UC Irvine

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.