1058319

research-article2021
CJSXXX10.1177/08295735211058319Canadian Journal of School PsychologyChazan et al.

Special Issue: Academic Motivation

Canadian Journal of School Psychology

Achievement Goal Theory

2022, Vol. 37(1) 40­–56
© The Authors 2021

Review: An Application to Article reuse guidelines:

https://doi.org/10.1177/08295735211058319
School Psychology sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/08295735211058319
journals.sagepub.com/home/cjs

Devon J. Chazan1 , Gabrielle N. Pelletier1,

and Lia M. Daniels1

Abstract
Achievement Goal Theory (AGT) is one of the most popular theoretical frameworks
in motivation research. Despite its application to a variety of contexts, including,
school, work, and sport, it has not yet been referenced in the field of school
psychology. First, we review the theoretical underpinnings as told through the
theory’s evolving models, explore its impacts on cognition, emotion, and behavior,
and introduce a multiple goals perspective. Second, we outline the leading research
supporting AGT, both in terms of structural and individual intervention studies.
Third, we apply the principles of AGT to the primary tasks of school psychology
professionals, including assessment, intervention, and consultation practices. The
students we support can greatly benefit from gearing our approaches toward ones
that foster self-improvement and interest.

Keywords
achievement goal theory, motivation, personality/individual differences, locus of control,
school psychologists/counselors, education professionals

Achievement Goal Theory has never been studied in the context of the practice of
school psychology and yet educational psychologists would identify it as one of the
most prolific approaches to the empirical study of student motivation. A Google
Scholar search of “achievement goal theory students” returned 2,850,000 possible
references (March 23, 2021) and some of the seminal papers are individually cited

1
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

Corresponding Author:
Devon J. Chazan, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Alberta, 6-102 Education North,
Edmonton, AB T6G 2G5, Canada.
Email: [email protected]
Chazan et al. 41

between 5,000 and 12,000 times (e.g., Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliot &
McGregor, 2001). Given that the work of school psychologists largely focuses on
helping children move toward goal-directed outcomes, it seems that a theory designed
precisely to operationalize and examine the role of students’ goals in an achievement
context likely has some relevance to the practice of school psychology. This theoreti-
cal review paper aims to describe achievement goal theory and review existing
research in a way that is tailored to the needs of school psychology professionals in
order to highlight its potential pertinence to this kind of applied work.

Review of Theory
Basic Concepts and Evolving Models
Achievement goals have long been integral to achievement motivation research. With
over 30 years of study, Achievement Goal Theory has been conceptualized in numer-
ous models and the constructs have correspondingly evolved with each subsequent
presentation (Maehr & Zusho, 2009). Despite the ever-evolving models, researchers
largely agree upon the construct of competence as being central to the theory. In this
case, competence is viewed as the ability to do something effectively, sufficiently, or
successfully. According to Achievement Goal Theory, achievement goals are future-
oriented and are viewed as cognitive representations of desired outcomes (Hulleman
et al., 2010). These internal goals direct behavior in specific ways that differ through
how competence is conceptualized by the individual. Therefore, achievement goals
help researchers and practitioners understand the reasons students engage in achieve-
ment settings. Although a large portion of the achievement goal literature measures
goals as being trait-like, more contemporary perspectives, including intervention
research, view these cognitive representations as malleable and context-dependent
(Hulleman et al., 2016), making them particularly relevant for practicing psycholo-
gists looking for motivational constructs that they can enhance.
The first achievement goal model was dichotomous and distinguished only between
the basic mastery and performance goal constructs. Mastery goals are generally
defined by wanting to increase competence; whereas, performance goals are generally
defined by wanting to demonstrate competence relative to others (Elliot, 1999). In this
initial model, both types of goals were understood to help students focus on approach-
ing or moving toward success. Students holding a mastery goal were seeking to
improve over time and develop skill. In contrast, students holding a performance goal
were aiming to outperform others and demonstrate skill. What the dichotomous model
overlooked is a more nuanced understanding of the valence of competence—in other
words, that achievement contexts include both chances for success and failure
(McClelland, 1951).
To address valence, researchers began distinguishing approach and avoidance in
goal pursuit as either working to approach success or striving to avoid failure. Approach
motivation is defined as behavior directed toward a positive or desirable outcome;
whereas, avoidance motivation is defined as behavior directed away from a negative
42 Canadian Journal of School Psychology 37(1)

Table 1. 2 × 2 Matrix of Achievement Goal Theory.

Approach Avoidance
Mastery Sample item: My goal is to Sample item: My goal is to not learn
learn as much as possible. less than possible.
Application: A student wanting Application: A student working on
to learn as much as possible easier calculus problems to avoid
about trigonometry for their misunderstanding the principles in a
self-improvement. more challenging problem.
Performance Sample item: My goal is to Sample item: My goal is to not do
outperform others. worse than others.
Application: A student aiming Application: A student avoiding raising
to finish the geometry their hand in a class discussion
worksheet more quickly about inferential statistics if they are
and correctly than their uncertain of the answer to prevent
classmates as evidence of looking inept compared to their
their skill. peers.

Note. Sample items were taken from the Achievement Goal Questionnaire (AGQ) measurement tool
(Elliot & Murayama, 2008).

outcome (Elliot, 2006). Approach/avoidance distinctions permeate various aspects of

psychology including coping literature (e.g., Skinner) and development (e.g., Erickson
and Bowlby) and have made a similarly important contribution to Achievement Goal
Theory. An updated trichotomous model (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996) applied the
approach/avoidance distinction only to performance goals to help explain inconsistent
relationships with students’ achievement. Performance-approach goals were defined
as aiming to demonstrate competence in comparison to one’s peers. Alternatively,
performance-avoidance goals were defined as aiming to avoid demonstrating incom-
petence relative to others. In some newer enhancements to achievement goal theory,
performance-approach goals have been further divided into two components: a norma-
tive component and an appearance component. Like the previous broad definition of
performance-approach goals, the normative component refers to wanting to outper-
form others, whereas the appearance component refers to the focus on appearing tal-
ented to others (Bardach, Yanagida, et al., 2020; Hulleman et al., 2010).
Shortly thereafter, researchers proposed the 2 × 2 framework which fully crossed
competence and valence in the conceptualization of achievement goals, meaning mas-
tery were also bifurcated (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Mastery-avoidance goals are
defined as avoiding tasks that give rise to inner feelings of incompetence. See Table 1
for sample items on how researchers measure the 2 × 2 achievement goals as well as a
description of how the goal may be noticed in specific students.
Although the 2 × 2 still has wide application, Elliot et al. (2011) proposed a 3 × 2
conceptualization of achievement goals that disentangles the reference for competence
in much the same way the 2 × 2 model did for valence. Instead of mastery and perfor-
mance, the three possible references for competence are task, self, and other.
Chazan et al. 43

Task-based goals refer to engaging in behavior to meet the demands of the task itself,
whether this be getting a problem correct or gaining a thorough understanding of a
concept. Therefore, competence is defined through the task demands. Self-based goals
define competence through intrapersonal standards such as aiming to answer a greater
amount of problems correctly than on a previous attempt. The standard of competence
is relative to personal past conduct. Other-based goals define competence on interper-
sonal standards much the same way the original notion of competence was enacted in
performance goals. Elliot et al.’s revision was based on the critique that mastery goals
assumed that the task and the self were always in agreement, when in fact there are
times this is not the case. The 3 × 2 model crosses each of these three standards of
competence (i.e., task, self, other) by the valence of competence (i.e., approach, avoid-
ance), creating six distinct goals: task-approach, task-avoidance, self-approach, self-
avoidance, other-approach, and other-avoidance.
Researchers deem that more recent models of Achievement Goal Theory are not
necessarily superior to their predecessors, nor make them obsolete, but rather should
be selected for use in light of the fit to the specific research questions being posed
(Elliot et al., 2011). As researchers have found school-aged children to endorse mas-
tery-avoidance goals as distinct motives in achievement settings, the 2 × 2 model is
referred to as the best fit model to describe the achievement goal responses of this
young age group (e.g., Bong, 2009). Therefore, for the purpose of this theoretical
review and application to school psychology, we draw primarily from the 2 × 2 model
due to its practical relevance, rich literature base, and its utility in predicting learning
outcomes (Huang, 2012).

Impacts on Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior

Each of the four types of achievement goals exerts different effects on students’ cogni-
tions, emotions, and behaviors across all grade levels (for a recent review see Urdan &
Kaplan, 2020). Students who endorse high levels of performance-approach goals tend
to attribute success to uncontrollable factors (Seifert, 1995) such as innate abilities or
intelligence rather than due to effort or persistence. They are also likely to adopt shal-
low cognitive strategies (e.g., rehearsal; Ho & Hau, 2008), demonstrate an unwilling-
ness to seek help (Butler, 2006), display academic dishonesty (Van Yperen et al.,
2011), experience increased negative achievement emotions (Huang, 2011), and have
low perceptions of success (Daniels et al., 2008). Despite these associations with less
than desirable processes, meta-analyses reveal consistent positive small associations
between performance-approach goals and academic achievement (Huang, 2012 ȓ = .13;
Hulleman et al., 2010 ȓ = .14). With consistent positive effects on grades, arguably the
main indicator of success in the education system (York et al., 2015), it becomes hard
to discourage performance-approach goals. However, it is important to acknowledge
that although these students might perform at the top of their classes, they do so while
experiencing maladaptive cognitions and emotions (Daniels et al., 2008)—outcomes
that may be particularly relevant for school psychologists to consider alongside aca-
demic gains.
44 Canadian Journal of School Psychology 37(1)

Students who endorse high levels of mastery-approach goals are more likely to
hold a growth mindset, believing that their ability to learn is not innate but can be
improved through hard work and persistence (Buluş, 2011; Grant & Dweck, 2003).
Researchers also find that students holding mastery-approach goals tend to utilize
effective cognitive strategies that help them grasp deeper insight into a subject and
retain maximum knowledge/skills (Huang, 2011). As such, these students tend to be
better equipped to apply their learning to new settings as opposed to rote memoriza-
tion of a task that is quickly forgotten. Additionally, these goals are associated with
finishing a task properly and experiencing sustained interest (Senko & Harackiewicz,
2005), as well as feeling more pleasant and fewer negative emotions (Huang, 2011). In
contrast to performance-approach goals, the relationship between mastery-approach
goals and grades tends to be indirect through these beneficial processes (e.g.,
Mouratidis et al., 2018); although, meta-analyses do recognize a consistent small
direct effect when mastery-approach goals are operationalized according to the 2 × 2
model (Huang, 2012 ȓ = .10; Hulleman et al., 2010 ȓ = .14).
A meta-analysis by Baranik et al. (2010) reveals that overall both performance-
avoidance and mastery-avoidance goals tend to be linked to an array of maladaptive
outcomes for students. Based on 33 unique samples, they found mastery-avoidance
and performance-avoidance goals were negatively associated with cognitive ability,
grades, and help-seeking behaviors, whereas positively associated with negative emo-
tions/affect. Students who endorse high levels of performance-avoidance goals tend to
have a high threat appraisal and view new opportunities, not as a chance for develop-
ment, but instead as a risk of failure (Van de Walle, 2004). Students who endorse high
levels of avoidance goals have also been found to procrastinate and be more likely to
give up following a setback (Senko & Freund, 2015). Finally, meta-analyses reveal
consistently small negative associations between mastery-avoidance and performance-
avoidance goals and academic achievement (Huang, 2012 mastery-avoidance ȓ = −.10;
performance-avoidance ȓ = −.13).

Multiple Goals Perspective

Although the effect of achievement goals is often examined independently on out-
comes, some researchers argue for a multiple goal perspective (Pintrich, 2000b) in
which the combinations of achievement goals held by students are most relevant to
outcomes. Individuals might strive for different goals at the same time or work toward
a desired result for a variety of reasons. For instance, a student might invest effort in a
project due to enjoyment of the task itself as well as interest in improving their overall
grade. Proponents of multiple goals argue that mastery and performance goals are not
in direct opposition to one another and instead can be held simultaneously. Indeed,
meta-analyses of associations amongst the 2 × 2 operationalizations of achievement
goals show significant positive correlations ranging from ȓs = .13 to .51 (Baranik et al.,
2010; Huang, 2012).
Much of the multiple goals research relies on some form of person-centered analy-
sis rather than variable-centered. For example, Tuominen-Soini et al. (2008, 2011)
Chazan et al. 45

used latent profile analyses to show that some students adopted primarily mastery or
performance goals, whereas others held these in combination, with some showing a
higher preference for avoidance-based goals and others displaying disengagement
through low scores on all achievement goals. Researchers explain that when students
hold both performance-approach goals and mastery-approach goals they may not only
reap some positive outcomes usually restricted to mastery-approach goals, like task
interest and sustained attention, but the maladaptive outcomes associated with perfor-
mance goals alone seem to be buffered. In particular, Linnenbrink-Garcia et al. (2018)
found the highest levels of engagement among students who solely endorsed mastery-
approach goals and those who held mastery-approach and performance goals, both
approach and avoidance. The positive outcomes associated with these two different
goal profiles did not differ significantly.
There are also interesting insights regarding emotions and behaviors when exam-
ined from a multiple goals perspective. For example, in an early person-centered anal-
ysis with first-year university students, Daniels et al. (2008) used cluster analysis to
identify four naturally occurring groups of university students. Students in the multi-
ple goals (high mastery and high performance), mastery, and performance groups
showed equivalent levels of academic achievement (i.e., final grades and GPA).
However, students in the performance group were significantly more psychologically
and emotionally vulnerable than the multiple goals and mastery groups. As expected,
students in the low-motivation group (low mastery and low performance) demon-
strated the least adaptive cognitions, emotions, and academic achievement. More
recently, Lo et al. (2017) showed that middle school students could be classified into
three latent groups at the beginning of the school year described as maladaptive (high
mastery/performance avoidance), indifferent (no dominant achievement goal), and
success-oriented (high mastery approach and high performance approach). In terms of
their resultant motivation, cognition, and performance, students in the success-ori-
ented group had higher scores than those in the indifferent group. In turn, these out-
comes were more adaptive than those of students in the maladaptive group. In short,
even when students hold multiple achievement goals, mastery-approach goals con-
tinue to hold certain advantages.

Review of Achievement Goal Theory Interventions

Because achievement goals can be viewed as cognitive representations of desired out-
comes (Hulleman et al., 2010), they can differ across situations and change over time.
The majority of interventions based on Achievement Goal Theory are designed to
adjust the structures of the learning environment to create mastery-approach class-
rooms that will facilitate the adoption of personal mastery-approach goals by students.
However, because achievement goals are more akin to beliefs that can be adjusted than
they are to permanent traits, it is also possible to directly target students’ achievement
goals at the individual cognitive level. In both instances, the desired outcome is to
cultivate mastery-approach achievement goals relative to other goals. Here we review
46 Canadian Journal of School Psychology 37(1)

a broad scope of some of the theory’s central intervention work targeting both the
classroom context and the individual.

Classroom Level Interventions

The lion’s share of Achievement Goal interventions aims to promote a mastery-ori-
ented classroom goal structure (Ames, 1992). Researchers applying classroom-level
interventions most often do so with the principles summarized in the acronym
TARGET. Teachers should make tasks meaningful to the students and present various
degrees of challenge so that differences in ability are not highlighted. Authority should
be shared between students and teachers in deciding classroom rules and making deci-
sions. The teacher should privately recognize students’ progress, effort, and creativity,
rather than publicly commenting on a student not making mistakes or performing well
without effort. Teachers should not group students based on ability level or perfor-
mance. Instead, through mastery-approach structuring, students are grouped according
to a domain of interest or to student differences that may enable learning. Evaluation
should also be done privately with a focus on progress rather than relative class perfor-
mance. Finally, students thrive when class/assignment time is flexible so that they
have the opportunity to work at their own pace. In a recent meta-analysis, Bardach,
Oczlon, et al. (2020) indeed found a strong positive association between mastery-
approach classroom structures and students’ personal mastery-approach goals ȓ = .494
(95% CI [0.461, 0.526]). While this was one of the largest associations, it is important
to note that mastery-approach classroom structures were associated with small posi-
tive effects for the other three types of achievement goals as well. One reason for this
may be the wide range of ways to interpret and actualize the full TARGET recommen-
dations in the classroom.
TARGET interventions are particularly popular in sport and physical education
(Cecchini et al., 2014). According to a meta-analysis in this domain (Braithwaite et al.,
2011), interventions that focused on implementing the full TARGET strategies to cre-
ate conditions that favor mastery goals, had small to moderate effects relative to con-
trol groups for students’ affective, behavioral, and cognitive outcomes. These results
were most pronounced for elementary school students relative to higher grades.
Considering a specific example, Wadsworth et al. (2013) randomly assigned elemen-
tary physical education classes to either be taught using mastery or performance-based
instruction in accordance with the principles of TARGET. Each participating teacher
taught half of their classes with each goal orientation in mind. Specifically, mastery-
based instruction offered students autonomy, delivered feedback in a private manner,
and framed evaluation in terms of task standards. Performance-based instruction
afforded students limited options, delivered feedback in a public manner, and used
other students’ performance as the standard of evaluation. The researchers concluded
that irrespective of the teacher, students who received instruction based on the tenants
of mastery spent less time sitting, more time engaged in vigorous activity, required less
class management, and experienced more enjoyment than students who received per-
formance-based instruction.
Chazan et al. 47

Some researchers argue for the idea of social relationships being a seventh addition
to the TARGET intervention and propose the use of an updated acronym: TARGETS.
Results from survey and observational data suggest the importance of upholding
strong social relationships in a classroom to help promote personal mastery-approach
goals. For example, teachers that create a positive interpersonal class environment by
demonstrating positive affect, encouraging students’ growth, and fostering mutual
respect are found to be more likely to lead high mastery-focused classrooms (e.g.,
Miller et al., 2017; Patrick et al., 2011). These findings are in line with other achieve-
ment motivation research that highlights the importance of supporting students’ needs
for relatedness and connection (Ryan & Deci, 2017).

Individual Interventions
Individual interventions that target specific cognitions to direct students toward mas-
tery-approach goals, and away from performance-approach goals, are under-repre-
sented in Achievement Goal Theory. However, because achievement goals share a
nomological net with many motivation constructs, researchers have tested how cogni-
tive interventions from related theories may influence the adoption of personal
achievement goals. We review the one direct explicit individual mastery-approach
intervention we located (Martin, 2008) and a few examples rooted in Attribution
Theory and Mindset Theory.
Martin (2008) had high school students independently work through 13 modules
explicitly encouraging the adoption of mastery-approach goals through learning about
components relevant to motivation and engagement. Each component had a reflective
section where students consolidated their learning by making the key messages per-
sonally relevant. Students in the control condition received no intervention. Students
in the experimental group reported increases in mastery orientation, task management,
persistence, and valued learning experiences. They also showed decreased levels of
negative achievement emotions and self-handicapping behaviors, whereas students in
the control condition reported increases in these domains.
Attributional Retraining (AR) is a common individual intervention technique
derived from Attribution Theory (Graham & Taylor, 2016) that enhances students’
sense of control over the outcomes in their environments. In an academic context, it
can help students adopt adaptive causal attributions for failure, such as attributing a
poor test grade to lack of effort as opposed to lack of ability, through a brief one-time
video or handout intervention (see Perry & Hamm, 2017). From an attribution per-
spective, the intra-individual nature of mastery-approach goals allows them to be theo-
retically associated with controllable attributions like effort relative to
performance-approach goals which are theoretically more similar to uncontrollable
ability attributions. Thus, some researchers have used this framework to enhance
achievement goals. For example, Haynes et al. (2008) implemented an AR interven-
tion with first-year undergraduate students that consisted of watching a short video
explanation and receiving a handout describing how academic performance can be
influenced by causal attributions. Next, the participants engaged in a short writing
consolidation exercise and then completed a post-test questionnaire. Compared to a
48 Canadian Journal of School Psychology 37(1)

no-treatment control group, students who received the AR intervention had signifi-
cantly higher levels of mastery motivation at the end of the school year and this
increase also mediated the relationship between AR and GPA. Hamm et al. (2014)
used a similar AR technique making it explicitly known to students that grades increase
when controllable attributions are made for a given failure. They found students who
endorse high levels of performance goals to especially benefit from AR through
increased levels of mastery motivation.
Similar interventions are popular in the field of Mindset Theory (Dweck & Master,
2009) where beliefs around the malleability of capabilities like intelligence are the
target. Because researchers have found that a fixed mindset (i.e., the belief that intel-
ligence is innate and cannot be changed) is associated with low endorsement of mas-
tery-approach goals (De Castella & Byrne, 2015), it seems that interventions that try
to shift students to a growth mindset may also increase mastery-approach goals. As a
case in point, DeBacker et al. (2018) created a one-time mindset intervention for stu-
dents in ninth grade that demonstrated how the brain can grow with use, akin to a
muscle, and had participants synthesize their understanding of this concept through a
comprehension check. Students in the intervention condition not only demonstrated
increased growth mindset beliefs (i.e., that intelligence can be developed) but also
higher levels of mastery-approach goals and lower levels of performance-avoidance
goals. In other words, students who learned about the malleability of intelligence were
more likely to focus on improving their skills and learning at school as is part of
mastery-approach goals and less likely to be concerned about appearing incompetent
in comparison to their peers, as would be the case with performance-avoidance goals.
These types of “direct appeal” individual interventions are under-represented in the
Achievement Goal Theory literature and yet may be particularly relevant for application
to the practice of school psychology. Next, we apply the achievement goal principles to
various tasks associated with the work of school psychologists. Future empirical research
will be needed to evaluate the effectiveness of these recommendations because, although
they extend logically from the empirical research and are suitable for psychologists and
other mental health professionals working with children in education, they are currently
based solely on the complementary evidence reviewed above.

Relevance to School Psychology

Achievement goal theory provides an excellent framework to understand how students
can be focused on either personal improvement as prioritized by mastery-approach
goals or relative standing as prioritized by performance-approach goals. As such, this
theoretical perspective has relevance for school psychologists as they assess students,
design intervention, and consult and support school professionals.

Assessment Practices
In psychoeducational assessments, it is almost common practice for psychologists to
focus on a student’s performance in relation to the norm group. Many stakeholders
want to know whether the student is in the “very low,” “low average,” or “average”
Chazan et al. 49

Table 2. TARGETS Recommendations Applied to the Practice of School Psychology.

Definition Example
(T)asks How tasks are designed Creating meaningful tasks that peak
student interest
(A)uthority Who is in charge Involving students in decision making
through choice and responsibility
(R)egonize What achievements are Recognizing effort and individual
celebrated improvement
G)roup How groups are formed Creating groups with mixed abilities
(E)valuation The methods utilized to Increasing person-centered
determine success achievement and decreasing in
social comparison
(T)ime The pace of learning tasks Providing students with flexibility to
work within a timeline
(S)ocial relationships The role of interpersonal Increasing opportunity for students
functioning to feel connected with one and
other

range compared to their peers for coding and funding purposes. However, when stu-
dents are compared to age-based peers, psychologists (and teachers and parents) can
lose substantial information about the individual student’s learning process and
growth. In line with practices that encourage students to have mastery-approach goals,
school psychologists should make efforts to frame both the assessment process and
their results to highlight how a student can gain competencies as opposed to under-
scoring relative deficits. For example, school psychologists should make it a priority
to genuinely highlight students’ strengths throughout their written reports. Additionally,
they can describe how the student’s capabilities may be utilized to support areas of
challenge. School psychologists may even incorporate strengths-based assessment
tools such as the Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale (BERS; Epstein, 2000) to
enrich their assessment. It may also be worthwhile to place some focus in the report on
teacher recommended strategies that outline ways to structure a classroom based on
the principles of mastery-approach goals. For example, encouraging teachers to pro-
vide students with choices based on their strengths and interests, tailored feedback to
improve areas of challenge, and reduce peer comparison (Svinicki, 2010).

TARGET for Intervention Design and Delivery

The TARGET structures may be used to inform intervention design and delivery to
similarly promote mastery-approach goals (see Table 2 for an overview).
Like classrooms, intervention work is an achievement context (i.e., there are things
to do and goals to meet) and thus motivation and goals are relevant. School psycholo-
gists can select intervention tasks that are personally relevant to the child as opposed
to having a sole focus on those in line with parent or teacher generated goals (e.g.,
50 Canadian Journal of School Psychology 37(1)

reducing disruptive behaviors). School psychologists should aim to present tasks and
activities in a captivating manner, in line with students’ interests and personal goals
(e.g., making friends). Moreover, the level of goal agreement between psychologist
and client has been shown to relate to positive therapeutic outcomes (Tryon et al.,
2018), which therefore necessitates the child’s active involvement in goal setting—or
a shared authority between child and psychologist. Such sharing does not come natu-
rally to this relationship because, in addition to the general age difference in the child/
psychologist pairing, therapy-like intervention creates an inherent vulnerability that
can exacerbate a power imbalance. Without intentionally shared authority, a space
much more conducive to performance-approach goals may emerge in which children
might engage simply to please the psychologist or receive praise. Although sessions
may be led by the psychologist, it does not preclude students from being involved in
decision-making. For example, shared authority could be realized by providing the
student with an array of choices for activities that all target a common goal, giving
rationales or explanations, determining shared guidelines for intervention, and exud-
ing acceptance toward the child.
Mastery goals can be further reinforced through the psychologist giving recogni-
tion to the risks taken by the child and the effort they invest in the intervention process.
Students are more likely to take risks and try new approaches and strategies when they
endorse mastery-approach rather than performance-approach goals (Clifford, 1991). If
rewards are used in intervention work with children, they should primarily be used to
reinforce information about their personal growth, rather than being contingent on
natural ability. In a similar light, psychologists may want to be intentional and flexible
about the grouping of students when doing group intervention work in classrooms.
Some group work can benefit from heterogeneous ability grouping and other times it
may be advantageous to group students similarly—in either instance the psychologist
can be intentional about building a space for the group to value mastery-approach
goals and putting structures in place to minimize comparisons.
Finally, the practice of psychology can be seen as involving high levels of evalua-
tion (Eabon, 2013), and, as such, the purpose, direction, and tone of such evaluation
can be considered from the perspective of Achievement Goal Theory. For example, to
work from a mastery-approach perspective, psychologists should use evaluations that
have a greater focus on identifying the child’s inner strengths and resources, to be built
upon and drawn from, than attending to perceived deficits (Rhee et al., 2001). It is
equally important to evaluate the growth that occurs during intervention work in refer-
ence to where the child began as opposed to in comparison to their peers’ functioning
or normative standards. Furthermore, nurturing mastery-approach goals during inter-
vention work requires time. If available, it is ideal to plan for more intervention ses-
sions than needed to ensure the child does not feel rushed. Allowing this time permits
the child to develop the skills and consolidate new learning at their own pace, consis-
tent with mastery approach goals. It also provides the opportunity for deeper reflection
and debriefing that intervention work entails. If time is limited, a child may feel more
inclined to have to demonstrate their growth to promptly move on, setting the stage for
a performance oriented space.
Chazan et al. 51

Consultation
Given that consultation is one of the pillars of school psychologists’ work (Bramlett &
Murphy, 1998), principles of Achievement Goal Theory could help professionals
frame the guidance they provide to teachers, support workers, administrators, and par-
ents. As consultants are often privileged with being able to work with members of both
the student’s home and school contexts, they can provide psychoeducation where nec-
essary to ensure there is agreement and consistency in goal endorsement across set-
tings. Additionally, schooling tends to become more competitive over the years with a
greater focus on evaluation in relation to a group standard as opposed to a personal
one. This condition can push students into exchanging mastery-approach goals for
performance-approach or even avoidance goals over time (Anderman & Anderman,
1999; Anderman & Midgley, 1997). School psychology consultants might recommend
non-competitive learning structures, built on effort and mastery, that frame ability as
something that is ever-growing and acknowledge failure as an essential part of the
learning process. Moreover, although some parts of the curriculum necessitate the rote
learning of facts (e.g., multiplication tables), as much as possible, advising for a greater
emphasis on teaching students to develop broad learning skills, such as problem-solv-
ing strategies, favors the thinking process over those that require trait-like aspects of
ability such as processing speed. Consultants might recommend and highlight the ben-
efits of formative assessment throughout the learning process as they emphasize stu-
dents’ personal growth, which maps directly onto a mastery approach goal endorsement,
in addition to that of summative assessments that can be more performance oriented.
Formative assessments allow students to feel more comfortable making mistakes and
can help them see the utility of challenging themselves for their personal development.
School psychologists’ consultation may also consider helping providers cultivate ave-
nues of student success and sources of self-worth external to academic performance,
like the feeling of satisfaction and pride after hard work.

Conclusion
As future school psychologists, we see the tremendous utility Achievement Goal
Theory can bring to our work with children, families, and schools, through our assess-
ment, intervention, and consultation practices. Highlighting the adaptive qualities of
mastery-approach personal goals and contextual structures and minimizing the detri-
mental impacts of a comparative/performance perspective can contribute to the well-
being and achievement of students engaged in psychological support. As professionals
in school psychology, we believe our work can be more meaningful and evidence-
informed by aligning our day-to-day practices with the years of theoretical and inter-
vention research championing Achievement Goal Theory.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
52 Canadian Journal of School Psychology 37(1)

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

ORCID iDs
Devon J. Chazan https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5152-8882
Lia M. Daniels https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9202-2538

References
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Education
& Psychology, 84(3), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261
Anderman, E. M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in achievement goal orientations, per-
ceived academic competence, and grades across the transition to middle-level schools.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(3), 269–298. https://doi.org/10.1006/
ceps.1996.0926
Anderman, L. H., & Anderman, E. M. (1999). Social predictors of changes in students’ achieve-
ment goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(1), 21–37. https://doi.
org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0978
Baranik, L. E., Stanley, L. J., Bynum, B. H., & Lance, C. E. (2010). Examining the construct
validity of mastery-avoidance achievement goals: A meta-analysis. Human Performance,
23(3), 265–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2010.488463
Bardach, L., Oczlon, S., Pietschnig, J., & Lüftenegger, M. (2020). Has achievement goal
theory been right? A meta-analysis of the relation between goal structures and personal
achievement goals. Journal of Education & Psychology, 112(6), 1197–1220. https://doi.
org/10.1037/edu0000419
Bardach, L., Yanagida, T., Klassen, R. M., & Lüftenegger, M. (2020). Normative and appear-
ance performance-approach goal structures: Two-level factor structure and external link-
ages. Journal of Experiential Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.10
80/00220973.2020.1729081
Bong, M. (2009). Age-related differences in achievement goal differentiation. Journal of
Education & Psychology, 101(4), 879–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015945
Braithwaite, R., Spray, C. M., & Warburton, V. E. (2011). Motivational climate interventions
in physical education: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(6), 628–638.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.06.005
Bramlett, R. K., & Murphy, J. J. (1998). School psychology perspectives on consultation: Key
contributions to the field. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 9, 29–
55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532768xjepc0901_2
Buluş, M. (2011). Goal orientations, locus of control and academic achievement in prospective
teachers: An individual differences perspective. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri,
11(2), 540–546.
Butler, R. (2006). An achievement goal perspective on student help seeking and teacher help
giving in the classroom: Theory, research, and educational implications. In S. A. Karabenick
& R. S. Newman (Eds.), Help seeking in academic settings. Goals, groups, and contexts
(pp. 15–44). Routledge.
Cecchini, J. A., Fernandez-Rio, J., Mendez-Gimenez, A., Cecchini, C., & Martins, L. (2014).
Epstein’s TARGET framework and motivational climate in sport: Effects of a field-based,
Chazan et al. 53

long-term intervention program. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 9(6),
1325–1340. https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.9.6.1325
Clifford, M. M. (1991). Risk taking: Theoretical, empirical, and educational considerations.
Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 263–297. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_4
Daniels, L. M., Haynes, T. L., Stupnisky, R. H., Perry, R. P., Newall, N. E., & Pekrun, R.
(2008). Individual differences in achievement goals: A longitudinal study of cognitive,
emotional, and achievement outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4),
584–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.08.002
DeBacker, T. K., Heddy, B. C., Kershen, J. L., Crowson, H. M., Looney, K., & Goldman, J. A.
(2018). Effects of a one-shot growth mindset intervention on beliefs about intelligence and
achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 38(6), 711–733. https://doi.org/10.1080/01
443410.2018.1426833
De Castella, K., & Byrne, D. (2015). My intelligence may be more malleable than yours:
The revised implicit theories of intelligence (self-theory) scale is a better predictor of
achievement, motivation, and student disengagement. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 30(3), 245–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-015-0244-y
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and person-
ality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.95.2.256
Dweck, C. S., & Master, A. (2009). Self-theories and motivation. In K. R. Wentzel & A.
Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 123–140). Routledge.
Eabon, M. (2013). Understanding psychological testing and assessment. American Psychological
Association. https://www.apa.org/topics/psychological-testing-assessment
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational
Psychologist, 34(3), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3
Elliot, A. J. (2006). The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motivation. Motivation and
Emotion, 30(2), 111–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9028-7
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and
intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
70, 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.461
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501–519. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.80.3.501
Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique,
illustration, and application. Journal of Education & Psychology, 100(3), 613–628. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.613
Elliot, A. J., Murayama, K., & Pekrun, R. (2011). A 3 × 2 achievement goal model. Journal of
Education & Psychology, 103(3), 632–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023952
Epstein, M. H. (2000). The behavioral and emotional rating scale: A strength-based approach to
assessment. Diagnostique, 25(3), 249–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/073724770002500304
Graham, S., & Taylor, A. Z. (2016). Attribution theory and motivation in school. In K. R.
Wentzel & D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed., pp. 11–33).
Routledge.
Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 541–553. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.85.3.541
Hamm, J. V., Farmer, T. W., Lambert, K., & Gravelle, M. (2014). Enhancing peer cultures of
academic effort and achievement in early adolescence: Promotive effects of the SEALS
54 Canadian Journal of School Psychology 37(1)

intervention. Developmental Psychology, 50(1), 216–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/

a0032979
Haynes, T. L., Daniels, L. M., Stupnisky, R. H., Perry, R. P., & Hladkyj, S. (2008). The
effect of attributional retraining on mastery and performance motivation among first-
year college students. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30(3), 198–207. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01973530802374972
Ho, I. T., & Hau, K.-T. (2008). Academic achievement in the Chinese context: The role of
goals, strategies, and effort. International Journal of Psychology, 43(5), 892–897. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00207590701836323
Huang, C. (2011). Achievement goals and achievement emotions: A meta-analysis. Educational
Psychology Review, 23(3), 359–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9155-x
Huang, C. (2012). Discriminant and criterion-related validity of achievement goals in predict-
ing academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Education & Psychology, 104(1),
48–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026223
Hulleman, C. S., Barron, K. E., Kosovich, J. J., & Lazowski, R. A. (2016). Student motiva-
tion: Current theories, constructs, and interventions within an expectancy-value frame-
work. In A. Lipnevich, F. Preckel, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Psychosocial skills and school
systems in the 21st century (pp. 241–278). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
28606-8_10
Hulleman, C. S., Schrager, S. M., Bodmann, S. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). A meta-
analytic review of achievement goal measures: Different labels for the same constructs or
different constructs with similar labels? Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 422–449. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0018947
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Wormington, S. V., Snyder, K. E., Riggsbee, J., Perez, T., Ben-Eliyahu,
A., & Hill, N. E. (2018). Multiple pathways to success: An examination of integrative moti-
vational profiles among upper elementary and college students. Journal of Education &
Psychology, 110(7), 1026–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000245
Lo, M. T., Chen, S. K., & Lin, S. S. J. (2017). Groups holding multiple achievement goals in
the math classroom: Profile stability and cognitive and affective outcomes. Learning and
Individual Differences, 57, 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.06.001
Maehr, M. L., & Zusho, A. (2009). Achievement goal theory: The past, present, and future. In
K. R. Wenzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Educational psychology handbook series. Handbook
of motivation at school (pp. 77–104). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Martin, A. J. (2008). Enhancing student motivation and engagement: The effects of a multidi-
mensional intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(2), 239–269. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.11.003
McClelland, D. C. (1951). Measuring motivation in phantasy: The achievement motive. In H.
Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men (pp. 191–205). Carnegie Press.
Miller, A. D., Ramirez, E. M., & Murdock, T. B. (2017). The influence of teachers’ self-effi-
cacy on perceptions: Perceived teacher competence and respect and student effort and
achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 64, 260–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tate.2017.02.008
Mouratidis, A., Michou, A., Demircioğlu, A. N., & Sayil, M. (2018). Different goals, different
pathways to success: Performance-approach goals as direct and mastery-approach goals
as indirect predictors of grades in mathematics. Learning and Individual Differences, 61,
127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.11.017
Chazan et al. 55

Patrick, H., Kaplan, A., & Ryan, A. M. (2011). Positive classroom motivational environments:
Convergence between mastery goal structure and classroom social climate. Journal of
Education & Psychology, 103(2), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023311
Perry, R. P., & Hamm, J. M. (2017). An attribution perspective on competence and motivation.
In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motiva-
tion: Theory and application (pp. 61–84). Guilford Press.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000b). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learn-
ing and achievement. Journal of Education & Psychology, 92(3), 544–555. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.3.544
Rhee, S., Furlong, M. J., Turner, J. A., & Harari, I. (2001). Integrating strength-based perspec-
tives in psychoeducational evaluations. The California School Psychologist, 6(1), 5–17.
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03340879
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in
motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.
Seifert, T. L. (1995). Characteristics of ego- and task-oriented students: A comparison of two
methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65(1), 125–138. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1995.tb01136.x
Senko, C., & Freund, A. M. (2015). Are mastery-avoidance achievement goals always det-
rimental? an adult development perspective. Motivation and Emotion, 39(4), 477–488.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-015-9474-1
Senko, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2005). Achievement goals, task performance, and interest:
Why perceived goal difficulty matters. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(12),
1739–1753. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205281128
Svinicki, M. D. (2010). Fostering a mastery goal orientation in the classroom. In B. K. Saville,
T. E. Zinn, S. A. Meyers, & J. R. Stowell (Eds.), Essays from excellence in teaching
(pp. 25–28). PsychTeacher.
Tryon, G. S., Birch, S. E., & Verkuilen, J. (2018). Meta-analyses of the relation of goal consen-
sus and collaboration to psychotherapy outcome. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 372–383. https://
doi.org/10.1037/pst0000170
Tuominen-Soini, H., Salmela-Aro, K., & Niemivirta, M. (2008). Achievement goal orienta-
tions and subjective well-being: A person-centred analysis. Learning and Instruction, 18,
251–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.05.003
Tuominen-Soini, H., Salmela-Aro, K., & Niemivirta, M. (2011). Stability and change in
achievement goal orientations: A person-centered approach. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 36(2), 82–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.08.002
Urdan, T., & Kaplan, A. (2020). The origins, evolution, and future directions of achievement
goal theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101862.
Van de Walle, J. A. (2004). Elementary and Middle School Mathematics: Teaching
Developmentally (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Van Yperen, N. W., Hamstra, M. R. W., & van der Klauw, M. (2011). To win, or not to lose,
at any cost: The impact of achievement goals on cheating. British Journal of Management,
22, S5–S15.
Wadsworth, D. D., Robinson, L. E., Rudisill, M. E., & Gell, N. (2013). The effect of physical
education climates on elementary students’ physical activity behaviors. Journal of School
Health, 83(5), 306–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12032
York, T. T., Gibson, C., & Rankin, S. (2015). Defining and measuring academic success.
Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 20, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.7275/hz5x-
tx03
56 Canadian Journal of School Psychology 37(1)

Author Biographies
Devon J. Chazan is a doctoral student in the School and Clinical Child Psychology program at
the University of Alberta. Her research interests involve examining the intersectionality of stu-
dents’ body image and its impacts on motivation and emotion.
Gabrielle N. Pelletier is a doctoral student in the School and Clinical Child Psychology pro-
gram at the University of Alberta. Her research explores trauma-informed care training for
pre-service teachers.
Lia M. Daniels is a Professor at the University of Alberta in the Department of Educational
Psychology. Her research examines student and teacher motivation and emotions with the hope
of creating supportive learning environments.