Research Teaching and Learning 2: Assessment 2

Literature Review
Group question: Does student self-regulation improve academic performance in secondary learning
environments?

Individual question: How does goal orientation improve students’ self-regulation?

Self-regulation is defined by a students’ ability to set clear learning goals while being able to “monitor,
regulate and control their cognition, motivation and behaviour, guided by the constrained by their goals
and the contextual features in the environment (Pintrich, 2005, p. 453). While clear learning goals are
raised as key indicator of self-regulation, there are various goal orientation model that must be
considered when measuring student self-regulation. Goal theorists have divided goal orientation models
into three general categories; mastery goals, performance goals and avoidance goals (Elliot &
Harackiewicz, 1996), though these terms become interchangeable throughout goal educational
literature. The aim of this writing is to examine the characteristics of these goal orientation models in
academic contexts. This text will also discuss the measuring of student goal orientations, by means of
exploring the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Duncan & McKeachie, 2005).
While it is argued that mastery goals are more beneficial to student self-regulation (Pintrich, 2005), this
writing will also explore texts that measure the correlation between student goal orientation models and
self-regulation.

Mastery Goals vs Performance and Avoidance Goals

When exploring these models in an educational context, goal orientation models move towards
“Achievement Goal Theory”. As goal theorists endeavour to understand students’ purpose in engaging
in academic work, such understanding can be used to measure student motivation, cognitive processing
and self-regulation (Tuominen-Soni, Salmela-Aro & Niemivirta 2012; Wolters, 2004). Mastery goals
are defined by a student’s desire to improve academically (Wolters, 2004) and when striving to increase
knowledge and competence, students take actions and changes to adapt to focus learning goals (Pintrich,
2005). Such cognitive processing is an essential tool for self-regulation, as students continue to
implement strategies to reach a positive improvement to mastery goals (p. 484). In academic settings,
“Task Goals” are related to students whose motivation stems from the desire of increasing their skills
(Midgely, et al., 1998). Various texts attempt to create a correlation between mastery goals and their
positive influence towards student self-regulation. The intentions for such research may stem from the
adaptability that is presumed to exist in mastery goal orientation, as adaptive skills are an important
factor for improving self-regulation (Tuominen-Soni, Salmela-Aro & Niemivirta 2012; Wolters, Yu &

Mizael Santos: 17795890

Pintrich; 1996; Zimmerman, 2008). Mastery goals overall are intrapersonal, and the ability to self-
regulate is driven by a student’s desire to expand on knowledge and competence.

Performance goals and avoidance goals are a reflection an individual’s self-worth, as students are
motivated to surpass their peers, receive praise for their performance or are fearful of negative
perceptions or outcomes that are associated with failure (Pintrich, 2005). This model can be likened to
concepts of ability-orientation (Midgley et al., 1998) or ego-involved (Elliot, 1999), as students may
engage in academic work in order to seek praise or to avoid negative judgement for their ability. In
contrast to mastery goals, performance orientation is maladaptive, and students who operate under
performance goals are considered to have less self-regulation (Tuominen-Soni, Salmela-Aro &
Niemivirta 2012; Wolters, Yu, & Pintrich, 1996), compared to students with master goals. The concept
of avoidance goals is variable throughout achievement goal theory. While the idea is based around the
avoidance of negative outcomes, academic literature raises the concern of “work-avoidance”, as
students’ complete academic tasks with low amount of effort (Wolters, 2003). This idea allows for a
stronger understanding of self-regulation by means of comparing the lower cognitive and behavioural
processing that is associated with avoidance orientations (Pintrich, 2005). Work avoidance orientation
assumes a lower level of academic operation, as tasks provided to students may act as a threat to their
emotional wellbeing (Van Earde, 2000). The motivation behind avoidance tactics can also relate to a
students’ self-efficacy, as tasks may be considered to challenging or not challenging enough (p. 382).
Academic tasks are postponed as a means to avoid assessment pressure and stress associated with tasks.
In laymen’s terms, this would be referred to as procrastination. Procrastination is self-handicapping, as
time to complete academic work is reduced (Wolters, 2003). These maladaptive strategies associated
with avoidance goals are seen as a negative impact on self-regulation (Pintrich, 2005).

Self-Regulation and the MSLQ

The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) is commonly used in goal theory
research, whether or not researchers have explicitly acknowledged the tool. This questionnaire,
developed by Paul Pintrich acts as an individual report on a student’s motivation and learning strategies
(Duncan & Mckeachie, 2005), student motivation referring to their goal orientations and learning
strategies relating to self-regulation. The MSLQ is highly flexible and has been used in various
educational contexts (p. 120), and such literature incorporating this tool will be examined below.

Wolters, Yu and Pintrich (1996) conducted a research that assesses the level self-regulation, self-
efficacy and adaptive strategy use in various subject areas. The results obtained in the research suggests
that students with learning (mastery) orientation goals present higher levels of self-regulation and
adaptive learning strategies compared to those with extrinsic (performance) orientation goals. They also
found that students with relative ability goal orientation goals (a social comparison of their ability),
scored high levels of self-regulation and cognitive processing. However, the research focuses only the

Mizael Santos: 17795890

comparison of the scores of self-regulation and student motivation between learning/extrinsic goal
orientations, leaving the level of self-regulation and student motivation in relative ability goal
orientations to be measured independently. There is no clear explanation in this text as to why this was
done, though various texts have also focused on the dichotomy between mastery/performance
orientation goals (Elliot, 1999; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). In a similar context, Tuominen-Soni,
Salmela-Aro and Niemivirta (2012) conducted a research on the relationship between achievement goal
orientations of students and their academic well-being and the collection of such data was obtained
through incorporating the MSLQ. While there is no explicit focus on measuring student self-regulation,
the research endeavours to understand the students adaptive and maladaptive strategies, which is
integral to assessing the self-regulation of students (Pintrich, 2005). The findings suggest that mastery
and success orientated showed equal levels of adaptive strategies in contrast to avoidance-orientated
students in which they were seen to practise maladaptive strategies (Tuominen-Soni, Salmela-Aro &
Niemivirta, 2012).

Conclusion

Exploring various literature around the concept of Goal Orientation Theory has provided insightful
amount of knowledge regarding the models contained in such studies and more importantly,
understanding the relationship between Goal Orientation models and student self-regulation. The texts
that have been reviewed present a clear comparison between mastery, performance and avoidance goal
orientations and the influence these motivations have on self-regulation. While students with mastery
goal orientation are seen to display higher levels of self-regulation in comparison to those with
performance and avoidance goal orientations, it is imperative to understand the origin of how this
information was discovered. With this in mind, it is important to incorporate aspects of the MSLQ when
assessing student goal orientation, self-regulation and adaptive learning strategies.

Mizael Santos: 17795890

 References

Duncan, T., & Mckeachie, W. (2005). The Making of the Motivated Strategies for Learning

Questionnaire. Educational Psychologist, 40(2), 117-128.

Elliot, A. Approach and Avoidance Motivation and Achievement Goals. Educational

Psychologist 34.3 (1999): 169-89.

Elliot, A., & Harackiewicz, J. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic

motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 70(3), 461-475.

Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Maehr, M., Urdan, T., Anderman, Lynley H., . . . Roeser, R.

(1998). The Development and Validation of Scales Assessing Students' Achievement Goal
Orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(2), 113-131.

Pintrich, P. (2005). The Role of Goal Orientation in Self-Regulated Learning. In Boekaerats, M.,
Pintrich, P., & Zeinder, Moshe. The Handbook of Self-Regulation.
Wolters, C. (2003). Understanding procrastination from a self-regulated learning

perspective.(Abstract). Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 179-187.

Wolters, C. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal

orientations to predict students' motivation, cognition, and achievement.(Author

Abstract). Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 236-250.

Wolters, C., Yu, S., & Pintrich, P. The Relation between Goal Orientation and Students'

Motivational Beliefs and Self-regulated Learning. Learning and Individual

Differences 8.3 (1996): 211-38.

Van Eerde, W. (2000). Procrastination: Self‐regulation in Initiating Aversive Goals. Applied

Psychology, 49(3), 372-389.

Tuominen-Soini, H., Salmela-Aro, K., & Niemivirta, M. (2012). Achievement goal orientations

and academic well-being across the transition to upper secondary education. Learning
and Individual Differences, 22(3), 290-305.

Mizael Santos: 17795890

Zimmerman, B. (2008). Investigating Self-Regulation and Motivation: Historical Background,

Methodological Developments, and Future Prospects. American Educational Research

Journal, 45(1), 166-183.

Mizael Santos: 17795890

Dear Potential Participant:

I am working on a project titled “Goal Orientation Models and Student Regulation” for the class,
‘Researching Teaching and Learning 2,’ at Western Sydney University. As part of the project, I am
collecting information to help inform the design of a teacher research proposal.

Our topic aims to understand what motivates students in secondary to engage in classwork. We will be
assessing student’s motivation through a concept known as “Goal Orientation Theory” to come to an
understanding of how these motivations effect a student’s ability to regulate their own behaviour and
how this may improve their academic performance. This will be done through analysing a student’s
completed self-reporting questionnaire, followed by a series of classroom observations. In order to do
this, we will be seeking consent from students to complete the questionnaire that is provided, as well as
seeking consent to document classroom observations. Students will be de-identified when analysing their
questionnaires and will also be de-identified in any observation notes that is documented.

By signing this form acknowledge that:

 I have read the project information and have been given the opportunity to discuss the
information and my involvement in the project with the researcher/s.
 The procedures required for the project and the time involved have been explained to me, and
any questions I have about the project have been answered to my satisfaction.
 I consent to submitting my completed questionnaire, as well as consenting to be observed during
class.
 I understand that my involvement is confidential, and that the information gained during this
data collection experience will only be reported within the confines of the ‘Researching Teaching
and Learning 2’ unit, and that all personal details will be de-identified from the data.
 I understand that I can withdraw from the project at any time, without affecting my relationship
with the researcher/s, now or in the future.
By signing below, I acknowledge that I am 18 years of age or older, or I am a full-time university student
who is 17 years old.

Signed: __________________________________

Name: __________________________________

Date: __________________________________

By signing below, I acknowledge that I am the legal guardian of a person who is 16 or 17 years old and
provide my consent for the person’s participation.

Signed: __________________________________

Name: __________________________________

Date: __________________________________

Mizael Santos: 17795890

 Data Collection Protocol
Questionnaire
Question
1. How important do you find your education?
||Extremely unimportant ||Slightly unimportant ||Somewhat important || Very important || Extremely Important ||
2. How often do you focus on improving in class?
||Never ||Almost Never|| Sometimes || Most of time || All the time ||
3. When should classwork feel challenging?
||Never ||Almost Never|| Sometimes || Most of time || All the time ||
4. How interested do you find learning?
||Extremely uninterested|| Slightly uninterested || Somewhat interested ||Very Interested|| Extremally Interested ||
5. How often should teachers reward students for doing well in class?
||Never ||Almost Never|| Sometimes || Most of time || All the time ||
6. How important is it to get good grades in class?
||Extremely unimportant ||Slightly unimportant ||Somewhat important || Very important || Extremely Important ||
7. How often do you compete with other students to get the best marks?
||Never|| Rarely || Sometimes || Most of the time || All the time||
8. How important is it to get higher test marks than other students?
||Extremely unimportant ||Slightly unimportant ||Somewhat important || Very important || Extremely Important ||
9. How often do you compare yourself to other students?
||Never ||Almost Never|| Sometimes || Most of time || All the time ||
10. How much do you worry about failing a test or assessment?
||Never ||Almost Never|| Sometimes || Most of time || All the time ||
11. How often do you ask questions when you need help?
||Never|| Rarely || Sometimes || Most of the time || All the time||
12. How often do you pretend to know what you are doing in class?
||Never ||Almost Never|| Sometimes || Most of time || All the time ||

Relation Between Question and Goal Orientation Model

Goal Orientation Questions relating to Model
Models
Mastery - How important do you find your education?
Orientation Goals - How often do you focus on improving in class?
- When should classwork feel challenging?
- How interested do you find learning?
Performance - How often should teachers reward students for doing well in class?
Orientation Goals - How important is it to get good grades in class?
- How often do you compete with other students to get the best marks?
- How important is it to get higher test marks than other students?
Avoidance - How often do you compare yourself to other students?
Orientation Goals - How much do you worry about failing a test or assessment?
- How often do you ask questions when you need help?
- How often do you pretend to know what you are doing in class?

Mizael Santos: 17795890

 Observation Sheet
Focus group (Mastery, Performance or Avoidance):

Group size:

Subject: Class/Period Observed:

Lesson Topic:

Self-regulation checklist
Adaptive learning strategies Maladaptive learning strategies
 Students work complete given tasks, without  Students are pre-occupied, engaging in non-related
distraction tasks
 Students regularly ask for help when needed  Students avoid asking for help when experiencing
 Minimal behaviour management is present difficulty with tasks
 Students reflect and consider set learning goals  Behaviour management and disciplinary measures are
taken by the teacher
Time Field Notes Adaptive/Maladaptive Adaptive/Maladaptive
strategies present indicators

Mizael Santos: 17795890

 Data Collection Protocol Explanation
The data collection protocol provided combines the use of questionnaires and focus group observations.
While Goal Orientation Theory is based on a quantitative approach of measuring goal orientation and
self-regulation, the proposed data collection protocol aims to adapt the effective questioning seen in the
Motivational Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MLSQ) into qualitative research. The data obtained
from this questionnaire will be used to divide students into a demographic of either mastery,
performance or avoidance orientated, and separate observations will be completed to assess each focus
groups level of student self-regulation.

The aim of the questionnaire is to categorise students into the three Goal Orientation Models of mastery,
performance and avoidance. The highest score obtained for that Goal Orientation Model will determine
the demographic that student will be placed in. The order of the questions provided in the questionnaire
will not follow that specific order, as randomizing these questions for students to read will may improve
the data (Harrison, 2017). While the MSLQ was initially designed as an 81-item self-report on student
motivation and learning strategies (Duncan & Mckeachie, 2005), the questionnaire for the data
collection protocol only aims to adapt the sub-category of Goal Orientation that is contained in the
MSLQ. The data collection therefore considers an indirect application of this research tool, as
adjustments must be made to consider the sample size of quantitative research. The questionnaire
follows a standard one to five Likert scale, ensuring it measures students goal orientations through a
negative and positive scoring (Harrison, 2017). The questionnaire has been designed to organise and
calculate a student’s individual score for each question. The scores for these individual questions will
then be added together within each individual demographic (refer to “Relation Between Question and
Goal Orientation Model”).

Once these demographics have been established, three separate observations will be undertaken to
assess the level of student self-regulation and adaptive/maladaptive strategies. The observation sheet
utilises a checklist to establish whether students are engaging in adaptive and maladaptive strategies.
The checklist has been influenced by definitions of self-regulation, understanding that self-regulation
is achieved by adaptive learning strategies (Pintrich, 2005). The checklist also considers the standards
set by the NSW Quality Teaching Framework (Department of Education and Training, 2006), making
reference to the recommendations presented in dimension 2.5 “Students’ self-regulation” (p. 34).
Timestamps are designed to separate different tasks assigned in class and to compare the student’s level
of self-regulation in each individual task. While completing field notes, the observation sheet leaves
space to reflect on the self-regulation checklist and leaves space to indicate how adaptive or maladaptive
strategies are present. The observation sheet therefore is designed to establish how often each
demographic presents adaptive and maladaptive strategies, in order to establish which demographic of
students is more self-regulated in class.

Mizael Santos: 17795890

The data collection protocols are designed to establish the demographic between student Goal
Orientation models. While the use of the MLSQ is in provided questionnaire may seem superficial in
its applications, the questionnaire has been adaptive to purely understand the students goal orientation,
in order to establish separate focus groups for observation. The observation sheet is imperative to
understanding the correlation between self-regulation and Goal Orientation Theory, as the three
observations that will be conducted will determine which Goal Orientation model is the most beneficial
to student self-regulation.

Mizael Santos: 17795890

 References

Department of Education and Training Professional Learning and Leadership Development

Directorate. (2006). Quality teaching in NSW public schools: A Classroom Practice Guide
(Publication No. SCIS 1273327). Retrieved from
https://app.education.nsw.gov.au/qualityteachingrounds/Assets/Classroom_Practice_Guide

Harvard University Program on Survey Research. (2007). Questionnaire design tip sheet.

Retrieved from http://psr.iq.harvard.edu/book/questionnaire-design-tip-sheet.

ogogVUqQeB.pdf

Pintrich, P. (2005). The Role of Goal Orientation in Self-Regulated Learning. In Boekaerats, M.,
Pintrich, P., & Zeinder, Moshe. The Handbook of Self-Regulation.

Mizael Santos: 17795890