Assessing Students' Study Strategies and Achievement Goals

108
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment

December 2012, Vol. 12(1)
Assessing Students Study Strategies and Achievement Goals

Carlo Magno
De La Salle University, Manila

Abstract
The present study examined the relationship between achievement goal orientation
(mastery-approach, performance-approach, mastery-avoidance, and performanceavoidance) and the learning and study strategies (information processing, selecting main
ideas, test strategies, anxiety, attitude, motivation, concentration, self-testing, study aids, and
time management). Data were gathered from 260 college students taking basic college
mathematic classes by indicating their goals in the Achievement Goal Questionnaire (Elliot
& McGregor, 2001) and their strategies used in learning and studying using the Learning
and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI, Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). A correlational
analysis between the subscales of the achievement goal orientation and learning and study
strategies was conducted to determine the constructs convergent and divergent validity.
Key results showed that (a) there is a weak to moderate relation within the subscales of
achievement goals, (b) there is a moderately strong relation within the subscales of learning
and study strategies (c) mastery-avoidance goals was unexpectedly positively associated with
all learning and study strategies (d) performance-approach goals showed more positive
association compared to mastery-approach, and (e) selecting main ideas and time
management were both positive consequences of the different achievement goals. Path
analysis from achievement goal factors to each study strategy showed significant parameter
estimates. Convergence was attained from achievement goals to each study strategy.
Keywords: Learning strategies, Achievement goals, Mathematics learning

Introduction
College students have their own distinctive goal orientations when performing
certain tasks. Students goal orientations direct their effort and performance, serving as a
form of motivation to accomplish an academic task successfully. If students focus on
mastery goals in general, they are more concerned on developing their competencies
through task engagement. But if students focus on performance goals in general, they
concentrate on demonstrating their competence relative to others. Also, these general
orientations can be further understood as an approach-oriented or avoidant-oriented type.
An approach-oriented type of goal orientation whether its mastery or performance in
nature is task engaging. On the other hand, an avoidant- oriented is task- avoiding
regardless if they are mastery or performance. These goal-orientations toward an academic
task make an individual use effectively or ineffectively different learning and study strategies
(Somuncuoglu & Yildrim, 1999). Such strategies include how learners process, examine,
and construct information in ways that they are able to prepare and demonstrate
acquisition of knowledge in different areas (Smith, 1995). These learning strategies include
attribution of attitudes, interests, motivation, and discipline in achieving academic success.
Learning strategies also makes students self-regulate and control their whole learning
2012 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734
109
process through time management, concentration or attention to the time and task at hand,
and self-assessment on how they meet their learning demand and making use of their study
supports (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). If there are differences in the focus on goals, there
must be a pattern on how they correlate with learning strategies. For example, of students
goal on a task is developing competency (mastery approach), the learning strategies are
carried out effectively.
Studies on educational psychology have looked between the predicted relationship
between achievement goals and learning and study strategies show that through the effective
use of achievement goals they are able to comment and assert a great deal of use of higher
order learning and study strategies (McMillan, 1987; Pascarella, 1989; Somuncuoglu
&Yildirim, 1999; Elliot, McGregor & Gable, 1999; Pintrich, 2000; Walker, 2003).
However, the direction of the relationship between specific achievement goals and learning
strategies needs to be studied especially in domain-specific courses such as mathematics.
Somuncouglu and Yildrim (1999) thought that goal orientations and study strategies have
an important effect if it is based on a specific context or subject.
There is a need to study the relationship of achievement goals and learning and
study strategies because adapting to a specific or to a multiple achievement goal will have an
effect on a students study strategies whether the adoption of goals depicts a positive or a
negative effect on a student. The study is focused on subject specific context which is the
math subject.
For the past three decades, various studies have shown that there were distinctive
characteristics of mastery goal orientation and the performance goal orientation (Was,
2006; Zweig & Webster. 2004; Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999). Recently, there are
several researches that provide evidences for further distinction of achievement goals.
Students adapting a mastery approach on their goals enhance the use of higher order
learning strategies and this results in better outcome such as performance (Was, 2006).
The present study sought to test the relationship of specific achievement goals
(mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, and performanceavoidance) to different learning and study strategies (information processing, selecting main
ideas, test strategies, anxiety, attitude, motivation, concentration, self-testing, study aids and
time management) in the context of mathematics learning. This link between the two
constructs when established provides information on the convergent and divergent validity
of the two scales.
Achievement Goal Orientation
Ames (1992) defined goal orientation or achievement goals as an integrated pattern
of beliefs, attributions, and affect that produces the intentions of behavior and is
represented by different ways of approaching, engaging in, and responding to achievement
type of activities. The theories about goal orientation or achievement goals were mostly
western and focused on the purpose of students achievement behavior and propose that
achievement goals have performance standards which students consider whenever they
evaluate their own performance in school. Theories on achievement goals were first
dichotomous and presumes that student achievement goals can be separated into mastery
goals, which involves task- mastery orientation, intrinsic motivation, and internal regulation
and performance goals, which involves ego-social orientation, extrinsic motivation and
110
external regulation (Nicholls, 1984; Ames & Archer, 1988, Meece, Hoyle, & Blumenfeld,
1988, Nolen & Haladyna, 1990; cited in Somuncuoglu & Yildirim, 1999; Ames, 1992; Cho
1992; cited in Somuncuoglu & Yildirim, 1999; Harackiewicz & Elliot, 1993; Meece and
Holt, 1993; Maehr, 1994; cited in Was, 2006). The theory also focuses on a great deal of
research in education due to the impact that achievement goals were hypothesized to have
a great effect on student performance and achievement (Was, 2006). Studies on the two
different achievement goal orientations were described further by approach-avoidance
distinction. The trichotomous framework of achievement goals was conceptualized and
divided performance goals into performance- approach and performance avoidance,
depending on whether the goal is directed at exceeding normative competence or avoiding
normative incompetence (Elliot, 1999; cited in Bernardo 2008).
Elliot and McGregor (2001) presented a new achievement goal framework which
was both a revision of the mastery- performance dichotomy and an extension of the
trichotomous framework. This framework was called the 2 x 2 achievement goal
framework that incorporates the application of approach-avoidance distinction to mastery
goals and so creating mastery-approach and mastery-avoidance goals (Elliot & McGregor,
2001). The first dimension of the 2 x 2 framework has the mastery and performance
orientation that defines success, while the second dimension consists of approach and
avoidant orientations that defines valence (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). When a student
recognizes success as a use of learning and improving skills they are the mastery type of
students. Success is called self- referenced, which individuals usually looks into themselves
and compare his/her performance to previous performances. Performance goals type of
students recognizes their success by being better than another person or by achieving the
things that others cannot achieve. Success is called norm-referenced. Its when they
compare with another person (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). When it comes to valence,
students either view their goal in an approach or avoidant fashion. When a student gets an
approach style, students aimed to be dominant in success. When students avoid failure
these types of students have the avoidant style. In the present study, the researchers will test
the 2x2 achievement goals namely performance-approach, performance-avoidance,
mastery-approach, and mastery-avoidance because researchers wanted to find out more
positive association of these achievement goals to positive learning outcomes such as
learning and study strategies.
On western studies, mastery-approach goals, performance-approach goals,
performance-avoidance goals and mastery-avoidance goals were uniform in their
relationship to achievement and to different of learning strategies across different level of
students (high school or college, students) different learning environments (traditional or
online classrooms), and different learning domains (English or Mathematics) (Rosenhaultz
& Simpson, 1984; Meece, Hoyle, & Blumenfeld, 1988; Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999;
Somuncuoglu & Yildrim, 1999; Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Midgley, et al., 2002; Greene et
al, 2004; Wolters, 2004; Linnenbrink, 2005; Duperyat & Marine, 2005; Watson, 2007).
Mastery-approach goals were good indicators of cognitive and metacognitive learning
strategies, motivation, cognitive engagement (self- regulation) in learning, deep processing
strategies like elaboration and organization, higher persistence and effort during exam
performance, and low levels avoidance and procrastination. While performance-approach
goals were indicators of less use of cognitive strategies, lower level motivation and cognitive
engagement compared to mastery goals, lower level of deeper learning compared to
111
mastery goals, high surface processing strategies, lower persistence and effort compared to
mastery goals. In performance-avoidance goals, it showed indicators of lowest level of use
of cognitive and metacognitive strategies, lowest level of motivation, lower levels of surface
learning strategies compared to performance-approach goals, task disengagement,
disorganization, state test anxiety, worry and emotionality but were bad indicators of deeper
learning strategies, persistence and effort in exam performance. For mastery-avoidance
goals, it showed that it was a positive indicator of disorganization, state test anxiety, worry,
emotionality, procrastination, but still with a higher level of use cognitive and metacognitive
strategies and deep learning strategies, and task engagement.
When achievement goals were tested among Asian students such as Hong Kong
Chinese, Singaporeans, and Filipinos, both mastery and performance-approach goals were
positively related to achievement (Bernardo, 2005; Chan, Lai, Leung, & Moore, 2005; Ee
& Moor, 2004; cited in Bernardo, 2008) and use of deeper strategies (Bernardo, 2004; Ng,
2000; cited in Bernardo, 2008). These studies suggest that there is a positive association
between mastery and performance-approach goals (Bernardo, 2003; Salili, Chiu, & Lai,
2001; Tao & Hong, 2000; cited in Bernardo, 2008). The correlation was explained through
the belief of students that both meeting the personal expectations and expectations of
others could gain social approval which is influenced by culture for Chinese cultures since
that culture values achievement as a moral obligation of fulfilling personal and social
standards (Somuncuoglu &Yildirim, 1999; Tao, & Hong 2000; Chan, & Lai, 2006). These
outcomes could also be explained by Yu and Yangs (1994) assertion that in Asian
societies, individual achievement goals must conform to in-group values so among Asian
students their academic motivation are socially oriented. The study of Yip and Chung
(2005) tested LASSI and showed that there is a significant difference between the study
habits of Hong Kong college students with high and with low academic achievement in
their matriculation but those strategies used during matriculation may not work completely
when they are in the university (Yip & Chung, 2005). In addition, Yip (2007) found out that
motivation and attitude where the two major differences between the use of different
learning and study strategies of low and high achieving Hong Kong university students (Yip,
2007). In general, Asian students employ the use of both mastery-approach and
performance-approach goals related to school performance and achievement through
expression of their social-oriented achievement motivation.
Filipino students share their knowledge and practices in learning because of their
concept of shared identity and humanity (Enriquez, 1992; cited in Bernardo, Zhang &
Callueng, 2002) but there were no huge data in particular available in saying that Filipino
students achievement motivation are individually or socially oriented or both (Bernardo,
2008). Some relevant studies showed that compared to American students who inhibit their
achievement motivations when doing classroom tasks, Filipino students were more
communicating about their achievement motivations to their peers which eventually makes
them self- improving in their classroom performance (Church & Katigbak, 1992). They
develop high performance standards and high intrinsic value of the task when they affiliate
their motivation and enjoyment of to others but this implies differently to western uniform
conceptions about the different achievement goals (Church & Katigbak, 1992). Also,
Filipino students draw cognitive resources from their peers when they are focused on doing
single or multiple tasks (Bernardo, Zhang, & Callueng, 2002). Other studies on Filipino
students show that their parents possessed strong influences on how they make educational
112
decisions even if the orientation was social or individual (Gastardo-Conaco, Jimenez, &
Billedo, 2003; Lamug, 1989; cited in Bernardo, 2008). However, there have been no
studies that documented the influence of teachers to their students in terms of making
educational decisions also (Bernardo, 2008). Since research documents that Asian
students use both mastery and performance-approach goals in their achievement because
of the influence of their socially oriented achievement motivation, Bernardo (2008)
explored these conditions to Filipino university students and supported the fact that there
are parent-oriented motivations in social- oriented achievement motivations of students and
found also that teacher-oriented was also influential to Filipino students socially-oriented
achievement motivation. For individual oriented motivations, Filipino students exhibit
performance standards and personal goal choice (Bernardo, 2008). On the other hand,
each of these achievement motivations was not related to achievement (Bernardo, 2008).
Only achievement goals specifically mastery goals, and performance-approach goals were
related to achievement and also to some achievement motivations namely personal
performance standards and parent-oriented achievement motivations (Bernardo, 2008).
Learning and Study Strategies
Learning strategies is defined globally as mental processes where learners have
chances to intentionally employ to help themselves in learning and understanding
something new that they regard as fundamentals of their self-regulation and autonomous
learning (Watson, 2006). Also, learning strategies involve specific actions that is said to be
like a trick because it helps learners in certain circumstances to make them recall things
better and make tasks easier pleasant, more efficient, and more manageable (Oxford,
1990). In addition, it is translated into the form of behaviors or thoughts that is gained
during learning period that helps influence the learner's encoding development (Weinstein
& Mayer, 1986). Therefore, learning and study strategies in general can be understand as
the behavioral or cognitive manifestation of techniques, philosophies, or rules which aids
the attainment, manipulation, assimilation, storage, and retrieval of information through
different situations and settings (Masters, Mori, Mori, 1993; Nisbet & Shucksmith, 1986).
One of the widely used instruments is the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI)
that determines students learning behavior as well as studying behaviors (Weinstein,
Palmer, & Schulte, 1987; cited in Braten & Olaussen, 1998). LASSI is a diagnostic
measure which is composed of an 80- item assessment of self- awareness of students about
their use of learning and study strategies particularly on the domain of skill, will and selfregulation type of learning strategies. The skill component is composed of information
processing, selecting main ideas, and test strategies. These three subscales of the skill
component of LASSI examines students learning strategies, skills, thoughts, processes
related to identifying, acquiring and constructing meaning for important new information,
ideas, and procedures, and how they prepare for and demonstrate their new knowledge on
tests or other evaluative procedures (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002, p. 5). Next, the will
component of learning and study strategies inventory is composed of anxiety, attitude and
motivation. These three subscales of the will component of LASSI measures the degree to
which students worry about their academic performance, their receptivity to learning new
information, their attitudes and interest in college, their diligence, self-discipline, and
willingness to exert the effort necessary to successfully complete academic requirements
113
(Weinstein & Palmer, 2002, p. 5). The last component of the learning and study strategies
inventory which is self-regulation is composed of 4 subscales namely concentration, selftesting, study aids, and time management. These four subscales of the self-regulation
component of LASSI measures how student manage, or self-regulate and control, the
whole learning process through using their time effectively, focusing their attention and
maintaining their concentration over time, checking to see if they have met the learning
demands for class, an assignment or a test, and using study support such as review sessions,
tutors, or special features of a text book (Weinstein, & Palmer, 2002, p. 5). The study of
Flowers (2003) retested the reliability of LASSI to find the extent to which subscale scores
obtained from the first edition of the LASSI was still stable and provided consistent
measures of students knowledge and use of different study skills. Another study by Sizoo,
Jerome, and Wilfred (2005) tested the learning strategies of adult careers and vocational
students by using LASSI and it provided a detailed evaluation of their learning strengths
and weaknesses of the students (Sizoo, Jerrome, & Wilfred, 2005).
There were different studies that tested LASSI in terms of race to achievement.
The study by Olaussen and Braten (1998) tested learning and study strategies by correlate
both low and high perceived ability, age, gender and its interaction to all of the variables of
LASSI from Norwegian college student samples and eventually compared it to American
students who established the measure. Their study evidenced that only motivation subscale
from LASSI has a low norm score for Norwegian students compared to American
students, that students with high perceived ability reported more use of learning strategies,
that female students use more learning strategies, that older college student reported higher
level of use of learning strategies yet the interaction between the variables did not produce a
positive result (Braten & Olaussen, 1998). Both Braten and Olaussen (2000) explored the
reason why Norwegian college students do result an evident low score on the motivation
subscale and found out in their follow-up interview after administering LASSI to new
respondents they discovered contextual differences of value Norwegian College students
show to motivation subscale. They found out that students who have higher scores in the
motivation subscale showed wholeheartedness in valuing the activities and reflected selfdisciplined and duty- oriented motivation as described and presented by the items which
are contrary to those students who obtained lower scores in the motivation subscale (Braten
& Olaussen, 2000). The study of Rhody (1993) characterized the study behavior and
attitudes of high school freshman at a country-suburban school in Oregon using LASSI to
academic performance. After conducting intercorrelation, 8 out of the 10 scales: attitude,
motivation, time management, anxiety, concentration, selecting main ideas, self- testing,
and test strategies were significant to academic achievement.
There were also studies that tested the LASSI subscales based on classroom
context i.e. medicine class to achievement or performance. The study by Smith (1995)
identified critical thinking abilities, learning and study strategies associated to academic
achievement in associate degree nursing students. There was a significant difference
between learning and study strategies and academic achievement of various levels of college
students anxiety, test strategies, selecting main ideas, concentration, and motivation scales.
Furthermore, nursing college students with superior academic achievement demonstrated
more effective use of test strategies compared with those below average academic
achievement who reported experiencing more anxiety related to learning and testing.
Another study by Clow (1998) evidenced that there was a strong correlation of motivation,
114
time management, anxiety, concentration, test taking, selecting main ideas and attitude to
academic achievement on distance education for medical practitioners. Heard (2002)
tested the relationship of the subscales of LASSI to student persistence on 169 student
applicants who voluntarily enrolled community college students through a longitudinal
study. The 125 participants who graduated after two years showed an increase on their
motivation and anxiety to their persistence. Primus (2003) study on the learning and study
strategies of associate degree nursing students showed that anxiety, attitude, motivation, and
test strategies have small negative associations with achievement. While students with high
levels for selecting main ideas, high level of test strategies, and low level of anxiety showed
high achievement. The study of Proctor, Prevatt, Adams, Hurst, and Petscher (2006)
showed that when learning and study strategies was compared with academically struggling
and normal achieving college students, the skill components such as information
processing, selecting main ideas and test strategies of those academically struggling college
students were significantly lower with the use of the learning and study strategies inventory
(LASSI). Hovelands study (2006) investigated the relationship between LASSI and
academic achievement by testing it also to associate degree nursing college students. The
LASSI subscales that obtained lowest subscale scores in self- testing, time management, and
study aids. Those with the highest subscale scores were information processing, motivation
and selecting main ideas. When LASSI was correlated to academic achievement, only
motivation and test strategies were significant.
Achievement Goals and Learning Strategies in Mathematic Learning
The present study analyzed the achievement goals and learning strategy within the
context of a mathematics course so that students will focus on this area since it was
suggested that students perceptions of goal orientations and learning strategies were more
meaningful if their responses were based on a specific course (Somuncuoglu & Yildirim,
1999). Several studies have shown that different learning strategies, approaches, and beliefs
are related in the context of college mathematics. The study of Gutman (2006) examined
the effects of students and parents goal orientation and their perceived goal structures on
grades and self-efficacy during their transition in their high school in the context of their
mathematics class. The study resulted that students who encourage themselves in using
mastery goals showed more positive changes in their grades and self- efficacy compared to
college students who encouraged performance goals. In terms of high school transition,
students who encourage more mastery than performance goals also showed the same
positive change (Gutman, 2006). It was also found that for African-American students,
mastery goals are more influential in determining achievement and motivation in
mathematics most especially in their high school transition (Gutman, 2006). Leigh,
Husman, Duggan, and Pennington (2007) tested the relationship between learning
strategies, motivation, self- efficacy and student achievement in the context of an online
developmental mathematics course. The findings revealed that motivation, concentration,
information processing and self-testing along with self-efficacy significantly predicted
academic achievement.
Furthermore, students motivation and learning strategies are sensitive to contextspecific differences and are dependent on the goal orientations and background
characteristics (Pintrich & Garcia, 1991; cited in Somuncuoglu & Yildirim, 1999). Gutman
115
(2006) gave more a detailed explanation that mastery goals might be significant in
determining achievement and motivation in mathematics during the transition in high
school. If students internal structures such as their achievement goals are explored, its
facilitative effects on how they approach mathematical equations or problems will be
identified because it is not limited only how they are skilled in mathematics but also on
how they define their competence and view their striving. The Learning and Study
Strategies Inventory (LASSI) when administered to Filipino students revealed mixed
results of deep or surface approach and obtained higher or lower levels of student
approach to learning (Bernardo, 2003).
Based on a proposed model by Pintrich (1995, 2004), self-regulated learning
showed that when academic courses are articulated with cognitive, motivational, behavioral,
and contextual features, students were able to learn how to regulate their resources, beliefs,
and strategies in the service of an achievement goal (Bail, Zhang, & Tachiyama, 2008). In
the same way, when Albaili (1998) investigated the relationship among the learning goal
orientations, use of cognitive strategies, and academic achievement of middle-east college
students it was found that when students score higher in the learning or mastery goal
orientation, elaboration and organizational strategies were likely to be used in their
cognitive engagement. On the other hand, rehearsal and low levels of elaboration and
organizational strategies use were found on performance goal orientation. These findings
were consistent with Elliot, McGregor, and Gables (1999) results, where Hong Kong
students who use mastery goals were significantly and positively related to adopting a deep
learning strategy in studying but it was negatively related to surface strategy. For
performance- type of goals, both approach and avoidance goals were significantly related to
adopting shallow or surface strategy to studying (Chan, Leung, & Lai, 2005; Chan & Lai
2008).
Bernardo (2002) studied about the causal relationship between value of education,
achievement goals (mastery goals, performance-approach goals and performance-avoidance
goals) and learning strategies (rehearsal, elaboration, organization, critical thinking, and
metacognition) between low achieving and average-achieving Filipino students and
discovered a pattern that if students have a low regard to education they less likely adopt
achievement goals orientations and also less likely use learning strategies. Two other studies
conducted by Bernardo (2003, 2004) tested the relationship between culturally-rooted
beliefs and social axioms with achievement goals (mastery goals, performance goals, and
work avoidance goals) and learning strategies (rehearsal, elaboration, organization, critical
thinking, metacognition). The study yielded results related to the correlation between
achievement goals and learning strategies such as mastery goals were related to all learning
strategies and performance goals were related to all learning strategies (Bernardo, 2003;
Bernardo, 2004).
In summary, our present research will focus on the correlational utility of the 2 x 2
achievement goal framework (mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performanceapproach and performance-avoidance) to learning and study strategies (information
processing, selecting main ideas, test strategies, anxiety, attitude, motivation, concentration,
self-testing, study aids and time management) of Filipino college students in a basic college
mathematics classroom. The study speculates that adopting one specific achievement goal
can yield more than to a number of different learning and study strategies through a
positive relationship.
116
The Present Study

The present study is anchored on the 2 x 2 Achievement Goal Framework. The
framework provides the same explanation that students have their own understanding and
distinctive orientation towards the types of goals they use for the purpose of engaging in
tasks such as implementing learning strategies, and reaching for existing standards or
criteria which is self-referenced or social comparative (Elliot & Church, 1997; Pintrich,
2000). Mastery-approach goals define competence as intrapersonal and absolute and it
valence towards attaining success (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Mastery-avoidance goals
defines competence also as intrapersonal and it valences towards avoiding failures (Elliot &
McGregor, 2001). Performance-avoidance goals defines competence as interpersonal and
normative and it valences towards avoiding failures (Elliot & McGregor, 2001).
Performance-approach goals defines competence as interpersonal and normative and it
valences towards attaining success (Elliot & McGregor, 2001).Research shows that 2x2
framework works better because these four factor structure fits better than the use of the
trichotmous or dichotomous models (Kaliski, Finney, & Horst, 2006).
Individual differences in terms of goal orientations namely for mastery-approach,
performance- approach and performance-avoidance learners is evident in the use of their
cognitive and metacognitive strategies translated through learning and study strategies
(Somuncuoglu & Yildirim, 1999; Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Learning and study strategies
are divided into three specific main components which are skill, will and self-regulation.
The skill component involves cognitive strategies consisting of selecting main ideas,
information processing and test strategies (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). It helps students to
implement techniques on how they would encode, elaborate and organize information
(Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). The self- regulation component is related to metacognitive
strategies that deal with concentration, time management, study aids and self-testing
(Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). It helps students to plan, monitor and regulate their control
towards their learning (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). In addition, the will component
focuses on anxiety, attitude and motivation of students towards their academic
performance, success and requirements which measures affective strategies in learning
(Weinstein & Palmer, 2002).
The proposed convergent validity between specific achievement goals and learning
and study strategies is tested in the present study using path analysis. The model indicates
the individual effect of each achievement goal on a specific learning and study strategy as
measured by the LASSI. Validity is established by obtaining significant paths from the
achievement goal factors to the study strategy factors. Convergent validity is attained by the
positive parameter estimates and positive zero-order correlations. Such convergence would
mean similarity in the proposed theoretical link between the achievement goal and study
strategy constructs. Divergent validity is obtained through significant negative parameter
estimates and negative zero-order correlations. The divergence means dissimilarity or
opposite direction of the scales involved.
Consistent with literature, mastery-approach goals and performance-approach goals
yield positive association to all learning strategies in college mathematics learning. Masteryapproach goals and performance- approach goals were positive indicators of surface
learning strategies such as rehearsal, elaboration and organization, deep learning strategies
such as critical thinking and metacognition, use of cognitive engagement or self- regulation
117
(Albaili, 1998; Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999; Bernardo, 2003b; Bernardo, 2004;
Bernardo, 2005b; Chan, Leung & Lai, 2005; Gutman, 2006; Leigh, Husman, Duggan, &
Pennington, 2007 Chan, & Lai, 2008).
It can be generated from the literature that both mastery-avoidance and
performance-avoidance goals does have a positive association with motivation, time
management, self- testing, and study aids. Researchers argue that based from previous
studies both mastery-avoidance and performance-avoidance orientations were positive
indicators of cognitive disengagement, disorganization, lack of persistence and effort, state
test anxiety, worry, emotionality and procrastination, low self-efficacy (low motivational
belief) (Rosenhaultz & Simpson, 1984; Meece, Hoyle and Blumenfeld, 1988; Elliot,
McGregor, & Gable, 1999; Somuncuoglu & Yildrim, 1999; Elliot & McGregor, 2001;
Midgley, et al, 2002; Greene et al, 2004; Wolters, 2004; Linnenbrink, 2005; Duperyat &
Marine, 2005; Gutman, 2006; Watson, 2007)
There is a need to study the relationship between achievement goals and learning
and study strategies because (1) students perceptions about their effort or ability being
translated into achievement goals influence the quality or degree of using learning and
study strategies in solving learning problems like in mathematics (2) studies on the 2 x 2
achievement goal framework (mastery- approach, mastery- avoidance, performanceapproach and performance avoidance) of goal orientation are mostly western in perspective
and therefore this study wanted to provide more information for the correlational utility of
these achievement goals especially for mastery-avoidance in an Asian setting more
specifically for Filipino college students since studies about the positive associations of
different achievement goals to different learning strategies used trichotomous model of
achievement goal orientation from Hong Kong Chinese Filipinos and Singaporeans
participants.
The study determines the relationship of achievement goals with learning and study
strategies in domain specific to mathematics. The present study aims to: (1) determine the
convergence and divergence of the achievement goals and study strategies subscales, (2) test
the consistency of the zero order-correlations in a path model where specific achievement
goal scales predicts the factors of study strategies, and (3) test if the overall path model will
fit the observations when the items are contextualized in mathematics learning.
Method
Participants
The participants were 260 college freshmen students enrolled in a mathematics
course in a private university in the Philippines. The students participated in exchange for
extra credit. The participants that were selected are currently taking fundamental
mathematics course. During their four years in high school, their mathematics education
started from Basic or Elementary Algebra during first year, Intermediate Algebra during
second year, Geometry during third year, and Trigonometry during their fourth year.
118
Instrument
Achievement Goal Questionnaire. This is a 12-item questionnaire designed to
capture each of the four described goals orientations (mastery- approach, masteryavoidance, performance- approach, and performance avoidance orientation). Participants
answered the items using a seven point scale (1=not at all true of me, 2=moderately not
true of me, 3=slightly not true of me, 4=neither not true nor true of me, 5=slightly true of
me, 6=moderately true of me, and 7=very true of me). The subscales on mastery approach,
mastery- avoidance, performance- approach, and performance avoidance has a Cronbachs
alpha of 0.87, 0.89, 0.92 and 0.83 respectively (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Convergent
validity was used to assess the validity. For this study, reliability was tested using the
Cronbachs alpha which of the four 2 x 2 achievement goals. The obtained Cronbachs
alpha was 0.76 for performance- avoidance, 0.90 for performance- approach, 0.82 for
mastery- avoidance, 0.81 for mastery- approach and 0.81 for the whole achievement goal
questionnaire. For this study, reliability was tested by obtaining Cronbachs alpha for
performance-avoidance subscale, performance-approach subscale, mastery-avoidance
subscale, mastery-approach subscale and for the whole achievement goal questionnaire
which are 0.76, 0.90, 0.82, 0.81, and 0.81 respectively.
Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI). The LASSI is composed of 77
items that serve as a prescriptive and diagnostic assessment of students awareness about
the use of learning and study strategies. Each item is answered using a 5-point scale. The
three components cover the scope of: (a) Skill-learning strategies, skills and thought
processes that help prepare and demonstrate new knowledge on tests or other evaluative
procedures, (b) Will-worry to academic performance, receptivity to learning new
information, attitudes and interest in college, diligence, self-discipline, and willingness to
exert the effort necessary to successfully complete academic requirements and (c) SelfRegulation-manage, or self-regulate and control, the whole learning process through time
management, maintaining concentration, checking learning demands, an and using study
aids (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). Participants answered the learning and study strategies
inventory in such a way where cases and scenarios on education and classroom were
presented. After which, they assessed on how often do they do the given case/scenario
through the response format Not at all like me (has this not necessarily meant that the
statement/case would never describe the participant, rather it would be true very rarely for
the participant), Not very much like me (this would mean that generally, the statement
would not be true about the participant), Somewhat like me (this would mean that the
case/ situation would be true for the participant about half of the time), Fairly much like
me (this would mean that the situation would be true most of the time with the participant)
and Very much like me (this not necessarily means that the statement/case would always
describe the participant, rather it would be true for the participant most of the time). The
reliability of LASSI indicates a Cronbachs Alpha of .84, .89, and .80 for Information
Processing, Selecting Main Ideas and Test Strategies scales for the Skill component
respectively. For the scales of the Will component, Anxiety, Attitude and Motivation
indicate a Cronbachs Alpha score of .87, .77, and .84, respectively. The Cronbachs alpha
scores of concentration, self-testing, study aids, and time management for the selfregulation component obtain .86, .84, .73, and .85 correspondingly. Also, a test-retest
119
correlation of .88 was computed for the total instrument. There were different approaches
the author used to determine the validity of learning and study strategies inventory: (1) The
scale scores were compared to other tests or subscales which are measuring related factors;
(2) some scales were validated adjacent to performance measures; and (3) the learning and
study strategies inventory had repeated tests of user validity (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002).
In this study reliability was tested through Cronbachs alpha of all ten subscales of learning
and study strategies. The Cronbachs alpha scores obtained was 0.54 for information
processing, 0.58 for selecting main ideas, 0.53 for test strategies, 0.50 for anxiety, 0.60 for
attitude, 0.51 for motivation, 0.52 for concentration, 0.54 for self- testing, 0.58 for study
aids, and 0.50 for time management.
Procedure
All 260 participants were selected through purposive sampling. All the participants
were briefed about the guidelines in answering the questionnaires. The participants were
guided accordingly on how they answered the forms: (1) The researcher gave the rationale
of the study and that they should read the questions carefully; (2) they were briefed that
there are no right or wrong answers for the achievement goal questionnaire and LASSI.
The researcher informed the participants that the study is trying to get authentic answer as
much as possible for more accurate result. The participants were also made aware that
their answers will not affect their class standings in school and failure to follow the
guidelines will be forfeited on the participation in the study. The researcher administered
to the participants the Achievement Goal Questionnaire and the Learning and Study
Strategies Inventory at the same time. The researcher then scored the questionnaires for
each subscale of the achievement goal questionnaire (mastery- approach, mastery- avoidant,
performance- approach or performance avoidant group) and LASSI (Information
Processing, Selecting Main Ideas, Test Strategies, Anxiety, Attitude, Motivation,
Concentration, Self- Testing, Study Aids and Time Management). Each participant was
assigned with a research call number used for the purpose of identification and recording
for all the instruments.
Results
The descriptive statistics of the different variables are briefly presented. Means and
standard deviations were obtained. The internal consistency of the scales was also
determined using Cronbachs alpha. Zero-order correlations were conducted between the
subscales of the achievement goals and LASSI, within the subscales of achievement goals,
and within the subscales of the LASSI. The prediction from achievement goals to LASSI
was tested using path analysis.
The mean scores, standard deviations, and internal consistencies of the different
subscales of both achievement goals and learning and study strategies are summarized in
Table 1. For achievement goals, the students in the sample tend to hold strong adoption to
mastery-approach goals and performance-avoidance goals and relative to both
performance-approach goals and to mastery-avoidance goals. In terms of learning and
study strategies, motivation and selecting main ideas reported stronger use while time
management, attitude, and concentration showed relatively strong use for students.
120
Information processing, anxiety, study aids and test strategies held moderate use for
students learning and study strategies. Self-testing obtained the weak score students use
among all the learning and study strategies.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Achievement Goals and LASSI

Variable
M
Achievement Goals
Performance-Avoidance
Performance-Approach
Mastery-Avoidance
Mastery-Approach
Learning and Study Strategy
Information Processing
Selecting Main ideas
Test strategies
Anxiety
Attitude
Motivation
Concentration
Self-testing
Study-Aids
Time Management
SD
5.45
4.34
4.46
5.46
1.27
1.66
1.4
1.2
2.9
3.06
2.88
2.89
3
3.07
3
2.77
2.89
3.01
0.54
0.58
0.53
0.5
0.6
0.52
0.54
0.6
0.55
0.52
Cronbach's alpha
.81
.76
.90
.82
.81
.92
.49
.55
.49
.46
.47
.51
.52
.54
.58
.50
Table 1
Zero-Order Correlation of LASSI and Achievement Goals
Selecting Main ideas
Test strategies
Anxiety
Attitude
Motivation
Concentration
Self-testing
Study-Aids
Time Management
PerformanceApproach
-.06
.15**
.13**
.12**
.13**
.14**
.02
-.01
.01
.16**
PerformanceAvoidance
.12**
.25**
-.03
.09
.12**
.15**
.18**
.08
.21**
.14**
MasteryAvoidance
.15**
.29**
.16**
.16**
.16**
.27**
.28**
.20**
.17**
.18**
MasteryApproach
-.02
.24**
.02
.04
.08
.10
.04
-.04
.01
.20**
Table 2 summarizes the correlations among the different subscales of achievement

goals (mastery-approach goals, mastery-avoidance goals, performance-approach goals and
121
performance-avoidance goals) and learning and study strategies (information processing,

selecting main ideas, test strategies, anxiety, attitude, motivation, concentration, self-testing,
study aids, and time management). Regarding the relationship between the different
achievement goals, it was hypothesized that mastery-approach goals would be associated
with all use of learning and study strategies but statistical analysis did not reveal complete
association of all learning and study strategies. Only selecting main ideas and time
management were correlated to mastery-approach goals. The same was hypothesized for
performance-approach goals. However, only selecting main ideas, test strategies, attitude,
motivation, and time management showed positive correlation to performance-approach
goals. For mastery-avoidance goals, it was tentatively hypothesized that mastery-avoidance
goals will be correlated to all learning and study strategies except for time management,
motivation, self-testing and study aids. Surprisingly, all different learning and study
strategies were found to be associated with mastery-avoidance goals. The same hypothesis
was tested also to performance-avoidance goals and the result of the correlational analysis
revealed that self-testing was not associated with performance-avoidance goals. However
time management, motivation, and study aids were not found to be associated with
performance-avoidance which was also an unexpected new finding for this study. Also,
attitudes and concentration were found to be positively associated to performanceavoidance which somehow supported our hypothesis. It is also interesting to note that the
selecting main ideas subscale and the time management subscale are positively associated
with all four achievement goals.
Table 3
Intercorrelations of the Subscales of the Achievement Goals
Performance-approach
Performance-avoidance
Mastery-avoidance
Mastery-approach
**p<.05
Performanceapproach
---
Performanceavoidance
.13**
---
Masteryavoidance
.14**
.31**
---
Masteryapproach
.35**
.37**
.26**
---
Table 3 describes the inter-correlations between the subscales of Achievement Goal

Questionnaire. Results indicate rather moderate to weak correlations among achievement
goals. There was a weak positive correlation between the performance-avoidance and
performance-approach. The correlation suggest that the goal of trying to perform better to
others to avoid being labeled a failure is somewhat likely associated with the goal of trying
to perform better than others to attain high self-approval and self- esteem. Also, there is a
weak positive correlation between mastery-avoidance and performance-approach but a
moderately strong correlation between mastery-avoidance and performance-avoidance.
This suggest that the goal of striving to reach absolute requirements to avoid the experience
of failure is also likely to be accompanied with goal of trying to perform better than others
to attain high self-approval and self- esteem. On the other hand, there is a moderately
strong association between the goal of avoiding failures even if the basis of competence is
from personal criteria of success or from a normative criterion of success in the classroom.
122
For mastery-approach, there is a moderately strong correlation to all its counterparts

namely: performance-approach, performance-avoidance and mastery-avoidance. It can be
inferred that the goal of striving to success based on personal and absolute standards is
more likely associated with all other goals which avoids failure like with performanceavoidance and mastery-avoidance and which are normative in nature such as with
performance-approach and performance-avoidance. The kind of association between
mastery-approach goals to performance-approach, performance-avoidance is quite
puzzling.
Table 3
Intercorrelations of the Subscales of LASSI

(1)
(1) Information Processing
(2) Selecting Main ideas
(3) Test strategies
(4) Anxiety
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
.42**
.49**
.49**
.45**
.48**
.48**
.55**
.51**
.36**
---
.51**
.45**
.52**
.50**
.53**
.55**
.50**
.55**
---
.55**
.55**
.48**
.50**
.66**
.54**
.46**
---
.49**
.60**
.52**
.61**
.62**
.40**
---
.55**
.52**
.48**
.45**
.40**
---
.60**
.54**
.56**
.45**
---
.53**
.59**
.43**
---
.67**
.41**
---
.39**
(5) Attitude
(6) Motivation
(7) Concentration
(8) Self-testing
(9) Study-Aids
(10) Time Management
---
**p<.01
Table 4 shows the inter-correlation for the different learning and study strategies,
and the results indicate rather high to moderate correlations among the various learning
and study strategies. The pattern suggests either least three explanations: First, the sample
of students tends to use these strategies all together in association. Second, the sample of
students is not distinguishing well their learning and study strategies well enough. Three,
the sample of students is not aware and reflecting their use of different learning and study
strategies.
The four achievement goals were used to predict the subscales of the LASSI using
path analysis. The procedure allows verification of the results of the zero order correlation
and the overall model as a whole is also tested for goodness of fit.
When the path model was tested, all paths from the four achievement goals were
significant in explaining the variance for each learning and study strategies. It can also be
noted that all achievement goals had a strong path for selecting main ideas and time
management. Achievement goals predict well the study strategies involved in selecting main
ideas and time management. Self-testing and test strategies obtained low estimates as
predicted by the achievement goals, however they are still significant. The path model also
attained an adequate fit: 2=114.78, RMSEA.=04, CFI=.91, GFI=.91, PGI=.93, and
TLI=.91.
The results in the zero-order correlation showed very few significant correlations of
the study strategies for mastery-approach. However, the results of the path analysis showed
significant estimates for mastery-approach.
123
Mastery-Approach
Goals
.10*
.52*
Motivation
.12*
.60*
Time Management
.08*
.10*
.06*
.06*
.10*
.16*
MasteryAvoidance Goals
.22*
Selecting Main Ideas
.11*
.11*
Test Strategies
.10*
.22*
PerformanceAvoidance Goals
Attitude
.19*
.27*
.08*.11*
Anxiety
.10*
.20*
Concentration
.21* .24*
.08*
.07*
.08*
.15*
PerformanceApproach Goals
Self-Testing
.08*
Study-Aids
.19*
Figure 1
Path Model for the Convergence of Achievement Goals and LASSI
Discussion
The study was undertaken to determine the convergence and divergence between
achievement goals and learning and study strategies. It was hypotheses that a pattern would
exist regarding the possible association between among the variables of achievement goals
namely: mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach and performanceapproach to specific variables of learning and study strategies which are information
processing, selecting main ideas, test strategies, anxiety, attitude, motivation, concentration,
self-testing, study-aids and time management. However, it was found in the path analysis
that all factors of the achievement goals converged with the study strategies.
124
The results of the study showed that the 2 x 2 achievement goal framework is
helpful for conceptualizing the use of different learning and study strategies of college
students from their achievement goals in the context of a basic college mathematics course.
It should be noted that low internal consistency reliability was found for the Learning and
Study Strategies Inventory. The study could not be completely conclusive on the reliability
on the scales obtained for the LASSI. Future investigations should help ensure the
reliability of the scales to improve the validity of the study.
Many of the results are surprising for the correlation between the specific
achievement goals to different learning and study strategies. One would be the positive
association between mastery-avoidance goal to all learning and study strategies. It can be
explained by the belief students who adopt mastery-avoidance need to reach high standards
by avoiding failure (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Based on prior studies on avoidant
orientation, students with avoidance type of goals indicates low motivation, task
disengagement, surface learning, disorganization, low levels of cognitive engagement, and
low reports of mastering the materials or task, less use of cognitive and metacognitive
strategies, low persistence, and high procrastination (Meece, Hoyle, & Bluemenfeld, 1988;
Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999; Turner, Midgley, Meyer, Gheen, Anderman, Kang, &
Patrick, 2002; Wolters, 2004; Kolic-Vehovec, Roncevic, & Bajsanski, 2008; Lau & Nie,
2008). Contrary to performance-avoidance that demonstrates a lack of ability just to gain
self-approval of self-esteem in front of other people, the advantage of mastery- avoidance is
to demonstrate more than what is expected beyond normative comparisons to gain
personal and absolute standards of performance and achievement. In addition, Elliot and
McGregor (2001) described that empirical prediction on mastery- avoidance goal is dual
because it has both an optimal antecedent that facilitate positive consequences like masteryapproach goals and an non- optimal component to have negative consequences like
performance-avoidance. Therefore it is impossible to determine if the relative strength of
optimal and non- optimal components is in conjunction to each other (Elliot & McGregor,
2001) but some studies showed that mastery- avoidance goals can also predict cognitive
strategies yet it must be mediated by other factors such as persistence, procrastination
(Wolters, 2004; Howell & Watson, 2007). In this study, mastery- avoidance has more
optimal components and positive consequences. With this reason, the study speculate that
these Filipino students adopt and exhaust all types of strategies in order to reach their goal
to avoid the risk of experiencing dismay within themselves because they cannot reach their
intrapersonal and absolute standards about their performance and achievement even with
regards to mathematics.
Another new finding is that Filipino college student who placed an emphasis on
performance approach has more use of learning and study strategies compared to masteryapproach goals. This result supports previous research that in some cases performanceapproach goals produces adaptive patterns of learning despite of examining performance
approach goals independently with mastery-approach goals (Harackiewicz, Barron, &
Elliot, 1998; Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton, 2001; Bernardo, 2003b; Bernardo, 2004;
Bernardo, 2005b). The findings also supports a number of studies that performanceapproach goals has a positive relation to cognitive, metacognitive, and self- regulatory
strategies specifically on English, social studies, and mathematics (Midgley, Kaplan, &
Middleton, 2001).
125
It is interesting to note that the two subscales of LASSI which are selecting main
ideas and time management are significant to all achievement goals. Selecting main ideas is
a surface learning strategy that deals with choosing important material for in-depth attention
and separating unimportant or simply didactic information that does not have to be
remembered (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). Based on prior research, surface learning
strategies such as selecting main ideas which quite similar to organization learning strategies
have positive association with both mastery and performance type of goals more specifically
when tested to Filipino student samples (Bernardo, 2003b; Bernardo, 2004; Bernardo,
2005b). Since time management is a self- regulatory skill that assesses proper distribution of
time from single to multiple task in maximizing performance and achievement (Weinstein,
& Palmer, 2002). Time management is also a practice of metacognition because it requires
students some knowledge about themselves as students and learners to schedule and finish
their academic demands effectively (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). In addition, when
students are self-aware they are also able to create motivation, accept more responsibility,
set realistic goals and create plans that will facilitate their goal achievement (Weinstein, &
Palmer, 2002). In this case, what the Filipino student samples facilitate are goals that aim to
avoid experiencing failures and to show people or their classmates that they are competent.
Considering the fact that the participants are Filipino college students, mixed results of
deep or surface approach as a consequence of different achievement goals (mastery goals,
performance-approach and work-avoidance) can be obtained (Bernardo, 2003b). Also, the
outcomes of the relationship of goal orientations to learning and study strategies is more
meaningful if dependent or based on context which is in this study a basic mathematics
course on a college level (Pintrich & Garcia, 1991; cited in Somuncuoglu &Yildirim, 1999;
Gutman, 2006).
It was hypothesized that there will be a significant relationship within the subscales
of achievement goals and within the subscales of learning and study strategies.
Performance-approach, performance-avoidance, mastery-avoidance and mastery-approach
goals were all significantly related to each other with a positive magnitude. Consistent with
prior research, college students belonging Asian countries like Filipinos showed the same
positive correlation within mastery and performance goals (Bernardo, 2002; Bernardo
2003b; Bernardo, 2004; Bernardo, 2005b; Chan, Lai, Leung, & Moore, 2005; Ee & Moor,
2004; cited in Bernardo, 2008,Tao & Hong, 2000; cited in Chan & Lai, 2006).
Information processing, selecting main ideas, test strategies, anxiety, attitudes,
motivation, concentration, self- testing, study aids, and time management were significantly
related to each other in terms of mathematics course. Previous studies do not report
consistent significant correlations among different learning strategies among college
students even if in the context of mathematics- related course (Rhody, 1993; Smith, 1995;
Clow, 1998; Primus, 2003; Hoveland, 2006; Leigh, Husman, & Duggan, 2007). This can
be explained that when Filipino college students socialize and affiliate to their peers their
academic motivation and cognitive resources about the nature of their task neither single or
multiple, there is an increase their high performance and intrinsic task engagement
(Bernardo, Zhang & Callueng, 2002; Church, & Katigbak, 1992). All learning and study
strategies work well among Filipino students adopting certain achievement goals in
processing math courses because they specialized the meaning of mathematical task by
comfortably using their own language especially with conversations with their seatmates
126
during the process of learning and developing mathematical knowledge in the classroom
(Gallos, 2003).
References
Albaili, M. A. (1998). Goal orientations, cognitive strategies and academic achievement
among United Arab Emirates college students. Educational Psychology, 18(2), 195203.
Ames, A., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students learning
strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260267.
Bail, F. T., Zhang, S., & Tachiyama, G. T. (2008). Effects of a self- regulated learning
course on the academic performance and graduation rate of college students in an
academuic support program. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 39(1), 5473.
Braten, I., & Olaussen, B (1998). Identifying latent variables measured by the learning and
study strategies inventory (LASSI) in Norwegian college students. Learning and
Individual Difference, 10(4), 309- 327.
Braten, I., & Olaussen, B. (2000). Motivation in college: Understanding Norwegian college
students performance on the LASSI motivation subscale and their beliefs about
academic motivation. Learning and Individual Difference, 12, 177- 187.
Bernardo, A. B. I. (1996). Task specificity in the use of word in mathematics: Evidence
from bilingual problem solvers. International Journal of Psychology, 31(1), 13- 28.
Bernardo, A. B. I., Zhang, L. R., & Callueng, C. M. (2002). Thinking styles and academic
achievement among Filipino students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163,
149-163.
Bernardo, A. B. I. (2003a). Approaches to learning and academic achievement of Filipino
students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 164(1), 101- 114.
Bernardo, A. B. I. (2003b). Do Filipino youth really value education? Exploring Filipino
adolescents beliefs about the abstract and pragmatic value of education and its
relationship to achievement goals and learning strategies. Philippine Journal of
Psychology, 36, 4967.
Bernardo, A. B. I. (2004). Culturally rooted beliefs and learning: Exploring the
relationships among social axioms, achievement goals, and learning strategies of
Filipino college students. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 37, 79100.
Bernardo, A. B. I. (2005a). Language and modeling word problems in mathematics among
bilinguals. The Journal of Psychology, 139(5), 413- 425.
Bernardo, A. B. I. (2005b). Exploring new areas for helping low-achieving students in the
Philippines: Beliefs, goals, and strategies. In A. D. Thomas, N. Dayan, A. B. I.
Bernardo, & R. Roth (Eds.), Helping others grow (pp. 133142). Aachen,
Germany: Shaker Verlag.
Bernardo, A. B. I. (2008). Individual and social dimensions of Filipino students
achievement goals. International Journal of Psychology, 43(5), 886-891.
127
Chrysikou, E.V. (2006). When shoes become hammers: Goal derived categorization
training enhances problem solving performance. Journal of Educational
Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 32, 935- 942.
Chamot, A. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching. Electronic
Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1, 14-26.
Chan, K. W., Lai, P. Y., & Leung, M. T. (2005). Students goal orientation, study strategies
and achievement : A closer look in Hong Kong Chinese cultural context. The AsiaPacific Educational Researcher, 14(1), 1- 26.
Chan, K. W., & Lai, P. Y. (2008). Revisiting the trichotomous achievement goal framework
for hong kong secondary students: A structural model analysis. The Asia- Pacific
Education Researcher, 16(1), 1- 21.
Church, A. T., & Katigbak, M. S. (1992). The cultural context of academic motives: A
comparison of filipino and American college students. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 23(1), 40-58.
Clow, E. D. (1998). Two-year college college students in interactive distance education
classes: The relationship of learning strategies to persistence and performance.

Thesis Dissertation. University of Georgia.
Conceicao, S. (2004). Exploring the relationship between learning style and critical thinking
in
an
online
course.
[on-line
available]
https://idea.iupui.edu/dspace/bitstream/1805/246/1/Conceicao1.pdf
Davis,
A
(2006).
Social
cognitive
research.
[on-line
available]
http://www.istheory.yorku.ca/socialcognitivetheory.htm
Duperyat, C., & Marine, C. (2005). Implicit theories of intelligence, goal orientation,
cognitive engagement and achievement: A test of Dwecks model with returning
school adults. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(1), 43-59.
Dweck, C. S. (1985) Intrinsic motivation, perceived control, and self-evaluation
maintenance: An achievement goal analysis. Research on Motivation in Education,
2. New York: Academic Press
Elliot, A., & Church, M. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance
achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-232.
Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and
exam performance: A mediational analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91,
549- 563.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501- 519.
Flowers, L. A. (2003). Test- retest reliability of the learning and study strategies inventory
(LASSI): New evidence. Reading Research and Instruction, 43(1), 31- 47.
Gallos, F. L. (2003). Patterns of students private conversations in a mathematics
classroom. Paper presented: Conference of the Learners Perspective Study
international research team. University of Melbourne.
Gutman, L. M. (2006). How student and parent goal orientations and classroom goal
structures influence the math achievement of African Americans during high school
transitions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 44-63.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Rethinking achievement goals:
When are they adaptive for college students and why? Educational Psychologist,
33, 1- 21.
128
Heard, M. (2002). The relationship between learning and study skills and student
persistence on community college. Thesis Dissertation. University of Virginia.
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories:
Beliefs about knowledge and knowing their relation to learning. Review of
Educational Research, 67, 88-140.
Howell, A. J., & Watson, D. C. (2007). Procastination: Association with achievement goal
orientation and learning strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(1),
167- 178.
Hoveland, C. M. (2006). Relationship between learning and study strategies and academic
achievement in associate degree nursing students. Thesis Dissertation. University of
Wyoming.
Inman, J. (2006). Social cognitive theory: A synthesis. [on-line available]
http://www.wetherhaven.com/Documents/socialcognitivetheory.pdf
Jarvela, S., & Salovaara, H. (2004). The interplay of motivational goals and cognitive
strategies in a new pedagogical culture. European Psychologist, 9, 232- 244.
Kaliski, P. K., Finney, S. J., & Horst, S. J. (2006). Does socioeconomic status influence
achievement goal adoption? An investigation of group differences using structured

means modeling. Paper presentation at the 2006 meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California.
Kolic-Vehovec, S., Roncevic, B., & Bajsanski, I. (2008). Motivational components of selfregulated learning and reading strategy use in university students: The role of goal
orientation patterns. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(1), 108- 113.
Leigh, M. W., Husman, J., Duggan, M. A., & Pennington, M. N. (2007). Online
mathematics achievement: Effects of learning strategies and self- efficacy. Journal of
Developmental Education, 30(3), 6-13.
Liem, A. D., Lau, S., & Nie, Y. (2008). The role of self- efficacy, task value, and
achievement goals in predicting learning strategies, task disengagement, peer
relationship, and academic outcome. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4),
486-512.
Linnenbrink, E. A. (2005). The dilemma performance- approach goals: The use of
multiple goal contexts to promote students motivation and learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 97, 197- 213.
Masters, L. F., Mori, B. A., & Mori, A. A.(1993) Teaching secondary students wild mild
learning and behavior problems: Methods, materials, strategies (2nd ed.). Texas: ProEd.
Meece, J. L., Hoyle, R. H., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1988). Students goal orientations and
cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80,
514- 523.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001).Performance- approach goals: Good for
what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of
Educational Psychology, 93(1), 77- 86.
Muis, K. R. (2004). Personal epistemology and mathematics: A critical review and synthesis
of research. Review of Educational Research, 74, 317377.
Muis, K. R. (2008). Epistemic profiles and self-regulated learning: Examining relations in
the context of mathematic problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
33, 177- 208.
129
Myers, N. A. (1999). A study of the learning strategies of metacognition, metamotivation,

metamemory, critical thinking, and resource management of nursing students on a
regional campus of a large midwestern university. AAT 9924369, [on-line
available]http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=733955791&sid=1&Fmt=2&clientI
d=47883&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Learning strategies. (2006). Retrieved July 30, 2008 from Professional learning and
Leadership
development
[on-line
available]
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/stress/article_em
Lindsay, S. (2003). Progress feature: Task achievement. Database Info, 3- 10.
Nisbet,
J.,
&
Shucksmith,
A.
(1986)
Learning
strategies.
[on-line
available] http://www.k12.nf.ca/fatima/define.htm
Oxford,
R.
(1990).
Learning
strategies.
[on-line
available]
http://www.k12.nf.ca/fatima/define.htm
Pascarella, E. (1989). The development of critical thinking: Does college make a
difference. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 19-26.
Pintrich, P. R. (1995). Understanding self- regulated learning. In P. R. Pintrich (Ed.),
Understanding self- regulated learning (pp. 3- 12). San Fransisco: Jossey- Bass
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The Role of Goal Orientation in
learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544- 555.
Pintrich P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self- regulated
learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385- 407.
Primus, P. (2003). Use of the learning and study skills inventory (LASSI) as a predictor of
success in associate degree nursing students. Masters Thesis. University of
Wyoming.
Proctor, B., Prevatt, F., Adams, K., Hurst, A., & Petscher, Y. (2006). Study Skills Profiles
of normal-achieving and academically-struggling college students. Florida State
University, Tallahassee ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Vol. 47, Iss. 1, [on-line
availble]http://0proquest.umi.com.lib1000.dlsu.edu.ph:80/pqdweb?did=986122521
&sid=3&Fmt=4&clientId=47883&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Rhody. T. W. (1993). The study skills, habits, and attitudes of high school freshmen and
their relationship to first- term academic achievement. Thesis Dissertation.
University of Oregon.
Roebken, H., (2007) multiple goals, satisfaction, and achievement in university
undergraduate education: a student experience in the research [on-line available]
http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/docs/ROP.Roebken.2.07.pdf
Ruggerio , V. R. (1988). Teaching thinking across the curriculum. New York: Harper &
Row.
Sizoo, S. L., Jerrome, A., & Wilfried , I. (2008). Measuring and developing the learning
strategies of adult career and vocational education students. Education, 125(4), 527538.
Smith, M. L. (1995) A quantitative analysis of critical thinking abilities, learning and study
strategies, and academic achievement in associate degree nursing students. Ph.D.
dissertation, Boston College, United States -- Massachusetts. Dissertations &
Theses: A&I database. (Publication No. AAT 9602082)
130
Somuncuoglu, Y., & Yildirim, A. (1999). Relationship between achievement goal

orientations and use of learning strategies. Journal of Educational Research, 92,
267-277.
Standage, M, & Treasure, D. (2002). Relationship among achievement goalorientations
and multidimensional situationalmotivation in physical education. British Journal of
Educational Psychology , 72, 87103.
Teaching and learning strategy. (2002, September). New horizons from learning. [on-line
available] http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/front_strategies.html
Turner, J. C., Midgley, C., Meyer, D. K., Gheen, M., Anderman, E. M., Kang, Y., &
Patrick, H. (2002). The classroom environment and students' reports of avoidance
strategies in mathematics: A multimethod study. Journal of Educational Psychology,
94(1), 88- 106.
Vermetten, , Y. J., Lodewijks, H. G., & Vermunt, J. D. (2001). The role of personality
traits and goal orientations in strategy use. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
26, 149- 170.
Was, C. (2006). Academic achievement goal orientation: taking another look. Electronic
Journal of Research in Educational Psychology , 10, 531-546.
Walker, S. (2003) Active Learning Strategies to Promote Critical Thinking. [on-line
available]
http:www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.
i?artid=233182
publication number: PMC233182
Watson, D. (2006) Procrastination: Associations with achievement goal orientation
and learning strategies aDepartment of Psychology, Grant MacEwan College,
P.O. Box 1796, Edmonton, Alta., Canada T5J 2P2
[on-line available]
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9FWest, K. S. (1994). Enhancing critical thinking in the political science curriculum. D.A.
dissertation, Idaho State University, United States -- Idaho. Dissertations & Theses:
A&I database. (Publication No. AAT 9420271).
Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). Learning strategies. [on-line available] Website:
http://www.k12.nf.ca/fatima/define.htm
Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal
orientations to predict students motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 96, 236- 250.
Weinstein, C. E., & Palmer, D. R. (2002). LASSI: User's manual learning and study
strategies inventory second edition. FL: H&H Pub.
Yip, M. C. W., & Chung, O. L. L. (2005). Relationship of study strategies and academic
performance in different learning phases of higher education in Hong Kong.
Educational Research and Evaluation, 11(1), 34-46.
Yip, M. C. W. (2007). Differences in learning and study strategies between high and low
achievement university. A Hong Kong study. Educational Psychology, 27, 597- 606.
Zweig, D., & Webster J. (2004). Validation of a Multidimensional Measure of Goal
Orientation. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 36(3), 232-243.
131
About the Author

Dr. Carlo Magno is presently a faculty of the Counseling and Educational Psychology
Department at De La Salle University, Manila. He has an active research agenda on
student learning strategies. Further correspondence can be addressed to him at
carlo.magno@dlsu.ph.

Assessing Students' Study Strategies and Achievement Goals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Assessing Students' Study Strategies and Achievement Goals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessing Students' Study Strategies and Achievement Goals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

108

The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment

Assessing Students Study Strategies and Achievement Goals

De La Salle University, Manila

Keywords: Learning strategies, Achievement goals, Mathematics learning

The Present Study

2012 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

Descriptive Statistics for Achievement Goals and LASSI

Table 2 summarizes the correlations among the different subscales of achievement

performance-avoidance goals) and learning and study strategies (information processing,

Intercorrelations of the Subscales of the Achievement Goals

Table 3 describes the inter-correlations between the subscales of Achievement Goal

For mastery-approach, there is a moderately strong correlation to all its counterparts

Intercorrelations of the Subscales of LASSI

Selecting Main Ideas

2012 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

2012 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

2012 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

classes: The relationship of learning strategies to persistence and performance.

achievement goal adoption? An investigation of group differences using structured

Myers, N. A. (1999). A study of the learning strategies of metacognition, metamotivation,

2012 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

Somuncuoglu, Y., & Yildirim, A. (1999). Relationship between achievement goal

2012 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

About the Author

2012 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

You might also like