Mastery Goal Orientation

The original definition of goal orientation was a situated orientation for action in achievement tasks (Ames, 1992; Dweck, 1986). In later on researchers discussed that goal orientation is not just focusing on what people are attempting to achieve, but it defines on why and how people are trying to achieve various objectives (Anderman & Maehr, 1994). Goal Orientation is one of the interesting part of motivation when it comes to learning. There are various investigation on the goal orientation. Several research investigate it as a “state” (e.g., through experimental manipulations or questionnaires that focused on engagement in a specific task) or as a “trait” (e.g., through questionnaires and interviews that focused on cross-situational engagement

In contrast endorsement of performance goal orientation commonly associated to negative affect in events which involve difficulty or challenges, they rather use of surface rather than deep learning strategies. Nevertheless, there are several studies that did not find such negative physiognomies. In study did by Kaplan & Maehr (2007), found that the relation between performance and mastery goals is not dichotomous; students’ are not either mastery or performance oriented. Students can have both goal or they can be highly oriented toward one goal while not so much to the other; or they can be highly oriented to one of the goal. And in another study did by Wolters et al., (1996) endorsement of performance goal orientation positively predicted students’ task value, self-efficacy, and cognitive and self-regulatory strategy use. Often, performance goals orientation has been associated with a maladaptive pattern of cognition, affect, and behavior (Review on Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). However, unlike the researches concerning mastery goals, research concerning performance goals are

Mastery goal orientation focus on the development of knowledge, skill, and competence and thus is self-referential. Performance goals determined to demonstrate competence by trying to outperform peers on academic tasks (e.g., Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996) They also make distinction between two types of performance goals: performance-approach and performance avoid. This distinction of this occurred due to early studies in goal orientation often confounded two types of performance goal. According to their research that individuals can be positively motivated to try to outperform others and demonstrate their competence, which reflects performance- approach orientation goal. In contrast, individuals can be negatively motivated and try to avoid appearing incompetent, dumb, or stupid, which they label a performance-avoid goal