Psychology
2013. Vol.4, No.7, 572-584
Published Online July 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/psych) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.47083
572
Relations between Teachers’ Goal Orientations, Their
Instructional Practices and Students’ Motivation
Markus Dresel1, Michaela S. Fasching1, Gabriele Steuer1, Sebastian Nitsche2,
Oliver Dickhäuser2
1University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany
2University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
Received April 21st, 2013; revised May 25th, 2013; accepted June 24th, 2013
Copyright © 2013 Markus Dresel et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.
Relations between teachers’ goal orientations, their instructional practices as expressed in perceived class-
room goal structures and students’ goal orientations were analyzed, focusing also on potential moderators.
Results of a questionnaire study with 46 Mathematics teachers and their 930 students supported the as-
sumption that teachers’ goal orientations affect their instructional practices and students’ goal orientations.
These effects were, in part, moderated by teacher beliefs (implicit theories, self-efficacy beliefs). Overall,
the results provided strong support for the notion that the mechanisms underlying these effects are based
on the functionality of certain instructional practices for the attainment of teachers’ goals.
Keywords: Teacher Motivation; Goal Orientation; Instruction; Classrooms; Achievement Motivation
Introduction
Achievement goal theory is a powerful framework to des-
cribe motivation in social achievement and learning contexts,
and its consequences in terms of cognition and behavior (Ames,
1992; Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1984; for an overview see Elliot,
2005). This is not only true for the population of students,
which researchers have extensively analyzed within this frame-
work (for an overview see Maehr & Zusho, 2009). Recently,
Butler (2007) applied achievement goal theory also to the
population of teachers. In the meantime, considerable evidence
has been collected to suggest that teachers’ goal orientations
determine their experiences and own learning behaviors (e.g.,
Butler, 2007; Dickhäuser, Butler & Tönjes, 2007; Malmberg,
2008; Fasching, Dresel, Dickhäuser, & Nitsche, 2011; Nitsche,
Dickhäuser, Fasching, & Dresel, 2011). Furthermore, it has also
been assumed that teachers’ goal orientations influence their
instructional practices as well as the motivation and learning
behavior of their students. Although researchers provided pre-
liminary evidence to support this assumption (Butler & Shibaz,
2008; Retelsdorf, Butler, Streblow, & Schiefele, 2010), more
research is needed to understand these associations. Therefore,
we focus on the relationships between teachers’ goal orienta-
tions, their instructional practices as expressed in students’
perceptions of classroom goal structures and the goal orienta-
tions of their students. In doing so, we are focusing also on
potential moderators of these relationships.
Achievement Goal Theory
Achievement goal orientations describe which goals indi-
viduals preferably pursue in social achievement contexts (Ames,
1992; Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1984). The core assumption is
that different achievement goal orientations create different
motivational systems (e.g., processing self-related and task-
related information, inferences concerning own competences,
causal beliefs, standards) and therefore lead to different cogni-
tive, affective and behavioral consequences (e.g., Elliott &
Dweck, 1988). For the most part, research literature discrimi-
nates among three different goal orientations (for an overview
see Maehr & Zusho, 2009): learning goal orientation (aim to
expand one’s own competences)1, performance approach goal
orientation (aim to demonstrate own competences), and per-
formance avoidance goal orientation (aim to avoid demonstrat-
ing own competence deficits). Additionally, in the research
tradition of Nicholls (1984), work avoidance goal orientation is
sometimes considered, which refers to the aim to minimize
effort in achievement settings2.
Up to now, the primary focus of research has been on the
goal orientations of students. In summarizing the patterns of
findings regarding the consequences of student goal orienta-
tions (e.g., involvement, persistence, strategy use, emotional
experiences, performance), learning goal orientation, on the one
hand, are considered to be adaptive, while performance avoid-
ance and work avoidance goal orientations, on the other hand,
have to be considered maladaptive. Performance approach goal
1To emphasize the focus on the expansion of own competences, we decided
to use the term “learning goal orientation” instead of the terms “mastery
goal orientation” or “task orientation” which are also used in the literature.
2In the past decade, theorists have also made a distinction between an ap-
p
roach and an avoidance component within learning goals (Elliot &
McGregor, 2001; Pintrich, 2000). Although research has provided some
evidence that learning avoidance goals lead to different consequences than
learning approach goals (for overviews see Huang, 2012; Moller & Elliot,
2006), learning avoidance goals are beyond the scope of the present paper,
mainly because no evidence exists to support the validity of this facet o
f
goal orientation for teachers.

M. DRESEL ET AL.
orientation must be understood as ambivalent (for an overview
see Maehr & Zusho, 2009).
Teachers’ Goal Orientations
Butler (2007) suggested that achievement goal theory is also
suitable to describe teacher motivation and explain its conse-
quences, founded on the notion that schools and classrooms not
only constitute achievement contexts for students, but for
teachers as well. This suggestion provoked a bundle of research
in the field of teacher motivation, to the extent that a number of
studies now exists to support this point of view (Butler, 2007;
Butler & Shibaz, 2008; Dickhäuser et al., 2007; Malmberg,
2008; Fasching et al., 2011; Nitsche et al., 2011; Papaioannou
& Christodoulidis, 2007; Retelsdorf et al., 2010; Tönjes, Dick-
häuser, & Kröner, 2008).
Research on the structure of teacher goal orientations indi-
cates that the aforementioned four-dimensional conceptualiza-
tion is also appropriate for the population of teachers (Butler,
2007; Dickhäuser et al., 2007; Nitsche et al., 2011): Teachers’
learning goal orientation refers to the aim to expand own pro-
fessional competences. Teachers’ performance approach and
avoidance goal orientations refer to the aim to demonstrate
superior teaching competences or to avoid demonstrating infe-
rior teaching competences, respectively. Finally, teachers’ work
avoidance goal orientation refers to the aim to spend as little
effort as possible in practicing the teaching profession. Existing
evidence indicates that a teachers’ learning goal orientation is
positively associated with adaptive attitudes towards help and
professional development and a more extensive learning be-
havior, while, in contrast, teachers’ performance and work
avoidance goal orientations are positively associated with mal-
adaptive attitudes and stress experiences (Butler, 2007; Dick-
häuser et al., 2007; Retelsdorf et al., 2010; Nitsche et al., 2011;
Tönjes et al., 2008).
In an attempt to more specifically explain teacher goal orien-
tation effects, Nitsche et al. (2011) suggested conceptualizing
these four goal orientations as broad superordinate dimensions
and then differentiating them, on a subordinated level. They
proposed to differentiate learning goals with respect to the dif-
ferent types of professional competences a teacher can aim to
expand, based on the notion that teachers need vastly diverse
competences in order to accomplish the multitude of tasks de-
manded on them by their profession (Shulman, 1986). There-
fore, Nitsche et al. differentiated between three subordinated
types of learning goals: learning goals directed towards the
expansion of pedagogical knowledge, learning goals directed
towards the expansion of subject matter content knowledge and
learning goals directed towards the expansion of pedagogical-
content knowledge (Shulman, 1986). Moreover, Nitsche et al.
proposed to differentiate performance goals with respect to the
significant others to which they can be addressed. This is
founded in the two components defining performance goals
(Elliot, 1999), namely social comparison and appearance, and
the presumption that to whom one wants to appear as compe-
tent, or does not want to appear as incompetent, is crucial (this
presumption was already confirmed for the population of stu-
dents; Ziegler, Dresel, & Stoeger, 2008). So, Nitsche et al. dif-
ferentiated both the performance approach and performance
avoidance goal orientations of teachers with respect to four
addressee groups, namely three inter-personal addressees
(school principals, teacher colleagues, and students), and the
acting teacher himself or herself as an intra-personal addressee
(performance goals which are defined by social comparison,
but do not imply that a positive appearance to others is a desir-
able state or a negative appearance to others is an undesirable
state; Ziegler et al., 2008). Nitsche et al. (2011) provided em-
pirical evidence that this conceptualization, including super-
ordinate and subordinate dimensions, is more suitable to de-
scribe the goal orientations of teachers, and that different sub-
dimensions of teachers’ learning and performance goal orienta-
tions differentially predict attitudes towards help-seeking.
Teacher Goal Orientations and
Instructional Practices
Butler (2007) also proposed considering teachers’ goal ori-
entations as antecedents of their instructional practices and,
particularly, of the goals they emphasize in the classroom for
their students. However, up to now, to the best of our knowl-
edge, only two studies have been published which examined
associations between teachers’ goal orientations and their in-
structional practices (Butler & Shibaz, 2008; Retelsdorf et al.,
2010). Nevertheless, this preliminary evidence supports the
idea that teachers’ professional behaviour in the classroom
depends on the goals they pursue for themselves.
To adequately describe and explain goal orientation effects
on instruction, a suitable conceptualization of teachers’ instruc-
tional practices is at first essential. Here, we decided for the
concept of classroom goal structures because it provides a
broad conceptualization of teachers’ instructional practices
which they realize in their classrooms. Moreover, within the
framework of achievement goal theory it is the prevailing con-
cept to describe differences between the instructional practices
of different teachers (for an overview see Meece, Anderman, &
Anderman, 2006). Perceived classroom goal structures refer to
student perceptions of the goal-related messages in the class-
room and the extent to which the classroom environment allows
for, or determines, the pursuit of learning and performance
goals. Similar to personal goal orientations, classroom mastery
goal structures and classroom performance goal structures are
distinguished from one another, often complemented by a dif-
ferentiation between approach and avoidance components
within perceived classroom performance goal structures (Kap-
lan, Gheen, & Midgley, 2002; Meece et al., 2006; Schwinger &
Stiensmeier-Pelster, 2011)3. It is assumed that teachers create a
mastery goal structure if they emphasize the importance of
learning and mastery, for example by using meaningful and
individually challenging tasks, by making students responsible
for personal improvement and understanding the subject matter,
or by recognizing student effort and improvement (Patrick,
Anderman, Ryan, Edelin, & Midgley, 2001; Turner et al., 2002).
In contrast, it is assumed that teachers create a performance
approach and/or avoidance goal structure if they strongly focus
on grades and the accuracy of answers, realize a normative
grading practice, use ability grouping and competition in the
classroom, or reward high-achieving students with privileges
and/or refuse privileges to low-achieving students. Numerous
studies revealed the robust finding that mastery goal structures
lead to adaptive motivational and behavior outcomes and per-
3In contrast to personal goal orientations, whereby terms are used heteroge-
neously (especially with regard to the terms “learning goals” and “mastery
goals”), on the level of contextual goal structures the term “mastery goal
structure” is uniformly used in the literature.

M. DRESEL ET AL.
formance goal structures lead to maladaptive outcomes on the
part of the students. Most important in the present context are
associations between classroom goal structures and students’
goal orientations, which, in turn, affect adaptive and maladap-
tive learning patterns (for an overview see Meece et al., 2006).
The aspects of teachers’ instructional practices, which were
found in prior work to be dependent on teachers’ goal orienta-
tions, relate to the concept of perceived classroom goal struc-
tures. Butler and Shibaz (2008) focused on teacher support and
inhibition of question-asking and help-seeking (as perceived by
students), which can be understood as important instructional
practices in setting up classroom goal structures (nonetheless
only partially, as this narrow focus neglects several of the
above described aspects of classroom goal structures). They
found that a teachers’ learning goal orientation is positively
associated with support for question-asking and help-seeking,
and that a teachers’ performance avoidance goal orientation is
negatively associated with this aspect (Butler and Shibaz iden-
tified the opposite pattern for inhibition of question-asking and
help-seeking). Moreover, they found positive associations be-
tween teachers’ performance avoidance goals and students’
cheating. In two studies Retelsdorf et al. (2010) focused on
associations between teachers’ goal orientations and their self-
reported use of mastery and performance practices, thus focus-
ing the full breadth of the concepts of classroom mastery and
performance goal structures. They found, that teachers who
strongly pursued learning goals reported a more extensive use
of mastery practices, and that teachers who strongly pursued
performance goals reported a more extensive use of perform-
ance practices as well as a less extensive use of mastery prac-
tices in their classrooms. Moreover, the results of Retelsdorf et
al. (2010) indicated that teachers with a strong work avoidance
goal orientation reported a more frequent use of performance
practices.
As an interim summary, what can be noted is that teacher
goal orientations seem to have effects on instructional practices
but one must also acknowledge that the existing studies suffer
from a number of shortcomings and therefore more research is
needed to qualify and understand these effects. Only one study
focused on teachers’ instructional practices in their full breadth
(Retelsdorf et al., 2010), nevertheless the exclusive use of
teacher self-reports could have led to an overestimation of as-
sociations, due to the several biases known for this type of
measurement (e.g., shared method variance). Butler and Shibaz
(2008), however, used student perceptions of teachers’ instruc-
tional practices. Nevertheless, they focused only on a sub-as-
pect of instructional practices. Student motivation in a narrower
sense has not yet been analyzed in dependence on teachers’
goal orientations. Therefore, the perspective of the present pa-
per on students’ perceptions of classroom goal structures and
students’ goal orientations in dependence on teachers’ goal
orientations is novel, and has the potential to complement ex-
isting research literature. Until now, no evidence exists regard-
ing teacher factors leading to certain student perceptions of
classroom goal structures.
Mechanisms Underlying the Associations between
Teachers’ Goal Orientations and
Instructional Practices
Beyond limitations located primarily on an empirical level,
the assumed associations between teachers’ goal orientations
and their instructional practices are also challenged from a
theoretical point of view. Prior work primarily substantiated a
generalization hypothesis, which assumes corresponding asso-
ciations: Teachers, who endorse learning goals for themselves,
i.e., who aim to develop their own professional competences,
are expected to apply a learning focus for their students too, i.e.,
are expected to emphasize learning goals and use mastery ori-
ented instructional practices. On the other hand, it was expected
that teachers who pursue performance goals for themselves, i.e.,
aim to demonstrate superior teaching competences or aim to
avoid demonstrating inferior teaching competences, also exer-
cise a performance focus in their classrooms, i.e., articulate
performance goals and use performance oriented instructional
practices. These correspondences can be justified with an as-
sumed generalization of the motivational system created by
teachers’ self-directed goals to teachers’ student-directed goals
in terms of definitions of success, evaluation criteria, causal
beliefs etc. Nevertheless, other, non-correspondent associations
found in prior work can hardly be interpreted as an effect of the
generalization of the motivational system (e.g., the effect of
work avoidance goals on performance practices; Retelsdorf et
al., 2010).
Therefore, other mechanisms must exist. We propose con-
sidering the functionality of instructional practices for goal
attainment as the central and more general mechanism under-
lying the effects of teachers’ goal orientations. This notion has
its roots in general goal theory—here, a fundamental assump-
tion is, that a certain goal increases the probability of a certain
course of action if, and only if, the person appraises this course
of action or its results as functional for the attainment of the
goal at hand (e.g., Austin & Vancouver, 1996; Elliott & Dweck,
1988). We refer to this mechanism by using the term function-
ality hypothesis.
Under this functionality perspective, correspondences be-
tween teachers’ goal orientations and their instructional prac-
tices are not as straightforward as they might appear. Teachers’
learning goal orientation should enhance the realization of a
mastery goal structure only to the extent that it allows for
learning on the part of the teacher (and not on the part of the
students), i.e., to the extent that it provides opportunities for the
teacher to improve his or her professional competences. This
may depend on the specific competence the teacher aims to
expand (basically, the functionality of mastery practices is more
self-evident for endeavors to expand pedagogical and peda-
gogical-content knowledge than for endeavors to expand sub-
ject matter content knowledge). On the other hand, teachers’
performance goals should enhance the realization of a per-
formance goal structure only to the extent that it allows the
teacher to demonstrate his or her teaching competences or con-
ceal his or her competence deficits. This may additionally de-
pend on to whom he or she wants to appear competent, or avoid
appearing incompetent, i.e., the addressees of his or her per-
formance goals (e.g., students, principal, the acting teacher
himself or herself).
Under a functionality perspective, non-correspondent asso-
ciations can also be explained. Under the justifiable assumption
that performance practices are less demanding for teachers (in
terms of the required effort for their preparation and execution)
than mastery practices, we predicted that performance practices
are more functional, and mastery practices are less functional,
for teachers’ work avoidance goals (rf. Retelsdorf et al., 2010).
Moreover, under the condition that teachers believe that a good
574

M. DRESEL ET AL.
teaching performance is manifested in maximized competence
improvements for a maximum number of students, and that a
good classroom instruction is characterized by a strong mastery
focus, it can be predicted that mastery practices are functional
for the attainment of teachers’ performance goals. However,
under the condition that the teachers are convinced that a good
teaching performance is manifested in emphasizing the per-
formance aspect as well as the promotion of the best students,
the correspondence between performance goals of teachers and
performance-oriented instructional practices can be predicted.
In the latter case, generalization and functionality hypotheses
lead to identical predictions.
Moderators
Beyond the aforementioned assumptions regarding depend-
encies on the specific competence facets on which learning
goals can be directed and the specific addressees of perform-
ance goals, we assumed that the functionality of specific in-
structional practices for the attainment of teacher goals are
dependent on a series of beliefs and standards. Among them are
beliefs and standards regarding the definition of teaching suc-
cess (as illustrated in the example above), regarding incentive
policies in the scholastic context, regarding the educational
room for manoeuvring a teacher has in developing his or her
students’ abilities, or regarding one’s own teaching capabilities.
Accordingly, teacher beliefs and school-specific standards can
be conceptualized as potential moderators of the effects teach-
ers’ goal orientations have on instructional practices. In the
present work, it was not our intent to analyse these moderators
in a comprehensive manner. Instead, we aimed to demonstrate
that such moderation exists and focused on two potential mod-
erators: implicit theories of teachers regarding the malleability
of students’ abilities and teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs.
Dweck and Leggett (1988) introduced the concept of implicit
theories regarding the malleability of abilities to explain adap-
tive vs. maladaptive patterns following failure. Their concept
originally referred to actors’ own abilities (intelligence) and in
their model, two opposing theories are contrasted: Whereas
some people hold an incremental theory of their abilities ac-
cording to which own abilities are malleable through own ef-
forts, others see their abilities as a fixed entity which cannot be
changed. As empirical findings generally indicate, different
implicit theories have different motivational, affective, cogni-
tive and behavioural consequences—with the general pattern,
that an incremental theory can function as a protector against
maladaptive reactions and an entity theory has to be considered
a risk factor for them (for an overview see Dweck & Molden,
2005). Leroy, Bressoux, Sarrazin and Trouilloud (2007) con-
veyed Dweck and Leggett’s (1988) concept on teachers’ im-
plicit theories regarding the malleability of their students’ abili-
ties and provided evidence that teachers are more autonomy-
supportive when they believe that the abilities of their students
are malleable. Accordingly, we predicted that teachers gener-
ally use more mastery practices (autonomy-support can be
conceptualized as one of them; rf. Ames, 1992) when they hold
an incremental view of their students’ abilities. Although this
has not been analysed in prior research, it is more central for
the present paper that these teacher beliefs may also moderate
the associations between teachers’ goal orientations and their
instructional behaviours. For example, it could be predicted that
the instructional practices teachers with a strong learning goal
orientation select in order to expand their own professional
competences depend on their assumptions regarding the malle-
ability of student abilities.
The concept of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs refers to teach-
ers’ future-directed beliefs regarding their capabilities to suc-
cessfully accomplish instructional tasks (Woolfolk-Hoy, Hoy,
& Davis, 2009). Previous research indicated that teachers with
higher self-efficacy beliefs demonstrate more effective instruc-
tional behaviour (e.g., supporting learning instead of simply
covering the curriculum, working longer with low-achieving
students, selecting learning instead of performance goals; for an
overview see Woolfolk-Hoy et al., 2009). Accordingly, for
teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, a positive association with the
use of mastery practices and a negative association with per-
formance practices can be predicted. Previous research on these
associations is scarce and limited to teacher self-reports (Wolt-
ers & Daugherty, 2007). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs may
also moderate associations between their goal orientations and
their instructional practices. A potential moderation could occur
because of the degree of risk-taking which is associated with
different levels of teachers’ self-efficacy (Woolfolk-Hoy et al.,
2009). It may be that self-efficacious teachers select instruct-
tional practices which are characterized by a higher risk of fail-
ure but are more promising in terms of attaining a specific goal,
while less self-efficacious teachers may select instructional
practices which do not pose a high risk of failure, but are less
effective in terms of the attaining the goal at hand.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The primary research question of the present paper focusses
on the relations between teachers’ goal orientations, on the one
hand, and students’ perceptions of classroom goal structures (as
valid indicators of teachers’ instructional practices) and stu-
dents’ goal orientations (as central aspects of their achievement
motivation), on the other. Beyond unconditional relationships
between broad factors of teacher goal orientations (learning,
performance approach, performance avoidance, work avoid-
ance) and instructional practices and student motivation, we
focussed on effects of specific sub-facets of teachers’ goal ori-
entations (with regard to the expansion of specific facets of
professional competence and to specific addressees of per-
formance goals) and potential moderators in terms of teacher
beliefs (implicit theories, self-efficacy beliefs). Generally, we
expected that the functionality of instructional practices for the
attainment of teacher goals is the central mechanism underlying
these associations, and that this mechanism is more suitable to
explain them than the generalization of motivational systems
implied by teachers’ goal orientations. Specifically, we aimed
to test the following hypotheses:
H1: Teachers’ goal orientations are associated with their in-
structional practices (perceived classroom goal structures).
To start with, we expected positive associations between
corresponding dimensions (learning goals with classroom mas-
tery goal structure, performance goals with classroom perfor-
mance goal structures; Butler, 2007; Butler & Shibaz, 2008;
Retelsdorf et al., 2010) which are in line with both the func-
tionality hypothesis and the generalization hypothesis. Addi-
tionally, we expected associations between non-corresponding
dimensions which are in line with the functionality hypothesis,
but not with the generalization hypothesis: 1) We expected that
learning goal orientations are negatively associated with class-

M. DRESEL ET AL.
room performance goal structures (because of their lower po-
tential to expand teachers’ competences). 2) We expected that
work avoidance goal orientations are negatively associated with
classroom mastery goal structure and positively associated with
classroom performance goal structures (because performance
practices are less demanding for teachers than mastery practices;
rf. Retelsdorf et al., 2010). 3) We expected that performance
goal orientations are associated with classroom mastery goal
structure, without making a prediction regarding the direction
of this association (because the realization of a mastery focus in
the classroom can be more or less functional for demonstrating
superior teaching competences). Additionally, we expected to
find differential relationships for different goal orientation di-
mensions on the subordinated level.
H2: Associations between goal orientations of teachers and
their instructional practices are moderated by teachers’ beliefs
(implicit theories regarding the malleability of students’ abili-
ties, self-efficacy beliefs for teaching).
From the functionality hypothesis (but not from the gener-
alization hypothesis) we deduced that the associations between
teachers’ goal orientations and their instructional practices de-
pend on the belief systems the teachers hold. Therefore, we
predicted that these associations are moderated by teacher be-
liefs. However, due to an almost complete lack of knowledge
on this aspect, we refused to make any predictions regarding
the direction of moderation effects.
H3: Teachers’ goal orientations are associated with their
students’ motivation (students’ goal orientations). These asso-
ciations are mediated through teachers’ instructional practices.
Based on the extensive literature on the effects of classroom
goal structures on students’ motivation and learning behaviour
(see Meece et al., 2006, for an overview), we predicted that the
expected effects of teachers’ goal orientations on perceived
classroom goal structures would spread over to the motivation
of their students. Our specific expectations were, therefore,
analogous to those regarding Hypothesis 1.
Method
Procedure
We used a data set from a larger cross-sectional study in the
subject of Mathematics, which included students and teachers
who answered standardized questionnaires during regular les-
son periods. Participation was voluntary for both the teachers
and the students. Data were collected by trained research assis-
tants.
Participants
In that study we recruited a total of 56 fifth to eighth grade
classrooms in eight public and six private secondary schools in
urban, sub-urban and rural areas with different socio-cultural
structures in southern Germany. In the present analyses, we
included those 46 classrooms in which the teachers agreed to
complete the respective questionnaire. Among the students in
these classrooms 77.9% chose to participate in the study. The
resulting sample consists of 46 Mathematics teachers (mean age
of 45.3 years; SD = 9.20; 69% female) and 930 of their students
(mean age of 13.1 years; SD = 1.01; 47% female).
Measurements
We used teacher as well as student measures to adequately
assess teachers’ goal orientations and beliefs (teacher self-re-
ports), teachers’ instructional practices (student perceptions of
classroom goal structures), and students’ goal orientations (stu-
dent self-reports).
Teachers’ goal orientations. We measured teacher goal
orientations with the questionnaire developed by Nitsche et al.
(2011). It contains a uniform item stem (“In my vocation, I
aspire ···”) and subscales for four broad goal orientation factors,
namely learning goal orientation (9 items), performance ap-
proach goal orientation (12 items), performance avoidance goal
orientation (12 items) and work avoidance goal orientation (3
items). The learning goal orientation scale consists of, on a
subordinate level, three 3-item sub-factors, which reflect the
goals to broaden the three main types of professional teacher
competences proposed by Shulman (1986): pedagogical knowl-
edge (sample item: “··· to improve my pedagogical knowledge
and competence”), subject matter content knowledge (“··· to
really comprehend the contents of my subject”), and pedagogi-
cal-content knowledge (“··· to really comprehend the process of
knowledge transfer in my subject”). The scales for the per-
formance approach and performance avoidance goal orienta-
tions each consist of four 3-item sub-factors, which reflect
relevant addressees of teachers’ performance goals: colleagues
(“··· my colleagues to realize that I teach better than other
teachers”, “··· to conceal from my colleagues when I do some-
thing less satisfying than other teachers”), school principal (“···
my principal to realize that I teach better than other teachers”,
“··· my principal not to believe I would master my job less suf-
ficient than other teachers”), students (“··· my students to real-
ize that I teach better than other teachers”, “··· to conceal from
my students when I do something less satisfying than other
teachers“) and the acting teacher him/herself (“··· to prove my-
self that I teach better than other teachers”, “··· to not have to
admit to myself when I do something less satisfying than other
teachers“). The scale assessing teachers’ work avoidance goal
orientation (“··· that the work is easy”) does not consist of
sub-factors. All items were rated on 5-point Likert type scales,
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Inter-
nal consistencies of the four broad goal orientations were in the
range of Cronbach’s α = .78 - .91; those of the 11 sub-scales in
the range of α = .61 - .94.
Teachers’ implicit theories regarding students’ abilities.
Using three items of Dweck, Chiu and Hong (1995), we as-
sessed the extent to which teachers implicitly believe that their
students can expand their abilities in the subject of Mathematics.
The items, which originally focused on one’s own intelligence,
were adapted so that they focused on the Mathematics abilities
of students from the perspective of the teacher (“My students
can learn new things in Mathematics, but they can’t really
change their basic abilities for Mathematics”). They were rated
using 6-point Likert type scales, ranging from 1 (strongly dis-
agree) to 6 (strongly agree). The scale was recoded, so that a
higher value represents a more incremental view. α = .87.
Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for teaching. Five items
from the scale developed by Schwarzer and Hallum (2008)
assessed teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs regarding demands in
the context of teaching (“When I try really hard, I am able to
reach even the most difficult students”). Teachers gave their
responses on 4-point Likert type scales, ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). α = .65.
Students’ perceptions of classroom goal structures. We
measured students’ perceptions of classroom mastery, perfor-
576

M. DRESEL ET AL.
mance approach and performance avoidance goal structures
with the respective scales of the Patterns of Adaptive Learning
Scales (PALS; Midgley et al., 2000), which we adapted to the
subject of Mathematics and extended in order to enhance reli-
ability. The scales measuring mastery goal structure (“In our
Math class, really understanding the material is the main goal”),
performance approach goal structure (“In our Math class, get-
ting right answers is very important”) and performance avoid-
ance goal structure (“In our Math class, it’s important not to do
worse than other students”) consisted of 7, 6 and 8 items, re-
spectively, which were rated on 5-point Likert type scales,
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). α
= .76 - .84.
Students’ goal orientations. To assess students’ goal orien-
tations, we used an instrument well-established in Germany
(Spinath, Stiensmeier-Pelster, Schöne, & Dickhäuser, 2002)
which we adapted to the subject of Mathematics (item stem: “In
Maths class I usually ···”). Learning (“··· want to learn as much
as possible”), performance approach (“··· want to show that I
am good at something”), performance avoidance (“··· don’t
want the other students to think I am stupid”) and work avoid-
ance (“··· want to keep my workload small”) goal orientations
were measured using 8, 7, 8 and 8 items, respectively. Students
rated them on 5-point Likert type scales, ranging from 1 (abso-
lutely false) to 5 (absolutely true). α = .81 - .85.
Missing Data and Analyses
We carried out the study on which the present analyses are
based in two cohorts. In the first cohort (17 classrooms), a
multi-matrix design was applied on the student level for eco-
nomic reasons (Munger & Loyd, 1988). Here, we collected
students’ perceptions of classroom goal structures from (ran-
domly selected) half of the students within each classroom, and
students’ goal orientations were assessed among the other half
of the students. Such structurally incomplete designs reveal
values similar to those from complete datasets (Smits & Vorst,
2007). In the second cohort (39 classrooms), however, com-
plete assessments were made for all students. Moreover, we
assessed teachers’ goal orientations and beliefs in full, for all
teachers in both cohorts. We imputed missing values due to the
partially incomplete design and item non-response (less than
10% for all teacher and student items) using the expecta-
tion-maximization algorithm (see Peugh & Enders, 2004).
We conducted two-level modelling with HLM 6 (Rauden-
bush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2004) using restricted maximum like-
lihood estimation (students nested in teachers; intercept-as-out-
come-models). We z-standardized all variables prior to analyses
—consequently, the coefficients of fixed effects can be inter-
preted similarly to standardized regression coefficients.
Results
We observed significant and moderate variation between
teachers for all perceptions of classroom goal structures (error-
corrected intraclass correlations ICC* = .12 - .16; p < .001).
Moreover, we observed significant and small to moderate
variation between teachers for students’ learning, performance
approach and performance avoidance goal orientations (ICC*
= .05 - .15; p < .001), but not for students’ work avoidance goal
orientation (ICC* = .02; p > .05).
Relations between Teachers’ Goal Orientations and
Students’ Perceptions of Classroom Goal Structures
(Hypothesis 1)
In the first step, we analysed the effects of the four broad
factors of teachers’ goal orientations on their students’ per-
ceptions of the classroom goal structures (Table 1). We deleted
predictors with relationships in the direction opposite to those
of the respective bivariate correlations and non-significant pre-
dictors stepwise from the models in order to avoid problems
stemming from multicollinearity. As predicted, classroom per-
formance goal structures (approach and avoidance) were posi-
tively predicted by teachers’ performance avoidance goal ori-
entations (performance avoidance goal structure: p = .09) and
negatively predicted by teachers’ learning goal orientations.
Moreover, in accordance with our expectations, teachers’ work
avoidance goal orientations were a negative predictor of class-
room mastery goal structures. Additionally, we observed a
positive effect of teachers’ performance approach goal orienta-
tion on classroom mastery goal structure. However, some ex-
pected effects could not be safeguarded; particularly worth
mentioning is that no unconditional effect of teachers’ learning
goals on classroom mastery goal structures could be proven.
In the second step, we replaced the significant predictors in
the models with the respective sub-factors (i.e., with the three
competence-specific sub-factors of learning goals and the four
addressee-specific sub-factors of performance goals, respec-
tively) to gain information on which specific aspects of teach-
ers’ goal orientations are responsible for certain classroom goal
structures. This in-depth analysis revealed that teachers’ per-
formance goals which are addressed to themselves (i.e., the
goal to demonstrate to oneself, that one teaches better than
other teachers) are exclusively responsible for the positive ef-
fect of teachers’ performance approach goals on classroom
mastery goal structures (β = 0.09; SE = 0.05; p = .05), while
teachers’ performance goals which are directed towards exter-
nal addressees had no effect. With respect to classroom per-
formance goal structures, we observed a similar pattern for both
performance approach and performance avoidance goal struc-
tures: Responsible for the positive effects of teachers’ perfor-
Table 1.
Two-level prediction of students’ perceptions of classroom goal struc-
tures from teachers’ goal orientations.
Students’ perceptions of classroom goal
structures
Predictor:
Teachers’ Goal
Orientations (Level 2)
Mastery goal
structure
Performance
approach
goal structure
Performance
avoidance
goal structure
Learning goals - –0.10*
(0.05)
–0.11*
(0.05)
Performance
approach goals
0.11*
(0.04) - -
Performance
avoidance goals - 0.11* (0.06)
0.09+
(0.06)
Work avoidance
goals
–0.11*
(0.05) - -
2
Between
R .14 .10 .08
Note: All variables were z-standardized prior to analyses. Predictors were grand-
mean centered. Presented are regression coefficients  and standard errors (in
parentheses). *p < .05. +p < .10.

M. DRESEL ET AL.
mance avoidance goal orientations were performance avoidance
goals which are addressed to the principal (Performance ap-
proach goal structure: β = 0.16; SE = 0.07; p < .05. Perform-
ance avoidance goal structure: β = 0.11; SE = 0.07; p = .06) and
to their students (Performance approach goal structure: β = 0.17;
SE = 0.06; p < .01. Performance avoidance goal structure: β =
0.21; SE = 0.06; p < .01), but not performance avoidance goals
which address their colleagues or themselves. Moreover, the
analyses revealed that teachers’ learning goals directed towards
the expansion of their pedagogical knowledge (Performance
approach goal structure: β = –0.12; SE = 0.07; p < .05. Per-
formance avoidance goal structure: β = –0.14; SE = 0.08; p
< .05) and their pedagogical-content knowledge (Performance
approach goal structure: β = –0.12; SE = 0.06; p < .05. Per-
formance avoidance goal structure: β = –0.11; SE = 0.07; p
< .05) were significant negative predictors of perceived class-
room performance goal structures, while teachers’ learning
goals directed towards the expansion of their content knowl-
edge were not.
Moderators of the Relations between Te a chers’ Goa l
Orientations and Students’ Perceptions of Classroom
Goal Structures (Hypothesis 2)
We calculated product terms by multiplying the z-scores of
each of the four broad goal orientation factors with the z-scores
of each of the two potential moderators (Cohen, Cohen, West,
& Aiken, 2003). Multilevel models were extended on level 2
with those product terms which proved to be significant in a
series of preliminary analyses (additionally with the corre-
sponding unconditional variables).
With respect to classroom mastery goal structure, the analy-
sis revealed a significant moderator effect of teachers’ learning
goals and their implicit theories (β = 0.09; SE = 0.04; p < .05),
which is illustrated in Figure 1. Teachers with an incremental
view of their students’ abilities realized a slightly stronger
classroom mastery goal structure when they pursued learning
goals to a stronger extent, while teachers with an entity view
demonstrated a weaker mastery goal structure in their class-
rooms with increasing learning goals. Additionally, a signifi-
cant positive main effect of teachers’ implicit theories on per-
ceived classroom mastery goal structure was observed (β = 0.11;
SE = 0.06; p < .05). With these effects, the explained between-
teacher variance of perceived classroom mastery goal structure
increased from R2 = .14 to R2 = .23.
For classroom performance approach and avoidance goal
structures, we identified interaction effects between teachers’
work avoidance goals and their implicit theories (Performance
approach goal structure: β = –0.13; SE = 0.05; p < .05. Per-
formance avoidance goal structure: β = –0.15; SE = 0.05; p
< .01). While teachers’ work avoidance goals had no, or even
slightly negative, effects on classroom performance goal struc-
tures when they viewed their students’ abilities as malleable,
stronger classroom performance goal structures were perceived
with increasing work avoidance goals when teachers had an
entity view (Figure 2). Moreover, we observed an interaction
effect between teachers’ performance avoidance goals and their
self-efficacy beliefs for both classroom performance approach
and avoidance goal structures (Performance approach goal
structure: β = –0.18; SE = 0.07; p < .05. Performance avoidance
goal structure: β = –0.21; SE = 0.07; p < .01). Teachers with
strong self-efficacy beliefs tended to realize weaker classroom
Figure 1.
Moderation of the association between teachers’ learning goal
orientations and students’ perceptions of classroom mastery
goal structure by teachers’ implicit theories regarding the mal-
leability of students’ abilities (predicted values).
performance goal structures when they increasingly took aim to
avoid demonstrating inferior teaching performances (Figure 3).
In contrast, teachers with weak self-efficacy beliefs realized
stronger classroom performance goal structures with increasing
performance avoidance goals. Independent of these moderator
effects, no significant main effects of teachers’ implicit theories
and self-efficacy beliefs were evident (|β| < .07; p > .10). Ex-
tending the multilevel models with these moderator effects
increased the proportions of explained between-teacher vari-
ance from R2 = .10 to R2 = .23 and from R2 = .08 to R2 = .30 for
perceived classroom performance approach and avoidance goal
structure, respectively.
Relations between Teachers’ and Studen t s’ Goal
Orientations (Hypothesis 3)
We examined the effects of teachers’ goal orientations on
students’ goal orientations with two modelling steps (Table 2)4.
First, we identified the factors of teachers’ goal orientations that
are relevant for student motivation as we did for classroom goal
structures (Model 1). Second, we inserted students’ perceptions
of classroom goal structures into the models on both the aggre-
gated teacher level and the level of the individual student
(Model 2). We did this in order to examine whether any effects
of teachers’ goals on students’ goals were mediated by the in-
structional practices of the teachers in terms of the goal struc-
4We excluded students’ work avoidance goal orientations from this
analysis since no significant between-teacher variation was observed
for them (as
r
eported above).
578

M. DRESEL ET AL.
Figure 2.
Moderation of the associations between teachers’ work avoidance goal orientations and students’ perceptions of classroom perform-
ance approach and avoidance goal structures by teachers’ implicit theories regarding the malleability of students’ abilities (predicted
values).
Figure 3.
Moderation of the associations between teachers’ performance avoidance goal orientations and students’ perceptions of classroom
performance approach and avoidance goal structures by teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for teaching (predicted values).

M. DRESEL ET AL.
Table 2.
Two-level prediction of students’ goal orientations from teachers’ goal orientations and perceived classroom goal structures.
Students’ goal orientations
Learning goals Performance approach goals Performance avoidance goals
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
Teachers’ goal orientations (Level 2)
Learning goals - - –0.11* (0.04) –0.03 (0.03) –0.07+ (0.05) –0.01 (0.02)
Performance approach goals 0.20* (0.04) 0.10* (0.03) - - - -
Performance avoidance goals - - 0.09* (0.04) 0.02 (0.03) - -
Work avoidance goals –0.10* (0.06) –0.01 (0.03) - - - -
Students’ perceptions of classroom goal structures
Between teacher level (Level 2)
Mastery goal structure 0.32* (0.03) 0.10* (0.03) –0.00 (0.02)
Performance approach goal structure 0.07 (0.08) 0.14* (0.06) –0.01 (0.07)
Performance avoidance goal structure 0.04 (0.08) 0.07 (0.06) 0.28* (0.08)
Within teacher level (Level 1)
Mastery goal structure 0.45* (0.04) 0.16* (0.04) –0.10* (0.03)
Performance approach goal structure 0.17* (0.04) 0.47* (0.05) 0.19* (0.07)
Performance avoidance goal structure –0.11* (0.05) 0.08+ (0.05) 0.47* (0.06)
2
Between
R
2
.29 .96 .32 .86 .03 .99
Within
R .00 .23 .00 .32 .00 .35
Note: All variables were z-standardized prior to analyses. Predictors on level 2 were grand-mean centered and predictors on level 1 were group-mean centered. Presented
are regression coefficients  and standard errors (in parentheses). *p < .05. +p < .10.
tures they realized in their classrooms.
Estimating Model 1 revealed results which were, overall,
quite similar to those for classroom goal structures. Students’
learning goals were positively predicted by teachers’ perfor-
mance approach goals and negatively predicted by teachers’
work avoidance goals. Students’ performance approach goals
were positively predicted by teachers’ performance avoidance
goals and negatively predicted by teachers’ learning goals.
However, for students’ performance avoidance goals only one
effect on the 10%-level of significance was observed: They
were negatively predicted by teachers’ learning goals (p = .08).
Inserting students’ perceptions of classroom goal structures
led to an almost total explanation of between-teacher differ-
ences in students’ achievement goals. The pattern of associa-
tions on the between-teacher and within-teacher levels was,
generally speaking, in accordance with findings of prior re-
search (Meece et al., 2006). Two-level mediation testing (Krull
& MacKinnon, 2001) confirmed that the effects of teachers’
performance approach and work avoidance goals on students’
learning goals were (partly) mediated by classroom mastery
goal structure (|z| > 2.08; p < .05). Moreover, mediation testing
revealed, at the 10%-level of significance, that the effects of
learning and performance avoidance goals of teachers on per-
formance approach goals of students were mediated by class-
room performance approach goal structure (|z| > 1.39; p < .08).
Finally, the negative association between teachers’ learning
goals and students’ performance avoidance goals was mediated
by classroom performance avoidance goal structure (z = 1.74; p
< .05).
Discussion
Overall, the present results support the presumption that
teachers’ instructional practices depend on their goal orienta-
tions (Hypothesis 1). We were able to resolve important limita-
tions of the few prior studies on this topic (Butler & Shibaz,
2008; Retelsdorf et al., 2010) through operationalizing teach-
ers’ instructional practices by using students’ perceptions of the
broadly conceptualized and theoretically well-grounded dimen-
sions of classroom goal structures (Meece et al., 2006); there-
fore, a unique contribution to the research literature on teacher
motivation could be provided.
As expected, and in line with prior results based on teacher
self-reports to measure instructional practice (Retelsdorf et al.,
2010), teachers with a strong performance avoidance goal ori-
entation realized strong classroom performance approach and
avoidance goal structures. This correspondence may be an ef-
fect of the generalization of the motivational system which is
associated with teachers’ performance goals to standards in
evaluating student achievement, the processing of student-re-
lated information and inferences regarding students’ abilities. In
addition, these correspondent associations are also in line with
580

M. DRESEL ET AL.
the functionality hypothesis: The use of performance-oriented
instructional practices can be an instrument for teachers who
pursue the goal of avoiding having others recognize own poor
teaching competences, for example, when they punish and
thwart student errors in order to avoid deeper topic discussion
and prohibit inferences regarding low teaching quality. An in-
depth analysis of the addressee-specific performance avoidance
goals further enlightened the positive effects of teachers’ per-
formance avoidance goals on perceived classroom performance
goal structures. We observed consistent effects for performance
avoidance goals, with which teachers aim to avoid appearing
incompetent towards their students and the school principal.
This pattern of results points to a possible combination of dif-
ferent mechanisms. While the effect of performance avoidance
goals that teachers address to their students may be a result of
both a generalization of motivational systems and appraisals of
the functionality for goal attainment, the effect of performance
avoidance goals teachers address to their principals can hardly
be interpreted in terms of generalization. It can be better inter-
preted in terms of the functionality of good or, at least, not bad
student performances which serves the goal to not appearing
incompetent to the principal.
In contrast to prior results, we found, no support for the as-
sumption that teachers’ learning goal orientation is, in general,
positively associated with the corresponding classroom mastery
goal structure (instead, moderation was observed in this context
—we will discuss this later). To explain this contradiction be-
tween previous findings and the present results, one can suspect
that a common method bias (Retelsdorf et al., 2010) or focusing
only a specific aspect of mastery practices (Butler & Shibaz,
2008) in prior research, may have led to an overestimation of
the association.
In accordance with our predictions we observed a series of
associations between non-correspondent goal orientations and
classroom goal structure components which were only partly
detected in prior research. As expected, teachers’ learning goal
orientations negatively predicted students’ perceptions of both a
classroom performance approach and a classroom performance
avoidance goal structure. These effects, which are similar to the
effects found by Butler and Shibaz (2008) for perceived teacher
inhibition of question-asking and help-seeking, can be inter-
preted as a result of the small potential of performance-oriented
practices to provide teachers with information regarding the
effectiveness of their own instructional practices and, therefore,
to expand teachers’ competences. This functionality interpreta-
tion is strengthened by the result that the effect at hand was
only associated with learning goals directed towards the expan-
sion of pedagogical and pedagogical-content knowledge, but
not with learning goals directed towards the expansion of con-
tent knowledge (Shulman, 1986), since it can be assumed that a
low functionality of performance-oriented practices is given,
especially for the two former competence facets. Moreover we
observed, as expected, a negative effect of teachers’ work
avoidance goals on classroom mastery goal structure, which
can be interpreted against the understanding that mastery-ori-
ented practices are usually demanding in terms of the effort
required for their preparation and execution (rf. Retelsdorf et al.,
2010). Finally, we found evidence that teachers’ performance
approach goals have a positive effect on classroom mastery
goal structures. In prior research the performance approach
goals of teachers were often unrelated to their experiences and
behaviours (e.g., Butler & Shibaz, 2008; Retelsdorf et al., 2010).
Under a functionality perspective we predicted such a relation-
ship, nevertheless declining to make a prediction regarding its
direction. The positive effect identified is plausible when one
takes into account that teachers frequently define teaching suc-
cess in terms of realizing strong instructional contexts to
achieve competence development and mastery for all students.
Under this definition of teaching success, the degree to which
teachers realize a classroom mastery goal structure can actually
be interpreted as an indicator of teacher performance. Therefore,
realizing a classroom mastery goal structure should be seen as
functional for the attainment of performance goals. Under this
view, the positive effect of teachers’ performance approach
goals (which contradicts, in part, the results of Retelsdorf et al.,
2010) is in accordance with the positive achievement effects of
performance approach goals reported in the literature for stu-
dents (Huang, 2012). In-depth analyses revealed that this effect
is exclusively associated with teachers’ self-addressed per-
formance approach goals, i.e., goals with which they aim to
excel in comparison to other teachers, but do not specifically
aim to appear competent towards significant others. This is in
accordance with findings of Ziegler et al. (2008) for students,
indicating that self-addressed performance goals are associated
with actual motivation and achievement more positively than
others-addressed performance goals.
Overall, predicting perceived classroom goal structures from
teachers’ goal orientations without accounting for potential
moderators led to relatively small proportions of explained
criterion variance. Nevertheless, these proportions were in the
range found in prior research (Butler & Shibaz, 2008; Retels-
dorf et al., 2010).
As predicted only from a functionality perspective, we ob-
served a series of moderator effects associated with aspects of
the belief systems of teachers (Hypothesis 2). The observation
of a small positive association between teachers’ learning goals
and a perceived mastery goal structure when teachers hold an
incremental theory regarding student abilities, and a strong
negative association when teachers hold an entity theory, could
be interpreted in terms of the varying functionality of mas-
tery-oriented instructional practices for the attainment of teach-
ers’ learning goals associated with different implicit theories. If
they hold an incremental view, teachers should see teaching
competences regarding the development of all students’ abili-
ties as most relevant. On the contrary, if they hold an entity
view, they should see mastery-oriented strategies as less appro-
priate. Moreover, the predicted positive effects of work avoid-
ance goals on classroom performance goal structures were ob-
served only for teachers with an entity view of their students’
abilities. Obviously, the instrumentality of performance-ori-
ented practices for the aim of spending as little effort as possi-
ble in practicing the teacher profession is perceived and/or ac-
cepted to a lesser degree by teachers when they view the abili-
ties of their students as more malleable and, therefore, may
perceive a stronger responsibility for their students’ compe-
tence development. Finally, interaction effects between teach-
ers’ performance avoidance goals and their self-efficacy beliefs
were observed. The already discussed positive main effects of
performance avoidance goals on perceived classroom perform-
ance goal structures were especially strong in the case of weak
self-efficacy beliefs, and were absent in the case of strong
self-efficacy beliefs. We interpret these moderator effects as an
effect of the functionality of performance-oriented practices
that varies with varying self-efficacy beliefs, because different

M. DRESEL ET AL.
levels of self-efficacy are associated with different degrees of
risk-taking. More specifically, we assume that teachers with
both perceptions of weak teaching competences, as well as a
strong focus on avoiding the demonstration of these weak
competences, tend to see performance-oriented instructional
practices as a relatively risk-free way to protect themselves
against inferences by others regarding their own weak compe-
tences.
Accounting for moderator effects resulted in a remarkable
increase in the proportions of explained between-teacher vari-
ance in students’ perceptions of classroom goal structures. This
underpins our assumption that effects of teacher goal orienta-
tions are frequently dependent on the beliefs of teachers and
salient standards for teachers, and challenge theorists to con-
cisely model the conditions under which certain goal orienta-
tions lead to certain instructional practices which lead, in turn,
to certain qualities of student motivation and learning. It has,
nevertheless, to be mentioned that the present research focused
on only two potential moderators and other moderators may
exist (e.g., definition of teaching success and incentive policies
in the organizational/school context of teachers).
As a side result we could demonstrate, for the first time, that
teachers use more mastery oriented practices when they hold an
incremental view of student abilities (see Leroy et al., 2008).
With regard to the associations between teacher goals and
student motivation we showed, in line with our expectations,
that the impact teachers’ goal orientations have on students’
goal orientations is similar to the impact they have on class-
room goal structures. This impact was, to the largest extent,
mediated through instructional practices in terms of the goal
structures the teachers realize in their classrooms (Hypothesis
3). The present work demonstrated, for the first time, the effects
of teacher motivation on student motivation within the theo-
retical framework of achievement goal theory in a narrow sense.
The direct (i.e., through classroom goal structures only partially
mediated) effect of teachers’ performance approach goals on
students’ learning goals may be a result of associations with the
use of certain specific mastery-oriented instructional practices
which are not examined in, or associated with, the concept and
measure of perceived classroom goal structure used in the pre-
sent work (Midgley et al., 2000). In general, we appraise the
detailed analyses of associations between teacher goal orienta-
tions, specific dimensions of their instructional practices in
relation to their realization of certain classroom goal structures
(understood as a macroscopic or crystallized indicator of in-
structional practice), and student motivation as an important
task of future research.
Overall, the present results strongly support the functionality
hypothesis substantiated in this paper, i.e., the theoretical no-
tion that effects of teachers’ goal orientations on their instruct-
tional behaviour should be understood in terms of the function-
ality or instrumentality of the specific behaviour for the attain-
ment of their personal goals. This is supported by a series of
significant associations between non-correspondent goal orien-
tations and classroom goal structure components, and a series
of significant moderator effects according to which the strength
and the directions of associations between teachers’ goal orien-
tations and classroom goal structures are dependent on the be-
lief systems teachers hold. Both non-correspondent effects and
moderator effects are not in accordance with the generalization
hypothesis. As we argued, the functionality mechanism can be
understood as being more general than the mechanism of gen-
eralizing the motivational system implied by certain goal ori-
entations. The correspondent associations predicted from an
assumed generalization of motivational systems (i.e., positive
associations of learning and performance goals with classroom
mastery and performance goal structures, respectively) can also
be explained through the functionality of the respective instruc-
tional practices for attaining the corresponding personal goal.
Limitations and Prospects for Future Research
Although significant limitations over prior studies could be
resolved in the present study, namely the use of teacher self-
reports, the narrow focus on specific aspects of instructional
practice, the neglect of potential moderator effects, as well as
specific facets of professional competences to which learning
goals could be directed and specific addressees to which per-
formance goals of teachers could be directed, some limitations
do remain. Here, the relatively small sample on the teacher
level has to be mentioned. This could have led to an oversight
of (small) effects of teacher goal orientations. However, this
does not place into question the identified effects. Their gener-
alizability (at least for the population of mathematics teachers
in secondary schools) is safeguarded through a relatively di-
verse sample of teachers and students from different contexts.
Nevertheless, future research should be conducted in different
school subjects and grade levels using larger samples on the
teacher level. Additionally, the cross-sectional design of the
present study has to be mentioned—in that causal inferences in
a narrow sense are not justified. Indeed, the causal direction
opposed to the causal direction that we theoretically assumed
may also be (additionally) plausible, e.g., that teachers adapt
their goal orientations to student characteristics. Disentangling
potential recursive associations is a relevant and challenging
task for future research. Nevertheless, for two reasons, the
theoretically assumed causal direction interpreting the associa-
tions as effects of teachers’ goal orientations is more likely:
Firstly, because teacher goal orientations were measured gener-
ally without reference to the specific Mathematics classroom in
which students’ perceptions of instructional practices and goal
orientations were assessed. Secondly, because perceived class-
room goal structures would not be expected to function as (full)
mediators in the case of bottom-up effects of student character-
istics on teachers’ goal orientations.
Conclusion
Despite these limitations, it could be concluded that the as-
sumption that teachers’ goal orientations affect their instruc-
tional practices also holds true when conceptualizing instruc-
tional practices in a broad and theory-driven manner (classroom
goal structures) and when measuring them using student per-
ceptions, which are more advisable in order to rule out potential
biases of teacher self-reports. The present results provide evi-
dence regarding the important, but widely unaddressed, ques-
tion regarding the determinants of perceived classroom goal
structures, which prevailed within the framework of achieve-
ment goal theory to describe differences between classrooms
and proved to have important consequences in terms of student
motivation, learning behaviour and achievement (Meece et al.,
2006). It could be concluded that the effects of teachers’ goal
orientations on their instructional practices also spread over in
effects on student motivation (i.e., their goal orientations).
582

M. DRESEL ET AL.
Moreover, it could be concluded that the effects of teachers’
goal orientations on their instructional practices are, in part,
moderated by teacher beliefs. With respect to the underlying
mechanisms it could be concluded that the effects of goal ori-
entations of teachers are based, to a vast degree, on the func-
tionality of certain instructional practices for the attainment of
teachers’ goals, whereas the assumption that a generalization of
the motivational systems that goal orientations imply is respon-
sible, at best, for a small proportion of the effects of teachers’
goal orientations on their instructional practices and their stu-
dents’ motivation.
Acknowledgements
The study presented in this paper was funded by a grant from
the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research to
Markus Dresel (01 HJ 0902) and Oliver Dickhäuser (01 HJ
0901).
REFERENCES
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation.
Journal of Educational Psycholo gy, 84, 261-271.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261
Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology:
Structure, process, and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 338-375.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.120.3.338
Butler, R. (2007). Teachers’ achievement goal orientation and associa-
tion with teachers’ help-seeking: Examination of a novel approach to
teacher motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 241-252.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.241
Butler, R., & Shibaz, L. (2008). Achievement goals for teaching as
predictors of students’ perceptions of instructional practices and stu-
dents’ help seeking and cheating. Learning and Instruction, 18, 453-
467. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.004
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied mul-
tiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd
ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dickhäuser, O., Butler, R., & Tönjes, B. (2007). That just shows I can’t
do it: Goal orientation and attitudes concerning help among pre-
service teachers. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und
Pädagogische Psychologie, 39, 120-126.
doi:10.1026/0049-8637.39.3.120
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning.
American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to
motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their
role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives.
Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267-285. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1
Dweck, C. S., & Molden, D. C. (2005). Self-theories: Their impact on
competence motivation and acquisition. In A. J. Elliot & C. S.
Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 122-
140). New York: Guilford Press.
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achieve-
ment goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169-189.
doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3
Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal con-
struct. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence
and motivation (pp. 52-72). New York: Guildford.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal
framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501-
519. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501
Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation
and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
5-12. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.5
Fasching, M. S., Dresel, M., Dickhäuser, O., & Nitsche, S. (2011). Goal
orientations of teacher trainees: Longitudinal analysis of magnitude,
change and relevance. Journal of Educational Research Online, 2, 9-
33.
Huang, C. (2012). Discriminant and criterion-related validity of
achievement goals in predicting academic achievement: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 48-73.
doi:10.1037/a0026223
Kaplan, A., Gheen, M., & Midgley, C. (2002). Classroom goal structure
and student disruptive behaviour. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 72, 191-211. doi:10.1348/000709902158847
Kaplan, A., Middleton, M. J., Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2002).
Achievement goals and goal structures. In C. Midgley (Ed.), Goals,
goals structures, and patterns of adaptive learning (pp. 21-55).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Krull, J. L., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2001). Multilevel modeling of indi-
vidual and group level mediated effects. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 36, 249-277. doi:10.1207/S15327906MBR3602_06
Leroy, N., Bressoux, P., Sarrazin, P., & Trouilloud, D. (2007). Impact
of teachers’ implicit theories and perceived pressures on the estab-
lishment of an autonomy supportive climate. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 22, 529-545. doi:10.1007/BF03173470
Maehr, M. L., & Zusho, A. (2009). Achievement goal theory: The past,
present, and future. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Hand-
book of motivation at school (pp. 77-104). New York: Routledge.
Malmberg, L.-E. (2008). Student teachers’ achievement goal orienta-
tions during teacher studies: Antecedents, correlates and outcomes.
Learning and Instruction, 18, 438-452.
doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.003
Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom
goal structure, student motivation, and academic achievement. An-
nual Review of Psychology, 57, 487-503.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070258
Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E. M., Anderman,
L. H., Freeman, K. E., Urdan, T. et al. (2000). Manual for the Pat-
terns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS). Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan.
Moller, A. C., & Elliot, A. J. (2006). The 2 × 2 achievement goal
framework: An overview of empirical research. In A. Mittel (Ed.),
Focus on educational psychology (pp. 307-326). New York: Nova
Science.
Munger, G. F., & Loyd, B. H. (1988). The use of multiple matrix sam-
pling for survey research. The Journal of Experimental Education, 56,
187-191.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability,
subjective experience, task choice and performance. Psychological
Review, 941, 328-346. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.328
Nitsche, S., Dickhäuser, O., Fasching, M. S., & Dresel, M. (2011).
Rethinking teachers’ goal orientations: Conceptual and method-
ological enhancements. Learning and Instruction, 21, 574-586.
doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.12.001
Papaioannou, A., & Christodoulidis, T. (2007). A measure of teachers’
achievement goals. Educationa l Psychology, 27, 349-361.
doi:10.1080/01443410601104148
Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., Ryan, A. M., Edelin, K. C., & Midgley,
C. (2001). Teachers’ communication of goal orientations in four
fifth-grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 35-58.
doi:10.1086/499692
Peugh, J. L., & Enders, C. K. (2004). Missing data in educational re-
search. Review of Educational Research, 74, 525-556.
doi:10.3102/00346543074004525
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 92, 544-555.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.3.544
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., & Congdon, R. (2004). HLM 6 for
Windows (Computer software). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software
International.
Retelsdorf, J., Butler, R., Streblow, L., & Schiefele, U. (2010). Teach-
ers’ goal orientations for teaching: Associations with instructional

M. DRESEL ET AL.
584
practices, interest in teaching, and burnout. Learning and Instruction,
20, 34-43. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.01.001
Schwarzer, R., & Hallum, S. (2008). Perceived teacher self-efficacy as
a predictor of job stress and burnout: Mediation analyses. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 57, 152-171.
doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00359.x
Schwinger, M., & Stiensmeier-Pelster, J. (2011). Performance-approach
and performance-avoidance classroom goals and the adoption of
personal achievement goals. British Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 81, 680-699. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2010.02012.x
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in
teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.
doi:10.3102/0013189X015002004
Smits, N., & Vorst, H. C. M. (2007). Reducing the length of question-
naires through structurally incomplete designs: An illustration.
Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 25-34.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2006.12.005
Spinath, B., Stiensmeier-Pelster, J., Schöne, C., & Dickhäuser, O.
(2002). Scales to assess learning and achievement motivation.
Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Tönjes, B., Dickhäuser, O., & Kröner, S. (2008). Goal orientation and
perceived lack of achievement in teachers. Zeitschrift für Päda-
gogische Psychologie, 22, 151-160.
doi:10.1024/1010-0652.22.2.151
Turner, J. C., Midgley, C., Meyer, D. K., Gheen, M., Anderman, E. M.,
Kang, Y., & Patrick, H. (2002). The classroom environment and stu-
dents’ reports of avoidance strategies in mathematics: A multi-
method study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 88-106.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.88
Wolters, C. A., & Daugherty, S. G. (2007). Goal structures and teach-
ers’ sense of efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99,
181-193. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.181
Woolfolk-Hoy, A., Hoy, W. K., & Davis, H. A. (2009). Teachers’
self-efficacy beliefs. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Hand-
book of motivation at school (pp. 627-653). New York: Routledge.
Ziegler, A., Dresel, M., & Stoeger, H. (2008). Addressees of perfor-
mance goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 643-654.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.643