APA CENTENNIAL FEATURE
Classrooms: Goals, Structures, and Student Motivation
Carole Ames
Department of Educational Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
This article examines the classroom learning environment in relation to achievement goal theory
of motivation. Classroom structures are described in terms of how they make different types of
achievement goals salient and as a consequence elicit qualitatively different patterns of motiva-
tion. Task, evaluation and recognition, and authority dimensions of classrooms are presented as
examples of structures that can influence children’s orientation toward different achievement
goals. Central to the thesis of this article is a perspective that argues for an identification of
classroom structures that can contribute to a mastery orientation, a systematic analysis of these
structures, and a determination of how these structures relate to each other. The ways in which
interventions must address the independency among these structures are discussed in terms of
how they influence student motivation.
Over the past 25 years, considerable research and writings
have addressed how classroom learning environments influ-
ence student learning, but more recent attention has focused
on how classroom environments influence students’ views
about the nature and purposes of learning. In an earlier article,
Ames and Ames (1984) described how learning environments
can be differentiated in terms of specific informational cues
(e.g., social comparative vs. self-referenced feedback) and how
they influence students’ processing of information and cog-
nitions about their performance. In that article, Ames and
Ames examined how the structure of learning environments
can make different goals salient and consequently affect how
students think about themselves, their tasks, and others.
Considerable research is now focused on describing how
different goals elicit qualitatively different motivational pat-
terns and how these goals are reflected in the broader context
of classroom learning environments. Establishing linkages
between the environment, goals, and student motivational
outcomes has been very important; determining how to create
these goals in the classroom is a next step, albeit not an easy
one. The purpose of this article is to move in this direction,
that is, toward defining those classroom structures that are
theoretically related to different goals but that also have
practical elements because they are manipulable by teachers
This article was prepared while Carole Ames was supported in part
by Grants DE-HO23T8OO23 and DE-R215A93170 from the U.S.
Department of Education. The views and opinions expressed in this
article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
position or policy of the U.S. Department of Education.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Carole Ames, Department of Educational Psychology, 210 Education
Building, 1310 South Sixth Street, University of Illinois, Champaign,
Illinois 61820-6990.
and can be designed to achieve desired goals. I begin with a
brief overview of two contrasting goals and then examine how
these goals relate to specific classroom structures and how
ongoing classroom processes might be conceptualized.
Achievement Goals: Overview
Research on achievement motivation has long emphasized
the cognitive bases of behavior, but the recent literature has
advanced an achievement goal framework that integrates
cognitive and affective components of goal-directed behavior
(see Ames & Archer, 1987, 1988; Dweck, 1986; Dweck &
Elliott, 1983; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliott & Dweck, 1988;
Maehr, 1984; Maehr & Nicholls, 1980; Nicholls, 1979,1984b,
1989). An achievement goal concerns the purposes of achieve-
ment behavior. It defines an integrated pattern of beliefs,
attributions, and affect that produces the intentions of behav-
ior (Weiner, 1986) and that is represented by different ways
of approaching, engaging in, and responding to achievement-
type activities (Ames, 1992b; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Elliott
and Dweck (1988) defined an achievement goal as involving
a "program" of cognitive processes that have "cognitive, af-
fective, and behavioral consequences" (p. 11).
Two contrasting achievement goal constructs have received
the most attention in the research literature. These two goals
have been differentiated by their linkage to contrasting pat-
terns of motivational processes and have been alternatively
labeled learning and performance goals (Dweck, 1986; Dweck
& Leggett, 1988; Elliott & Dweck, 1988), task-involvement
and ego-involvement goals (e.g., Maehr & Nicholls, 1980;
Nicholls, 1984a), and mastery and performance goals (Ames
& Archer, 1987, 1988). Conceptually, learning, task-involve-
ment, and mastery goals can be distinguished from perform-
Joumal of Educational Psychology, 1992, Vol. 84, No. 3, 261-271
Copyright 1992 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-0663/92/S3.00
261

262 CAROLE AMES
ance and ego-involvement goals; I have adopted the mastery
and performance labels.1 Mastery and performance goals
represent different conceptions of success and different rea-
sons for approaching and engaging in achievement activity
(see Nicholls, Patashnick, Cheung, Thorkildsen, & Lauer
1989) and involve different ways of thinking about oneself,
one’s task, and task outcomes (Butler, 1987, 1988; Corno &
Rohrkemper, 1985; Nicholls, 1984a).
Central to a mastery goal is a belief that effort and outcome
covary, and it is this attributional belief pattern that maintains
achievement-directed behavior over time (Weiner, 1979,
1986). The importance of this long-term view is underscored
by those (e.g., Eccles, Midgley, & Adler, 1984; Maehr, 1984;
Paris & Newman, 1990; Pascarella, Walberg, Junker, & Haer-
tel, 1981; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990) who argue that research-
ers and educators should focus on quality of involvement and
a continuing commitment to learning as consequences of
different motivation patterns. The focus of attention is on the
intrinsic value of learning (Butler, 1987; Meece & Holt, 1990;
Nicholls, 1984b), as well as effort utilization. One’s sense of
efficacy is based on the belief that effort will lead to success
or a sense of mastery (see Ames, 1992a, Ames & Archer,
1988). With a mastery goal, individuals are oriented toward
developing new skills, trying to understand their work, im-
proving their level of competence, or achieving a sense of
mastery based on self-referenced standards (Ames, 1992b;
Brophy, 1983b; Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988; Nicholls,
1989). Compatible with this goal construct is Brophy’s
(1983b) description of a "motivation to learn" whereby indi-
viduals are focused on mastering and understanding content
and demonstrating a willingness to engage in the process of
learning.
Central to a performance goal is a focus on one’s ability
and sense of self-worth (e.g., Covington, 1984; Dweck, 1986;
Nicholls, 1984b), and ability is evidenced by doing better than
others, by surpassing normative-based standards, or by achiev-
ing success with little effort (Ames, 1984b; Covington, 1984).
Especially important to a performance orientation is public
recognition that one has done better than others or performed
in a superior manner (Covington & Beery, 1976; Meece et
al., 1988). As a result, learning itself is viewed only as a way
to achieve a desired goal (Nicholls, 1979, 1989), and attention
is directed toward achieving normatively defined success.
When a person adopts a performance goal, a perceived abil-
ity-outcome linkage guides his or her behavior so that the
person’s self-worth is determined by a perception of his or her
ability to perform (see Covington & Beery, 1976; Covington
& Omelich, 1984). As a consequence, the expenditure of
effort can threaten self-concept of ability when trying hard
does not lead to success, and in this way, effort becomes the
double-edged sword (Covington & Omelich, 1979).
Although mastery and performance goals have been de-
scribed as representing two forms of "approach tendencies"
(Nicholls, Patashnick et al., 1989), they are elicited by differ-
ent environmental or instructional demands and result in
qualitatively different motivational patterns. Research has
identified patterns of cognitive-based, as well as affective-
based, processes that are "set in motion" when a particular
goal is adopted over the short- or long-term (Elliott & Dweck,
1988, p. 11). Considerable research linking mastery and per-
formance achievement goals to different ways of thinking
about oneself and learning activities suggests that a mastery
goal elicits a motivational pattern that is associated with a
quality of involvement likely to maintain achievement behav-
ior, whereas a performance goal fosters a failure-avoiding
pattern of motivation (see, e.g., Covington, 1984; Dweck,
1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Ni-
cholls 1984b, 1989; Nicholls, Patashnick, & Nolen, 1985).
Research evidence suggests that a mastery goal is associated
with a wide range of motivation-related variables that are
conducive to positive achievement activity and that are nec-
essary mediators of self-regulated learning. Of particular im-
portance is evidence (Ames & Archer, 1988; Nicholls et al.,
1985) that links mastery goals to an attributional belief that
effort leads to success, supporting an effort-outcome percep-
tion that is central to the attributional model of achievement-
directed behavior (Weiner, 1979). When mastery goals are
adopted, pride and satisfaction are associated with successful
effort (Jagacinski & Nicholls, 1984, 1987), and guilt is asso-
ciated with inadequate effort (Wentzel, 1987, cited in Wen-
tzel, 1991). Mastery goals have also been associated with a
preference for challenging work and risk taking (Ames &
Archer, 1988; Elliott & Dweck, 1988), an intrinsic interest in
learning activities (Butler, 1987; Meece et al., 1988; Stipek &
Kowalski, 1989), and positive attitudes toward learning (Ames
& Archer, 1988; Meece et al., 1988).
Mastery goals increase the amount of time children spend
on learning tasks (Butler, 1987) and their persistence in the
face of difficulty (Elliott & Dweck, 1988) but more impor-
tantly the quality of their engagement in learning. Active
engagement is characterized by the application of effective
learning and problem-solving strategies, and students’ use of
these strategies is dependent on a belief that effort leads to
success and that failure can be remedied by a change in
strategy (Garner, 1990; McCombs, 1984). Of course, students’
ability to use self-regulatory strategies is also related to their
awareness and knowledge of appropriate strategies and know-
ing when and how to apply them (McCombs, 1984; Pintrich
& De Groot, 1990); low-achieving children may lack knowl-
edge of these strategies to the degree that they are unwilling
to make a commitment to effort utilization (Covington, 1983,
1985). Nevertheless, these effort-based strategies are more
likely to occur when students are focused on mastery goals
(Diener & Dweck, 1978); when students are focused on the
task, "How can I understand this?" (Nicholls, 1979) "How
can I do this?" (Ames & Ames, 1984) or "How can I master
this task?" (Elliott & Dweck, 1988); and when students are
willing to apply effort in the interest of learning (Carr, Bor-
kowski, & Maxwell, 1991; Corno & Mandinach, 1983; Corno
& Rohrkemper, 1985; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Indeed,
students endorsing mastery goals have reported valuing and
1
Mastery goal orientation should not be confused with mastery
learning. The mastery achievement goal label derives from research
(e.g., Elliott & Dweck, 1988) that has differentiated "mastery," or
adaptive motivational response patterns, from "learned helplessness,"
or maladaptive motivational response patterns. Mastery learning
refers to a model for the delivery of instruction.