2. Morgan and Kingston (2010) Promoting a mastery motivational climate in a higher education sports
class
In school physical education (PE) and youth sport settings, adaptive learning and
motivational patterns; for example, a positive attitude towards the activity, feelings of
satisfaction, high perceptions of ability, the choice of challenging tasks, high intrinsic
motivation, and placing a high value on effort and the process of learning; have been
consistently associated with perceptions of a mastery climate (e.g., Carpenter & Morgan,
1999; Goudas & Biddle, 1994; Treasure, 1997). In contrast, a perceived ego climate has
been linked to less adaptive cognitive and affective responses, such as boredom, beliefs that
ability rather than effort leads to success, a lack of enjoyment, and a negative attitude toward
the subject matter (e.g., Carpenter & Morgan, 1999; Ommundsen & Roberts, 1999;
Treasure, 1997).
Epstein (1989) identified the task, authority, recognition, grouping, evaluation, and time
structures (TARGET) as influential in determining motivation in school and home
environments. Later, Ames (1992a) adopted the TARGET acronym to encapsulate the
structures that foster a mastery motivational climate in achievement situations.
According to Ames, to foster a mastery teaching environment the task structure should
involve: (a) students in setting their own personal goals focused on self-referenced
improvement, (b) multiple activities in order to reduce the opportunity for normative
comparisons of ability, and (c) tasks which are differentiated to optimally challenge all
students. The authority structure should encourage students to be involved in decision
making and leadership roles. Recognition and evaluation from the teacher should be given
privately and be individually based on effort and progress; further students should be
involved in self-evaluation against personal goals. Students should be grouped into small
mixed ability and co-operative groups and be given the opportunity to change groups both
within and between sessions. Finally, the time structure should allow flexible time for
improvement and maximise time to practice and learn.
In contrast, an ego climate would emphasise uni-dimensional competitive tasks, teacher
authority, normatively based public recognition and evaluation, homogenous ability groups,
and time to practice would be inflexible (see Table 1). The TARGET guidelines were written
for school classroom lessons and have been applied to the youth sport and PE settings
(Ames, 1992c). Some of these structures may not always be applicable to settings beyond
these settings (e.g., Higher Education) because, for example, of the constraints of the
learning environment with regards to the grouping and learning outcomes.
TARGET behaviour Mastery climate Ego climate
Task Self-referenced goals, Comparative goals,
multi-dimensional, varied & uni-dimensional &
differentiated undifferentiated
Authority Participants given leadership roles Teacher makes all the
& involved in decision making decisions
Recognition Private recognition of improvement, Public recognition of
effort and accomplishments normative ability and
comparative performances
Grouping Small mixed ability & co-operative Ability groups
groups Whole class activities
Evaluation Self-referenced. Private Normative & public
consultations with teacher based on
improvement & effort
Time Flexible time for task completion Inflexible time for task
and maximum time to learn completion
Table 1: TARGET behaviours that influence motivational climate (Epstein, 1989; Ames,
1992b)
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 9(1), 73 – 84 74
3. Morgan and Kingston (2010) Promoting a mastery motivational climate in a higher education sports
class
Intervention studies manipulating the TARGET structures to create a mastery focused
teaching environment (Digelidis, Papaioannou, Laparidis, & Christodoulidis., 2004; Morgan &
Carpenter, 2002; Solmon, 1996; Treasure, 1993) have described the enhancement of
students’ motivation and learning in PE settings. Specifically, students’ tended to be more
task oriented and less ego oriented; had higher levels of perceived competence, satisfaction
and enjoyment; were less bored; preferred to engage in more challenging tasks; and
believed success was the result of effort. In contrast, when the TARGET structures were
more ego-involving, students’ tended to be more ego oriented; had lower levels of perceived
ability, satisfaction and enjoyment; were less interested in achievement tasks; and believed
success was the result of ability and deception.
Taking this research further, Morgan, Sproule, Weigand and Carpenter (2005) used the
Behavioural Evaluation Strategies and Taxonomies (BEST) software (Sharpe & Koperwas,
1999) to create a computer-based observational measure of the TARGET structures in PE
for students aged 11-14. This measure allows researchers to film practical sessions and
code the teacher’s behaviours as mastery, ego or neutral, based on the TARGET concept.
Furthermore, the computer software allows practitioners to self-evaluate teaching behaviours
against Ames’ (1992a) guidelines for fostering a mastery climate.
Based on self-observation and analysis of filmed lessons, using the behavioural TARGET
measure (Morgan et al., 2005), Morgan and Kingston (2008) developed a mastery
intervention programme for PE teachers of 13-14 year old students. There were five stages
to the intervention programme with each of the PE teachers. In Stage 1 the teachers were
filmed adopting their typical teaching behaviours and surveys were administered to measure
students’ perceptions of the motivational climate and their cognitive and affective responses.
Stage 2 involved an individual introduction to the TARGET behaviours (Ames, 1992a), which
included an explanation of the different TARGET structures followed by practical examples
from PE lessons and practice at coding the behaviours as mastery, performance or neither.
In Stage 3 the teachers coded their own filmed lessons and the lead researcher conducted a
separate analysis using Morgan et al.’s (2005) measure. In Stage 4 the lead researcher
discussed the teaching behaviours displayed in the filmed lessons with each individual
teacher and the teachers then re-planned their original filmed lesson to be more mastery-
involving. Finally, in Stage 5, they were re-filmed whilst following their new mastery focused
lesson plan and pupils completed a post-intervention survey.
Results revealed that the mastery intervention programme was successful in fostering more
mastery involving teaching behaviours and higher perceptions of mastery involving TARGET
behaviours. Statistical analysis revealed that the more disaffected pupils significantly
improved their motivational responses whereas the more highly motivated pupils did not.
However, a limitation was that qualitative methods were not used in order to explore the
students learning experiences in more depth.
The purpose of the present study was to further extend this line of research into higher
education (HE) and to evaluate the effects of a mastery intervention programme on the
lecturing behaviours that influence the motivational climate in a practical sports class.
Additionally, qualitative analysis was used to gain a greater depth of understanding about the
students’ learning experiences in a mastery condition than previous research of this nature.
Method
Participants
Two HE lecturers were randomly assigned to an intervention group (1 male, aged 35; group
n = 16: 15 male, 1 female) and a control group (1 female, aged 25: group n = 18: 12 male, 6
female). Participants provided voluntary informed consent to take part in the study and were
participating in a 12 week, Level 2 undergraduate practical soccer module. Ethical approval
for all procedures was gained from the researchers’ university ethics committee.
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 9(1), 73 – 84 75
4. Morgan and Kingston (2010) Promoting a mastery motivational climate in a higher education sports
class
Observational measure
Analysis of the filmed sessions was conducted using Morgan et al.’s (2005) observational
measure of TARGET (see Table 2). The measure permits immediate analysis of data
gathered through observations of teaching from video and audio recording of lessons.
Validity was established by four researchers, experienced in teacher education and
motivational climate research, who met and agreed upon the teaching behaviours that
matched with the different TARGET structures. Acceptable intra- and inter-reliability to ≥ 0.80
(Bakeman & Gottman, 1986) was established during the development of the measure
(Morgan et al., 2005).
Mastery Neutral Ego
Task 0 = Teacher set self- 3 = No clear goals 2 = Competitive goal
referenced goal or
cooperative group- 4 = Warm up/cool down
referenced goal
1 = Students set own self-
referenced goal or
cooperative group-
referenced goal
5 = Multi-dimensional/ 6 = Uni-dimensional/
different tasks same task
7 = Differentiated/suitably 8 = Undifferentiated/
challenging for all not suitably challenging
for all
Authority 9 = Pupils involved in 10 = Teacher makes all
(Duration- leadership roles and / or the decisions
toggle) decision making
Recognition P = Recognition/evaluation E = General W = Recognition/
& Evaluation focused on individual effort, assessment/feedback evaluation focused on
improvement/progress and (to no one in particular) individual effort,
accomplishment in private improvement/progress
R = Focus on luck and accomplishment in
Q = Evaluation that allows Public
equal opportunity for
recognition and rewards T = Recognition/
evaluation focused on
Y = Self- Evaluate against normative comparisons
a set goal
Grouping S= Small heterogeneous/ A = Homogeneous/
(Duration- mixed ability groups ability groups
toggle)
G = Change of groups D = Large group/whole
class
Timing Z = Flexible time to C = Inactive time X = Inflexible time to
(Duration- practice, plan or evaluate practice, plan or
toggle) evaluate
Table 2: TARGET coding for the analysis of teaching behaviours that influence
motivational climate (Morgan et al., 2005)
Procedures
There were five stages to the intervention programme, as identified in Figure 1. In Stage 1
both HE lecturers were filmed teaching in their typical way. Both lecturers were familiar with
being filmed during practical sessions and were therefore not distracted by the camera.
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 9(1), 73 – 84 76
5. Morgan and Kingston (2010) Promoting a mastery motivational climate in a higher education sports
class
Stage 2 of the intervention involved the lead researcher educating the intervention group
lecturer with regards to the TARGET teaching behaviours (Ames, 1992a) associated with
mastery and ego motivational climates (Table 1). This involved a verbal explanation of the
different TARGET structures and practical examples of the TARGET behaviours from video
footage of previously filmed sports teaching sessions. Further 10 minute video clips of
different practical sports teaching episodes were then viewed and the intervention group
lecturer was trained to recognise and code the teaching structures as mastery, performance
or neutral, using the computer based behavioural measure of TARGET (Morgan et al., 2005)
(see Table 2 for the coding categories).
• voluntary informed consent
Stage 1 • teachers filmed while adopting usual
teaching style
• education of intervention group teacher with
Stage 2 regards to recognition and coding of
TARGET behaviours
• lead researcher and intervention group
teacher jointly coding session from Stage 1
Stage 3 to assess TARGET behaviours
• education of intervention group teacher on
modifying teaching behaviours to support a
mastery climate
• both intervention and control teachers (and
groups) filmed
Stage 4 • lead researcher and intervention group
teacher analysed lessons with respect to
TARGET structures
• further education on modifying teaching
behaviours to intervention group teacher
• teachers filmed while adopting usual
teaching style
Stage 5 • lead researcher and intervention group
teacher analysed lessons with respect to
TARGET structures
Figure 1: Diagrammatical representation of the intervention
Stage 3 involved the lead researcher and the intervention group lecturer jointly coding the
teaching session described in Stage 1. Based on this analysis certain teaching behaviours
were identified to enhance the mastery focus of the soccer sessions and suggestions were
made by the lecturer for modifying the teaching behaviours during the next filmed session.
The implementation of Stages 1 to 3 of the intervention with the control group lecturer took
place “weeks after the completion of the module, consistent with the university’s ethical
procedures, and the control group students benefited accordingly in their soccer lectures in
the following academic year.
In Stage 4 both lecturers were filmed for the second time. Following this, the intervention
group lecturer and the lead researcher jointly analysed the TARGET behaviours to identify
any changes in the mastery involving focus of the session, and to set further mastery
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 9(1), 73 – 84 77
6. Morgan and Kingston (2010) Promoting a mastery motivational climate in a higher education sports
class
behavioural objectives for the final filmed session. During this second video analysis phase
the intervention group lecturer took the lead in coding the behaviours and the lead
researcher assisted. The purpose of this was to develop the HE lecturer’s ability to code
independently in the next stage in order to use the software as a means of reflection on
practice.
Stage 5 involved both lecturers being filmed for the third and final time. The intervention
group lecturer and the lead researcher then analysed the teaching behaviours individually to
identify any changes in the mastery involving focus of the third filmed session and met to
discuss their findings.
Group interviews
One week after the completion of the 12 week teaching programme, the lead researcher
conducted four group interviews (two with the intervention group students and two with the
control group students), with four students in each group. In this study, the researcher was
not the lecturer and students were made aware that their responses were totally confidential
and that the lecturer would not get to hear them. The researcher facilitated the discussion
and ensured equal input amongst participants. The interviews were recorded on a digital
voice recorder.
Following an introduction to the purpose of the interview, the participants were asked if they
had noticed any significant changes in the teaching behaviours since the first filmed session.
The researcher then questioned the participants about each of the TARGET structures and
asked them to share their thoughts and feelings about any changes they had perceived in
the lecturers’ behaviours and what impact this had on their learning experience.
Results
Observational and group interview data
This section reports the observational findings combined with the group interview responses
in relation to each of the TARGET structures. Using Morgan et al.’s (2005) TARGET
measure, two researchers simultaneously undertook video analysis of the TARGET (Ames,
1992a) behaviours of both lecturers in their three filmed sessions. One hundred percent
agreement was achieved in assessing the behaviours. This was possible because of the
flexibility of the BEST software (Sharpe & Koperwas, 1999), which permitted the two
researchers to pause the system for discussion until complete and unambiguous agreement
was reached. Discussions were short and decisions were reached quickly and easily due to
the fact that the researchers were experienced at this type of analysis.
For each of the three filmed sessions in both groups, the mean percentage frequency of
mastery, ego and neutral behaviours (as a proportion of all coded behaviours in that
particular TARGET structure) was calculated for the task, recognition and evaluation. The
mean percentage duration of mastery, ego and neutral behaviours (as a proportion of the
total session time) was calculated for authority, grouping and time. Group interviews were
deductively analysed based on Ames’s (1992a) description of the TARGET structures.
The interview responses clearly indicated that there were perceived changes in TARGET
related teacher behaviours by participants in the intervention group, whereas the TARGET
behaviours of the control group lecturer were perceived to be consistent throughout. There
were a number of mastery structures observed and reported by the students in the control
group including the setting of clear learning aims, the questioning and giving of authority to
students, positive and corrective feedback on effort and improvement, and mixed ability
cooperative groups. However, both the behavioural analysis of the TARGET structures (see
Tables 3a, 3b and 3c) and the student interview responses illustrated a higher level of
change in the intervention group lecturer’s behaviours compared to the control group. These
changes in observed behaviours, supported by specific detail from the group interview data,
are reported under the TARGET headings in the following sections.
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 9(1), 73 – 84 78
7. Morgan and Kingston (2010) Promoting a mastery motivational climate in a higher education sports
class
Task goals (M% frequency) Task design Task
(M% frequency) differentiation
(M% frequency)
Group Session St Lec Ego No Warm Multi- Uni- Diff Undiff
Mas Mas set up dim dim
I 1 0 89 11 0 0 0 100 0 100
2 20 80 0 0 0 10 90 60 40
3 0 86 0 14 0 33 67 33 67
C 1 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 31 69
2 0 86 0 0 14 0 100 0 100
3 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 100
Table 3a: Observed TARGET Behaviours
Authority Recognition & Evaluation
(M% duration) (M% frequency)
Group Session Mast Ego Private: Public: Self- Ego General Luck
Effort & Effort & eval
Imp Imp
I 1 30 70 2 46 0 8 43 1
2 62 38 8 58 2 0 26 6
3 82 18 2 60 3 0 32 3
C 1 25 75 4 58 0 0 38 0
2 52 48 2 60 0 0 38 0
3 62 38 4 53 0 0 43 0
Table 3b: Observed TARGET Behaviours
Grouping (M% duration) Time (M% duration)
Group Session Mix ability Ability Whole Flexible Inflexible Inactive
groups groups class
I 1 31 0 69 0 40 60
2 37 0 63 0 64 36
3 63 0 37 58 29 13
C 1 35 0 65 0 44 56
2 26 0 74 0 57 43
3 24 0 76 0 70 30
Table 3c: Observed TARGET Behaviours
Group I = intervention, C = control
Task
There was a 0-20% increase in observed student set mastery goals from filmed session one
to two in the intervention group, but no evidence of students setting their own goals in the
control group. Focus group data supported this finding and highlighted the positive impact of
individual goal setting on student motivation. For example:
He developed goal setting a few weeks into the sessions and then you were
continually reminded throughout the sessions to check your goals. You were
constantly thinking have you achieved your goals and evaluating yourself.
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 9(1), 73 – 84 79
8. Morgan and Kingston (2010) Promoting a mastery motivational climate in a higher education sports
class
There was a strong feeling amongst the groups that this improved intrinsic motivation
because:
It helps you get something out of the session that you want to achieve instead of it
being something that the lecturer wants you to have. If you can relate it to yourself it
keeps you interested.
There was some caution expressed by students regarding requests to set their own goals.
They felt that its value depended on the experience of the participants, as suggested by one
student:
If you’ve been playing for a while you know the sort of goals to set, but if you are a
beginner you need to be told that these are the things you need to know for a
particular skill. You have to be realistic as well, as otherwise your motivation will
decrease if you haven’t achieved them.
Lecturer-set mastery goals, as opposed to competitive goals, were clearly evident in both
groups from the first observed session and this did not change as a result of the intervention.
However, there was also a feeling amongst some group members that competitive goals
were included and an important aspect within sport, especially in team games as articulated
by the following:
He does bring some competition into it because it’s a competitive sport isn’t it. If you
are defending against two attackers then you have to be competitive to try and stop
them getting to the goal. He does include competitive goals but not too much that it
doesn’t fit with the overall goals. I think because we are sports students that
competitiveness is innate.
The setting of multi-dimensional tasks by the lecturer of the intervention group increased
from 0 to 33% of all tasks, from filmed session one to three; these changes were not
observed for the control group. Furthermore, the frequency of task differentiation was more
evident in sessions two and three compared to session one in the intervention group,
whereas in the control group no such changes were evident. Consistent with the
observational findings, interview data revealed perceptions of greater differentiation within
the intervention group sessions as the weeks progressed:
Last week he came around and told us to do something more difficult because we
had the technical ability, while others continued doing something else. So we went
straight into something at say the third level of difficulty, whereas others were still on
the first level.
This increased differentiation combined with personal goal setting of the intervention group
appears to have had a positive effect on engagement and confidence, as evidenced by the
following:
Whereas in the beginning possibly it was only the better players who were having
more of an influence on the game, today a lot more people were getting involved
and were a lot more confident with the ball, which I think comes from focusing on
developing your own skills during the sessions.
Authority
The decision making opportunities and leadership roles increased in both groups as the
module progressed, though the change was more marked in the intervention group. This was
primarily due to the learning outcomes and session content which was planned for the latter
part of the module involving the students in coaching tasks. For the intervention group, this
change in the authority structure was also reflected in the group interviews:
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 9(1), 73 – 84 80
9. Morgan and Kingston (2010) Promoting a mastery motivational climate in a higher education sports
class
He asked us how we would progress a basic four on two onto another level to
challenge the defenders. So we had to think as a group how we could make this
benefit the defenders. In the past weeks he has done that himself but today he
asked us to do it.
The positive effects of student authority was acknowledged and valued in the intervention
group interviews:
There was no power divide the power was amongst the group if you like. He gave a
lot of autonomy to the group and that’s important to enhance your motivation, and
you don’t realise it until you reflect on it.
However, although students generally reflected in a positive manner to being given authority
within sessions, a minority would have preferred it if the lecturer had adopted a more
autocratic approach: “I’d personally rather it if he just did it himself…I think it’s just time”.
Recognition and evaluation
Incidences of private individual feedback were found to increase four-fold from observed
session one to two in the intervention group, but this reverted to baseline levels at session
three. This may be explained by the added focus on this aspect by the researcher during
Stage 3 of the intervention, but less of a focus in Stage 4, resulting in a return to more typical
teaching behaviours in filmed session three. This may be a limitation of the intervention that
needs to be considered in future research of this nature.
Interview data supported the change to more private individual feedback by the intervention
group lecturer in session two. For example, one student commented that:
He comes around well and talks to you individually. He doesn’t stop it and say now
we’ll do this, he just has a quiet word while other groups are still working, which I
think is good.
The wider benefits of such private individual feedback were evident from quotes such as:
I think it’s a bit more personal if he comes up to you privately. He can say well done
in front of everyone without really thinking but if he’s actually come on to you to say
it privately, perhaps it’s a bit more important.
However, the logistical difficulties of providing private individual feedback to a large group
with only one member of staff were also acknowledged: “I get personal individual feedback
sometimes but to give individual feedback to everyone in the group is not practical in this
situation”.
There was a small increase in the frequency of mastery feedback given publicly to individuals
(in situations where others could hear) in the intervention group. Although public feedback is
considered to be more ego-involving (Ames, 1992a), some students felt that “it gives you
confidence if you get a well done in front of other people” and that “it’s more important how
he criticises you, publicly or privately….if I get criticised publicly it can give me a kick up the
ass like, but other people may take it to heart”. Furthermore it was perceived by some that
public feedback is important for the learning of the whole group: “if he does give individual
feedback he makes sure others are around so that they can benefit from the feedback as
well”.
Although there were few instances, self-evaluation increased in the intervention group but
was not evident in the control group. Normatively, comparative feedback was observed in
session one for the intervention group but was eliminated in sessions two and three. It was
not observed in any of the three sessions for the control group. General feedback to the
whole group (neutral) decreased from session one in the intervention group, yet increased
albeit marginally in the control group.
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 9(1), 73 – 84 81
10. Morgan and Kingston (2010) Promoting a mastery motivational climate in a higher education sports
class
Grouping
The duration of the session spent in mixed ability cooperative groups, as opposed to whole
class, increased markedly from session one to three (31% to 69% of the whole time in mixed
ability groups) for the intervention group, whereas in the control group it decreased to a small
degree (35% to 24%). The positive impact of heterogeneous grouping on the lower ability
students’ learning was acknowledged in the interviews: “last week we were all in mixed ability
groups, so people of a lower ability were working with people of a higher level and they seem
to be getting better as a result”. However, there was a feeling from some students that if they
were “put into ability groups then the standard would go up, because there is no doubt that in
mixed ability groups some people do bring the standard down”. Consistent with Ames’
(1992a) recommendations for a mastery climate, there was also variety of groupings within
sessions, illustrated by the following quote: “you tend to change groups throughout the
session so you end up in a different group to the one you started in”.
There was an interesting conflict identified between task differentiation, which is a mastery
structure (Ames, 1992a), and mixed ability grouping which, according to some students,
made it more difficult to differentiate tasks between groups because not all students were of
the same ability level. Therefore, the mixed ability groups tended to work at similar levels,
whereas some students felt that if the groups had been based on ability it would have been
easier for the lecturer to add further challenges to some groups to develop them at their own
level of ability. This was illustrated by one student who felt that mixed ability groups “can
bring the better players down and put added pressure on the weaker players, which they can
take as a challenge or adopt an attitude that they don’t want to play”. This student went on to
suggest that groups of the students’ own choice were the most effective.
Time
Flexible time increased from 0% to 58% of the whole session in the intervention group from
observed session one to three, whereas there was no flexible time evident in the control
group sessions. There was a large decrease in inactive time (when students were not
actively engaged in a learning task but were listening to the teacher) from 60% to 13% of the
total class time in the intervention group over the three observed sessions. The inactive time
also decreased from 56% to 30% in the control group. The increase in intensity of the
sessions and activity time was evident in the intervention group interviews:
I think we have started to work a lot harder over the last few weeks. I remember one of
the first sessions we had we were in four grids and it was really static. It was a cold
morning and everyone was just standing around and didn’t look interested. I think
we’ve learned and these last few weeks everyone has started pretty sharp. They move
now and they want to get involved.
The mastery climate fostered by the intervention group lecturer was encapsulated by one
student in the group interviews when he said, “when I started enjoying the sessions I began
setting my own motivational goals and became more determined at improving”. A further
response clearly identified the increasing levels of intrinsic motivation of the students as a
result of the intervention programme:
I was in the car on the way up and …….. and me were talking about it. Its 9am on a
Friday morning and its tipping down with rain and we thought to ourselves, why are we
doing this? …..and then we said it’s because we actually enjoy it”.
Conclusion
The behavioural analysis of the TARGET structures, supported by the group interviews,
identified a number of positive effects associated with the mastery intervention programme.
Specifically, findings revealed increases in student set mastery goals, greater differentiation
of tasks, more individual feedback on effort and progress, increased mixed ability groupings,
and flexible and active time in sessions. There were also a number of issues identified in
relation to the implementation of Ames (1992a) TARGET structures in a HE environment.
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 9(1), 73 – 84 82
11. Morgan and Kingston (2010) Promoting a mastery motivational climate in a higher education sports
class
Some of these issues included the level of students’ experience required to set effective
learning goals, the need and desire for competitive goals, the level of authority to give
students within sessions, the administering of public versus private feedback, and the conflict
between mixed ability groups and differentiation of tasks for optimal challenge. Future
research will need to consider these structures in more detail in order to identify a model of
best practice in HE. The broader implications of this study could also be evaluated by
focusing on other subject areas and the interrelationship of the TARGET structures. Such
pedagogical research could potentially shape future teaching and learning strategies, and
assist HE lecturers in creating more effective learning environments.
References
Ames, C. (1984). Competitive, cooperative, and individualistic goal structures: A motivational analysis.
In R. E. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Student motivation (pp.177-
199). New York: Academic Press.
Ames, C. (1992a). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In J. L. Meece & D. H.
Schunck (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327-348). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ames, C. (1992b). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84, 261-271. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261
Ames, C. (1992c). Achievement goals, motivational climate, and motivational processes. In G. C.
Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in sport and exercise (pp.161-176). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and
motivational processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.80.3.260
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1986). Observing instruction: An introduction to sequential analysis.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Carpenter, P. J., & Morgan, K. (1999). Motivational climate, personal goal perspectives, and cognitive
and affective responses in physical education classes. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 4,
31-44.
Digelidis, N., Papaioannou, A., Laparidis, K., & Christodoulidis, T. (2004). A one year intervention in 7th
grade physical education classes aiming to change motivational climate and attitudes towards
exercise. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 195-210. doi:10.1016/S1469-0292(02)00002-X
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
Epstein, J. (1989). Family structures and student motivation: A developmental perspective. In C. Ames
& R. Ames (Eds.) Research on motivation in education: Goals and cognitions (pp. 259-295). New
York: Academic Press.
Goudas, M., & Biddle, S. (1994). Perceived motivational climate and intrinsic motivation in school
physical education classes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 2, 241-250.
doi:10.1007/BF03172783
Morgan, K., & Carpenter, P. (2002). Effects of manipulating the motivational climate in physical
education lessons. European Physical Education Review, 8, 207-229.
doi:10.1177/1356336X020083003
Morgan, K., & Kingston, K. (2008). Development of a self-observation mastery intervention programme
for teacher education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 13, 109-129.
doi:10.1080/17408980701345634
Morgan, K., Sproule, J., Weigand, D., & Carpenter, P. (2005). A computer-based observational
assessment of the teaching behaviours the influence motivational climate in physical education.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10, 83-105. doi:10.1080/1740898042000334926
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task
choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.328
Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Ommundsen, Y., & Roberts, G. C. (1999). Effect of motivational climate profiles on motivational
indices in team sport. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 9, 389-397.
doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.1999.tb00261.x
Roberts, G. C. (2001). Advances in motivation in sport and exercise: conceptual constraints and
convergence. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 1-50).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Sharpe, T., & Koperwas, J. (1999). BEST: Behavioral evaluation strategy and taxonomy software.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 9(1), 73 – 84 83
12. Morgan and Kingston (2010) Promoting a mastery motivational climate in a higher education sports
class
Solmon, M. A. (1996). Impact of motivational climate on students’ behaviors and perceptions in a
physical education setting. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 731-738. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.88.4.731
Treasure, D. (1993). A social-cognitive approach to understanding children's achievement behavior,
cognitions, and affect in competitive sport. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign.
Treasure, D. C. (1997). Perceptions of the motivational climate and elementary school children’s
cognitive and affective response. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 19, 278-290.
Treasure, D. (2001). Enhancing young people’s motivation in youth sport: An achievement goal
approach. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.) Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 79-100).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Submitted February 2009. Revised July 2009. Final Version August 2009. Accepted September 2009.
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 9(1), 73 – 84 84
