One common way used to describe classrooms is by the achievement goals they emphasize and it has been shown that differences in these goals have motivational, behavioral, and achievement implications. This dissertation examines: how to measure the classroom goal structure using student surveys, how perceived goal structure relate to various student outcomes, and whether (mis)alignment between students’ and classrooms’ achievement goals matters.

Study 1 used multilevel confirmatory factor analysis to determine whether commonly employed measures of classroom goal structure typically verified at the student level (L1) can also be verified at the classroom level (L2). Low intraclass correlation (ICC1) values indicated low proportion of total variance in the classroom goal structure responses explained by student membership in different classrooms. Low ICC2 values indicated low reliability of the classroom aggregate (L2) measures. Although the theorized models of classroom goal structure were acceptable at the individual level, only the performance-avoidance model represented the expected goal structure at the classroom level. Taken together, results cast doubt on whether the L2 classroom goal structure measures can reliably differentiate between classrooms along the classroom goal structure dimensions.

Study 2 tests the matching hypothesis and examines whether the interplay between the classrooms’ perceived goal structure and students’ personal achievement goals matter for a range of motivational, behavioral, and achievement outcomes. Study 3 is a replication study using another sample of students as well as a longitudinal extension of study 2 by examining long-term consequences measured a year later. To capture students’ multiple goals, I employed latent profile analysis to examine the different patterns of students’ achievement goals. A series of multiple group structural equation models tested whether classroom goal structures have differential effects depending on students’ personal goal profiles. Results provide evidence for the matching hypothesis, wherein students endorsing both mastery and performance-approach goals benefited in higher math grades compared to students who solely endorsed mastery goals, but only in classrooms collectively rated as emphasizing performance-approach goals. However, another finding conflicts with the matching hypothesis. Students endorsing both mastery and performance-approach goals fared worse than mastery-oriented students in classrooms collectively rated as emphasizing performance-approach goals.

This dissertation provides insight on designing learning environments that promote productive persistence. Two projects bridged the fields of educational psychology, cognition, affective science, and game design to examine what influences persistence after failure.

The first project used self-reports, interviews, and observations to explore ways the design of a game in a science museum interacted with and influenced students’ motivation during a high school field trip. Analyses illustrated that five design features modified student motivation in shaping behavior, supporting the pursuit of some goals while hindering the pursuit of others. Case studies that traced the information-seeking patterns of four students, who endorsed different motivational profiles, provided an understanding of the reasons for their adoption, maintenance, and change of achievement goals throughout the visit.

The second project provided opportunities for productive confusion by introducing a design intervention that asked students to rate their confidence while solving mathematics problems during a computer task for fourth- and fifth-grade students. The ratings occurred after students selected answers to multiple-choice questions. Cognitive conflict emerged during instances in which students were not well calibrated; that is, they were highly confident of their answer but incorrect (i.e., high confidence errors) or not confident but correct (i.e., low confidence corrects). Findings underscore that cognitive conflict can elicit confusion and influence students to invest more effort towards better understanding mathematics problems but that their degree of effort can diminish when the feedback does not successfully resolve their confusion.