Achievement orientation

A mastery orientation is characterized by the belief that success is the result of effort and use of the appropriate strategies. Mastery oriented individuals strive to develop their understanding and competence at a task by exerting a high level of effort. Across numerous studies, mastery orientation has been shown to promote adaptive patterns of learning, which ultimately lead to high academic achievement and adjustment.[11] For example, students with a mastery orientation are more intrinsically motivated to learn, use deeper cognitive strategies, and persist through challenge and failure.[12][13][14]

A performance orientation is characterized by the belief that success is the result of superior ability and of surpassing one's peers.[15] Performance oriented individuals desire to outperform others and demonstrate (validate) their ability.[15] Performance orientation is predictive of negative affect, avoidance of challenge and poor achievement outcomes.[12][13][14]

If an individual has an entity (also referred to as “fixed”) view of intelligence, they believe that intelligence is an unchanging characteristic and are more likely to think effort plays little to no role in outcome. In other words, you are either smart, or you are not. This is particularly maladaptive in academia. Students believe that effort is unnecessary because if you are smart, everything should come easy, and if you are not smart, hard work cannot compensate for this deficiency. Students with an entity view of intelligence are more likely to develop a fear of failure,[21][22] resulting in the avoidance of “intellectual tasks,” [13] and giving up in the face of difficulty. The rationale is that if you are smart, effort is unnecessary, and if you are not, there is nothing you can do to change this.

In opposition to entity theory, individuals with an incremental (also referred to as “flexible,” and “malleable”) view of intelligence believe that intelligence is adjustable. The belief is that intelligence is the result of hard work and the use of the appropriate strategies. This is particularly adaptive because rather than giving up in the face of failure or challenge, those who endorse an incremental view of intelligence interpret these setbacks as inevitable for learning to take place. Because they are not worried that exertion of effort is a reflection of lack of intelligence, they are not afraid to work hard, resulting in an outperformance of their entity theory peers. Even after several years, the effect is consistent, such that students with an incremental view of intelligence academically outperform students who had an entity view of intelligence.[23]

Fixed mindsets are characterized by the belief that one's basic qualities are fixed – as if genetically predetermined. Individuals with fixed mindsets believe that practice has no relationship to performance success, which has been shown to be maladaptive across domains.[24][25]

Growth mindsets are characterized by the belief that talents and abilities are things that are developed through effort, practice and instruction. Individuals with growth mindsets feel that they control their success, rather than external forces, so they are better able to problem solve and persist through setbacks. Research has shown that growth mindsets foster a more positive attitude toward practice and learning, a desire for feedback, a greater ability to deal with setbacks, and significantly better performance over time.[24][25]

Why foster a growth mindset in students?

Dweck (2010) explains, when students view intelligence as something that develops over time they view challenging work as an opportunity to learn and grow. These students value effort and realize that “even geniuses have to work hard to develop their abilities and make their contributions” (p. 16). Students with this type of attitude are able to respond to obstacles, try new strategies and continue to learn and grow in many situations, which leads to higher achievement.[25]

How to foster to a growth mindset in students

In order to foster a growth mindset, teachers need to encourage students to welcome challenges and view it as an opportunity to learn and grow .[24] The following are a list of ways a teacher can create a culture of risk taking:

• Provide encouragement: praise students for their perseverance, strategies and the choices they made, rather than being told they are ‘smart’ as it tells students that what they did has led them to success and can be used again to be successful in the future[24][25]
• Emphasize that the deepest and best learning takes time: "…portray challenges as fun and exciting and easy tasks as boring and less useful for the brain" [24] (p. 17). Students who work hard and value effort in the learning process will be able to develop their abilities on a deeper level.[24]
• Illustrate growth: provide students with opportunities to write about, and share with one another, something that they used to struggle with and are now good at doing.[24] This allows students to notice their own successes, which motivates their learning.[25]

Long term success of growth mindset

Designing and presenting learning tasks that foster a growth mindset in students, leads to long-term success.[24] Growth mindsets promote a love of learning and highlight progress and effort. Teachers that illustrate meaningful work help students gain the tools they need to find confidence in their learning and be successful in future challenges.[25]

One factor that has been shown to be influential in the development of achievement orientations is the type of praise given to individuals.[26] Type of praise not only affects behaviors, beliefs, emotions and outcomes immediately after it is imparted, but has also been shown to have long term consequences. Specifically, it affects how individuals deal with future difficulties and their willingness to apply effort to challenges that may come their way.[27][28][29] Verbal praise is often administered as a way to reinforce the performance or behavior of individuals and although there may be positive intentions, some types of praise can have debilitating implications for the recipient. The specific distinction lies in what the praise is directed towards.

Process praise is focused on the actions taken by the individual, especially their effort and problem solving strategies, such as “Great job! You’re working really hard.” Process praise reinforces the association between success and effort (or behavior) rather than a fixed ability, which cultivates the more adaptive mastery orientation and incremental view of intelligence.[21]

Person praise is focused on the individual themselves, similar to an affirmation of self-worth, such as, “Wow, you’re so smart.” Because it applauds the individual by applying a label or an unchangeable characteristic, person praise promotes a performance orientation and a fixed view of intelligence. Students are being rewarded, through praise, for their performance based on their ability. Children who are given person praise tend to have worse task performance, more low-ability attributions, report less task enjoyment and exhibit less task persistence, than children who are given process praise.[21] Additionally, person praise is more likely to promote helpless responses to subsequent failures than process praise.[22]

Although praise for intelligence is usually well-intentioned, and can be motivating when students are doing well, it backfires when students eventually face work that is difficult for them. When this happens, the failure is a threat to the person's sense of his or her own intelligence—a situation to avoid. Thus, praise for intelligence is a short-term strategy that makes successful students feel good at the moment, but one that is detrimental to students in the longer run.

Age is a significant factor in predicting an individual's achievement orientation, with younger individuals more likely to adopt a mastery orientation.[30][31] Beginning at the transition to middle school, students tend to exhibit a performance orientation, along with an overall decline in academic motivation across adolescence.[32] This follows the developmental propensity to view intelligence as a fixed characteristic in adulthood.[33]

Supporting the gender disparities in STEM fields, previous research has suggested that females develop a motivational orientation that is maladaptive to high academic achievement, particularly in math and science.[34] However, overall, the research examining gender differences in achievement orientation has been conflicting. Research by Carol Dweck has shown gender differences with females being more extrinsic or performance oriented. On the other hand, other studies have found that females are more likely to be mastery oriented, while males are more likely to hold performance orientations.[35]

Despite the lack of uniformity among research findings, there is a general consensus that gender influences the development of different rationales and motivations for behavior, as a result of unique socialization expectations and experiences.[35] These differences then affect the way students approach learning situations, leading to gender-related differences in achievement orientations.[36] Although several studies have hypothesized this effect, there is a lack of conclusive evidence, which warrants further exploration into gender differences among individuals’ achievement orientations.

Social influences, particularly parents and peers, affect the achievement orientation of students. During early and middle childhood, the achievement beliefs, attitudes and expectations of a child's parents carries significant weight in determining his or her achievement orientation.[37][38] As children transition to middle school, fitting in with one's peers becomes high priority. Peers influence achievement orientation because children adopt academic goals and beliefs consistent with the dominant social norms. Adolescents with friends having high academic aspirations tend to have fewer problems academically.[38]