Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
The 3 × 2 Achievement Goals in the Education, Sport, and Occupation Literatures: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
The 3 × 2 Achievement Goals in the Education, Sport, and Occupation Literatures: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
The 3 × 2 Achievement Goals in the Education, Sport, and Occupation Literatures: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
The 3 × 2 Achievement Goals in the Education, Sport, and Occupation Literatures: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis
2023
Overview
Achievement goal theory has been a dominant motivation framework since the 1980s. The 3 × 2 achievement goal framework emerged in the literature in 2011. We aimed to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines of the 3 × 2 achievement goal research in education, sport, and occupation settings. We retrieved articles from searching EBSCOhost and Google Scholar platforms. Eligible articles contained the 3 × 2 achievement goal in education, sport, or occupation, were published in a peer-reviewed journal, and provided mean data or correlate data. We tested hypotheses concerned with (1) the overall pattern of achievement goal endorsement, (2) achievement goal differences by domain (education, sport) and compulsory nature of the domains or sub-domains, and (3) achievement goal relationships with correlates (e.g., learning strategies, motivations, performance). After screening, 56 articles met all inclusion criteria, providing 58 samples across education (n = 44), sport (n = 10), and occupation (n = 4) settings with 35,031 unique participants from 15 countries. Participants endorsed the task- and self-approach goals more than the counterpart avoidance goals, other-avoidance goals more than other-approach goals, and the intercorrelations and reliability coefficients were acceptable. Minimal impact results from examining within and across study bias statistics. Of importance, the domain (i.e., education, sport) and the compulsory nature of the domain or sub-domains (i.e., primary-secondary education, sport) moderated goal endorsement (group mixed-effects p < 0.05, g values medium to very large). These groupings also moderated the other goal differences. Concerning our correlates analyses, most meta-analyzed correlations among the achievement goals and correlates were small in meaningfulness with the largest correlations (0.30–0.42) between the approach goals merged and the task- and self-approach goals and facilitative learning strategies and desired motivations. In conclusion, the 3 × 2 achievement goals literature is diverse. Furthering the study and application of this model requires overcoming inherent limitations (i.e., consistent response scale sets), teasing out differences between the task- and self-goals, measuring performance outcomes, and cross-cultural collaborations.
