweck, C. & Elliott, E. (1983). Achievement motivation. In E. Heatherington (Ed.),Handbook of Child Psychology. Vol. 4. New York: Wiley.
Dweck, C.S. & Leggett, E.L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
Education, 33, 641-659.
education. European Physical Education Review, 7, 305-328.
Educational Research Journal, 31, 605-622.
Elliot, A. & Dweck, D. (2005). Competence as the core of achievement motivation. In A. Elliot & C. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence
and motivation. New York: Guilford Press.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (1999). Test anxiety and the hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 628-644.
Elliot, A.J. & Church, M. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social
Elliot, A.J. & Harackiewicz, J.M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis.
Elliot, A.J. & McGregor, H.A. (2001). A 2x2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501-519.
Elliot, A.J. (1997). Integrating the “classic” and “contemporary” approaches to achievement motivation: A hierarchical model of approach and
avoidance achievement motivation. In M.L. Maehr & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 143–179).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Elliott, E.S. & Dweck, C.S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12.
Flum, H. & Kaplan, A. (2006). Exploratory orientation as an educational goal. Educational Psychologist, 41, 99-110.
Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and Punish. London: Penguin, 1991.
Gergen, K. J. (2001). Psychological Science in a Postmodern Context. American Psychologist, 56, 803-813.
Hall Merrill.
Hursh, D. (2005). The Growth of High-Stakes Testing in the USA: Accountability, Markets and the Decline in Educational Equality. British
intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18, 264-280.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461-475.
Kavussanu, M., & Roberts, G. C. (1996). Motivation in physical activity contexts: The relationship of perceived motivational climate to
Louis, M.R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What new comers experience in entering unfamiliar organisational settings. Administrative
Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming school cultures. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Maehr, M.L. & Zusho, A. (2009). Achievement Goal Theory: The past, present, and future. In K Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of
Motivation in School (p. 77-104). New York: Routledge.
McClelland, D. C. (1951). Personality. New York: Dryden Press.
Middleton, M.J. & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 89, 710-718.
Midgley, C, Arunkumar, R., & Urdan, T. (1996). If I don't do well tomorrow, there's a reason: Predictors of adolescents' use of academic self-
handicapping behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 423-434.
Murayama, K. & Elliot, A.J. (2009). The joint influence of personal achievement goals and classroom goal structures on achievement-related
Nicholls, J.G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective, experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological
Review, 91, 328-346.
Nicholls, J.G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nicholls, J.G., Cheung, P., Lauer, J., & Patashnick, N. (1989). Individual differences in academic motivation: Perceived ability, goals, beliefs,
outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 432-447.
Papaioannou, A.G., Ampatzoglou, G., Kalogiannis, P., & Sagovits, A. (2008). Social agents, achievement goals, satisfaction and academic
Parker, I. (1999). Critical psychology: Critical links. Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 1, 3-18.
perceived climate in multiple goal development. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24, 281-297.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.
Pintrich, P.R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25, 92-104.
Psychology, 72, 218-232.
Remedios, R. & McClellan, R. (2009). Goal theory and self-determination theory: Theory and current debates. British Psychological Society
Science Quarterly, 25, 226-251.
Seminar Series, Cambridge University, UK.
Urdan, T. & Mestas, M. (2006). The goals behind performance goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 354-365.
 Sam Carr / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 1383 – 1391 1391

Urdan, T. & Turner, J. (2005) Competence motivation in the classroom. In A. Elliot & C. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation.
New York: Guilford Press.
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: US-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Vazou, S., Ntoumanis, N., & Duda, J.L. (2006). Predicting young athletes’ motivational indices as a function of their perceptions of the coach-
Wiliam, D. & Black, P. (1996). Meanings and Consequences: a basis for distinguishing formative and summative functions of assessment?