Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Growth Goal Setting in High School: A Large-Scale Study of Perceived Instructional Support, Personal Background Attributes, and Engagement Outcomes
Growth Goal Setting in High School: A Large-Scale Study of Perceived Instructional Support, Personal Background Attributes, and Engagement Outcomes
Growth Goal Setting in High School: A Large-Scale Study of Perceived Instructional Support, Personal Background Attributes, and Engagement Outcomes
Andrew J. Martin1, Emma C. Burns2, Rebecca J. Collie1, Keiko C. P. Bostwick1, Anaïd Flesken3, and
Ian McCarthy3
1
School of Education, University of New South Wales
2
School of Education, Macquarie University
3
Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation, New South Wales Department of Education, New South Wales, Australia
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
The present investigation examined the role of teachers’ instructional support (student reports of rele-
vance, organization and clarity, feedback-feedforward) in predicting students’ growth goal setting and,
in turn, the roles of instructional support and growth goal setting in predicting students’ academic
engagement (perseverance, aspirations, school attendance, homework behavior). Also examined was the
question of whether the relationship between students’ background attributes and engagement is moder-
ated by their growth goal setting (e.g., whether growth goal setting attenuates negative effects of low
socioeconomic status). The sample comprised N = 61,879 students in grades 7–10 from schools across
New South Wales, Australia. The results of structural equation modeling showed that perceived instruc-
tional relevance and feedback-feedforward from teachers positively predicted students’ growth goal set-
ting; that growth goal setting predicted gains in students’ perseverance, aspirations, and homework
behavior; and that growth goal setting significantly mediated the relationship between perceived instruc-
tional support and engagement. Additionally, growth goal setting appeared to significantly bolster some
outcomes for low achieving students and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. These findings
add to the growing body of literature about the positive role of growth goal setting in students’ out-
comes and provide direction for educational practice.
Editor’s Note. Doug Lombardi served as action editor for this article.—PK Anaïd Flesken https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4860-6493
The authors thank Nicole Hare, Brianna McCourt, and Samuel Cox for
This article was published Online First June 28, 2021. feedback on the article. This study was funded by the New South Wales
Andrew J. Martin https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5504-392X Department of Education (UNSWRG193170).
Emma C. Burns https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6323-1816 Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Andrew
Rebecca J. Collie https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9944-2703 J. Martin, School of Education, University of New South Wales, NSW
Keiko C. P. Bostwick https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0631-6738 2052, Australia. Email: andrew.martin@unsw.edu.au
752
GROWTH GOAL SETTING 753
Goal setting plays an important role in students’ academic Theoretical Backdrop Guiding the Hypothesized Model
development (Elliot, 2005; Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2008;
Locke & Latham, 2002, 2013; Maehr & Zusho, 2009). The The present investigation was grounded in the triadic model of
present study is focused on a recently proposed construct within social–cognitive theory (SCT; Bandura, 1986). The triadic model
the goal-setting domain: growth goal setting. Growth goal set- explains how relationships among environmental, personal, and
ting refers to the pursuit of specific, challenging, and competi- behavioral/outcome factors are implicated in human agency. In the
tively self-referenced targets that match or exceed a previous school context, environmental dimensions include factors such as
best effort or performance; they are typically operationalized as teacher support. Personal factors comprise various self-strategies
such as goal setting. Behavioral/outcome factors refer to students’
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
extend previous work on growth goal setting in two ways. First, (environmental) predicted students’ growth goal setting (personal)
we investigated the role of teachers’ instructional support (stu- that in turn both positively predicted global engagement (behav-
dent reports of relevance, organization and clarity, feedback- ioral/outcome). The present study seeks to expand on this work.
feedforward) in predicting students’ growth goal setting and, in According to SCT, goal setting is influenced by those who are sig-
turn, the roles of both perceived instructional support and nificant to the individual, such as teachers, parents, and peers (Ban-
growth goal setting in predicting students’ academic engage- dura, 1991; see also Wentzel, 1999). Indeed, Burns et al. (2018)
ment (perseverance, aspirations, school attendance, homework found that students who experience more positive social-emotional
behavior). Second, we examined the question of whether the associ- support from teachers, parents, and peers are more likely to utilize
ations between students’ background attributes and engagement are growth goal setting. Our study expands on this research by examin-
moderated by students’ growth goal setting (e.g., whether growth ing another form of environmental support—teachers’ instructional
goal setting attenuates negative effects of low socioeconomic sta- support—and its role in predicting growth goal setting. Personal fac-
tus). Figure 1 demonstrates the key relationships to be investigated. tors such as goals provide the foundational beliefs and skills that
Figure 1
Hypothesized Model of Outcomes, Moderators, and Antecedents Relevant to Growth Goal Setting
ENVIRONMENT (Instruction) PERSON (Student Strategy) OUTCOME (Engagement)
T1
Organization
and Clarity Perseverance
T1
T1
Relevance
Attendance
T1
Year Level
Gender Homework
SES Behavior
Prior Achievement
Direct Effects of Interactions (e.g., Growth
Instruction on Goals x Gender, etc.)
Engagement
represent an essential translational step from environmental support effects attributable to gender-related and socioeconomic-related fac-
to more active factors such as engagement (Bandura, 1991). Impor- tors (Claro et al., 2016; Schippers et al., 2015), growth goal setting
tantly, although Bandura (1986, 1991) is clear that these processes may attenuate the associations between personal background factors
are ultimately reciprocal over time, he also argues that rather than and engagement to minimize the engagement disparities that exist
examining the reciprocal relationships simultaneously, researchers across these groups.
can interrogate the subprocesses (via process models) longitudinally
to determine the initial impact of factors and their later resultant Motivational Theorizing Around Growth
changes. In the case of this study, such an approach enables the
We locate growth goal setting under the broader umbrella of
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
ting and gains in engagement, direct effects of growth goal setting on integrative perspective, these theories offer some convergence on
gains in engagement, and indirect effects of perceived instructional the key facets and dynamics particular to growth goal setting,
support on gains in engagement via growth goal setting. These including the role of self-set goals in academic engagement, the
hypothesized links are described in more detail below. For growth drive for personal growth and improvement (achievement goal
goal setting studies that have conducted other longitudinal analytic theory), the energizing function of challenge (goal setting theory),
approaches, including in terms of reciprocity, we refer the reader to the need for autonomy (self-determination theory), and the voli-
Martin’s (2015) and Martin and Liem’s (2010) cross-lag panel tional aspects of goals that are integrated with one’s self and val-
research. ues (self-concordance theory).
We also note Bandura’s (1997) suggestion that personal factors Achievement goal theory considers goals in terms of the reasons
are likely to dynamically interact, such that background factors par- why individuals pursue their targets (Elliot, 2005). At the most
ticular to a student and their motivation may interact to affect aca- fundamental level, individuals can pursue goals for mastery and
demic outcomes. In the case of our study, this would entail testing learning (mastery goals) or goals focused on outperforming others
the interaction between students’ background attributes (year level and demonstrating relative competence (performance goals). More
at school, gender, students’ socioeconomic status [SES], and prior recently, goal theory has expanded to include self-based goals
achievement) and their growth goal setting. Given that growth goal where individuals strive for personal growth and self-improvement
setting is the modifiable factor in these interactions, we position it as (Elliot et al., 2011, 2015). Whereas achievement goal theory tends
the focal moderator of the effects from background attributes to aca- to address the why of motivational striving, goal setting theory
demic outcomes. For example, previous research has demonstrated tends to be more focused on the what of motivational striving
that the benefits of growth goal setting vary across sociodemo- (Martin, 2011), with goal setting theorists articulating the nature
graphic student groups (Martin, 2012b). Martin (2012b) found that of goals that are most effective. One aspect of which refers to the
growth goal setting was especially beneficial for students with atten- level of challenge; high but attainable levels of challenge are cen-
tion-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) relative to classmates tral to growth goal setting (Locke & Latham, 2002, 2013; Travers
without ADHD. He suggested this was because focusing on them- et al., 2015). Indeed, it is goal setting theory that most closely con-
selves as the benchmark allowed students with ADHD to strive for nects to our growth goal construct, and so we review goal setting
accessible success (which is motivating) while also diverting their theory in more detail further below.
attention away from aversive and demotivating comparisons with Self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) is another domi-
peers who typically outperformed them. In line with this, it may be nant theory in motivational psychology and represents important
the case that growth goal setting similarly attenuates well-docu- conceptual space for informing and considering growth goal set-
mented disparities in engagement across other student groups: year ting. Self-determination theory identifies that individuals have a
level, gender, socioeconomic status, and prior achievement. Previous need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness; when these
research has demonstrated that boys tend to report lower behavioral needs are met, individuals are more likely to adaptively develop
engagement relative to girls (Cook et al., 2007; Van de Gaer et al., and function. As noted by Collie et al. (2016), a core feature of
2009) and that behavioral engagement declines as students move growth goals is that they are determined by students, about them-
through high school (Burns et al., 2019). Similarly, researchers have selves, and for themselves, indicating that they may help satisfy
identified disparities in engagement between students from low and students’ need for autonomy. This is further supported by recent
high socioeconomic and low and high prior achievement, resulting theorizing seeking to integrate achievement goal theory and self-
from inequities in access to educational support and resources (Cut- determination theory that has suggested that the self-based
more et al., 2018; Sirin, 2005). It may be the case, as noted by Mar- (growth) goals of achievement goal theory (Elliot et al., 2011) are
tin (2012b), that a focus on personal growth and challenge is likely quite aligned with the need for autonomy in self-determination
to reinvigorate engagement for all students and may be particularly theory (Vansteenkiste et al., 2014). The self-concordance model
beneficial for students who typically experience steeper drop offs in (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999) also attends to the self-determined nature
this regard: boys, older students, low socioeconomic background, of individuals’ goals and their growth elements. This model pro-
low prior achievement. Along similar lines to research finding poses that the consistency between goals and the individual’s
growth mindset and goal setting can attenuate adverse academic interests and core values has significant implications for goal
GROWTH GOAL SETTING 755
striving, goal attainment, and well being outcomes. Self-concord- considered an important translational step to active behaviors such
ant goals are those that are integrated with the self. This has posi- as engagement (Burns et al., 2018; see also Dweck, 2017).
tive effects on well being via the intrinsic and self-determined
nature of self-concordant goals and the internal locus of control Perceived Instructional Support, Growth Goal Setting,
that these goals entail (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). In contrast, exter- and Engagement
nally set or referenced goals tend not to align with individuals’
enduring interests and values and thus lack the volitional strength Instructional support is a salient antecedent of goal setting under
that self-concordant goals possess (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). A SCT’s triadic model (Bandura, 1986; Burns et al., 2018). It is also
well established that instructional factors have a major impact on
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
organization and clarity are significantly associated with enhanced 2006). The various phases of interest development have also been
student learning and affective engagement (Titsworth et al., 2015). associated with students’ academic engagement (Renninger & Hidi,
Feedback-feedforward refers to corrective information and 2015). According to Renninger and Hidi (2020), engagement at
improvement-oriented guidance to students during learning (fol- each phase of interest development is triggered by a process that
lowing calls to combine classic feedback [corrective information] propels information searches that deepens knowledge and perceived
with improvement-oriented guidance [feedforward]; Basso & Oli- relevance. Thus, instructional approaches that support students’ in-
vetti Belardinelli, 2006; Burns et al., 2019; Hattie & Timperley, terest should also support students’ growth goals and engagement.
2007; Martin, 2016). Researchers have identified its key elements
Summary of Perceived Instructional Support
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
and specific and explicit information about what more needs to be dic model, it is plausible to examine the indirect association
learned or understood (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Indeed, the between instructional support and engagement via growth goal set-
most recent meta-analysis on this topic found a significant associa- ting. Indeed, research has shown that these forms of instructional
tion between feedback-feedforward and student learning (Wis- support are directly associated with student goal setting (e.g.,
niewski et al., 2019). Burns et al., 2019; Eberley et al., 2011) and engagement (e.g., Col-
These three dimensions of instructional support have been well lie et al., 2019; Martin, et al., 2020; Reeve et al., 2004; Renninger
articulated in numerous theories of instruction that have also vari- & Hidi, 2015, 2020). We therefore explore the roles of instruc-
ously articulated links with students’ goal setting and academic tional relevance, organization and clarity, and feedback-feedfor-
engagement (for example, self-determination theory and constitu- ward as (a) direct predictors of students’ growth goal setting, (b)
ent needs-supportive teaching, Reeve, 2006; Ryan & Deci, 2000; direct predictors of student engagement, and (c) indirect predic-
expectancy value theory, Wigfield & Eccles, 2000; load reduction tors, via growth goal setting, of engagement. Figure 1 demon-
instruction, Martin & Evans, 2018, 2019; CLASS framework, strates the hypothesized links.
Hamre et al., 2007). An expansive summary is beyond the scope
of the present study. However, as a point of illustration we present Growth Goal Setting and Academic Engagement
one conceptual framework that we suggest has direct relevance to
our three instructional support factors—and to students’ growth Academic engagement is not only a means to desirable ends
goal setting and academic engagement: the Hidi and Renninger (e.g., achievement), it is also recognized as a desirable end in
(2006) four-phase model of interest development. itself. Thus, for example, research has not only demonstrated links
between academic engagement and outcomes such as achieve-
Interest Development, Instructional Support, Growth Goal ment, school completion, postschool pathways, and so forth (Froi-
Setting, and Engagement land & Worrell, 2016; Reyes et al., 2012; Van Ryzin et al., 2009);
research has also shown that engagement is valued by students,
The Hidi and Renninger (2006) four-phase model emphasizes teachers, and parents/carers as an important outcome in its own
the importance of relevance, organization and clarity, and feed- right (Bempechat & Shernoff, 2012; Martin & Bolliger, 2018).
back-feedforward for interest development. The first phase Accordingly, academic engagement is identified as the “outcome”
involves sparking situational interest through relevant and person- factor in our investigation. Indeed, although achievement was out-
alized content and tasks. In phase two of their model, they suggest side the scope of this study, we do note prior research showing
that situational interest is sustained through ongoing instructional that growth goals are directly associated with achievement out-
attention to relevance. This second phase is also substantially comes (e.g., Martin & Elliot, 2016b; Martin & Liem, 2010) and
externally supported, such as through instructional organization also indirectly associated with achievement via academic engage-
and clarity and individualized support (i.e., feedback-feedforward) ment (e.g., Martin et al., 2016); thus, our study of engagement as
if needed. The final phases of their model involve more self- the focal outcome of instructional support and growth goal setting
directed activity by the student that relies on feedback-feedforward may be considered an important first step for future research inves-
from the teacher (see also Lipstein & Renninger, 2006). tigating achievement.
Each of these phases highlights the positive benefits of instruc- Consistent with the triadic model that has well-established cog-
tional support for students’ interest development—but also for other nitive–behavioral foundations (Bandura, 1986), we adopted a cog-
adaptive educational outcomes. For example, Hidi and Renninger nitive–behavioral approach to engagement. Cognitive engagement
(2006) suggest that these instructional support approaches should is defined as students’ mental investment and striving in their
also benefit students’ goal setting and academic engagement. Spe- learning (Fredricks et al., 2004). Our cognitive engagement meas-
cifically, the higher levels of interest developed through these ures comprise perseverance and aspirations. Perseverance is a
instructional supports are theorized to comprise self-generated and form of investment and striving in line with the Fredricks et al.
self-selected pursuits, as well as iterative increases in self-set chal- (2004) framework and is deemed a critical attribute for navigating
lenges. From this we might infer that high levels of interest include academic challenge as well as for completing large, extended, and/
growth goal setting because such goals are self-generated and self- or multipart academic tasks (Martin, 2007, 2009). Academic aspi-
selected and involve an iterative escalation of challenge (Martin, rations are associated with continued academic investment and
GROWTH GOAL SETTING 757
school completion (Burns, 2020; Burns et al., 2021; Gutman & in investigations of growth goal setting and engagement. These
Schoon, 2018). background attributes include: students’ year level at school
Behavioral engagement refers to students’ actions and active (younger students are typically more engaged and more likely to
participation in academic activities (Fredricks et al., 2004). Our pursue growth goals: Anderman & Maehr, 1994; Martin et al.,
behavioral engagement measures comprised homework behavior 2015), gender (girls are typically higher in engagement: Burns et
and school attendance. Doing homework is important for develop- al., 2018; Burns et al., 2019; Martin, 2004), SES (higher SES stu-
ing important academic self-regulatory skills (e.g., managing time, dents are typically more engaged: Burns et al., 2018), and prior
strategy development, delaying gratification, etc.; Ramdass & levels of achievement (higher prior achievement is typically asso-
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
Zimmerman, 2011) and is also associated with enhanced learning, ciated with engagement and growth goal setting: Burns et al.,
particularly among high school students (Fan et al., 2017). With 2017, 2018; Collie et al., 2016; Liem et al., 2012; see Figure 1).
regard to school attendance, it has been found that absentees The inclusion of these factors allowed us to control for their
receive fewer hours of instruction and are slower to develop core known influence on engagement; this helped us to identify unique
skills that underpin their learning (Willms, 2003); thus, school effects of growth goal setting on engagement purged of variance
attendance is a vital behavioral engagement outcome. Taken to- attributable to these personal background attributes. Moreover,
gether, our study sought to examine the extent to which growth
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Method NAPLAN generates raw scores (scaled from 100 to 800) and band
scores (scaled from 1 to 10) for students’ literacy and numeracy
Participants, Sampling, and Procedure performance. The average raw score achievement attained by this
study’s students was almost identical to that attained in the state as
The present investigation examined a sample of N = 61,879 a whole (within 6.5 units from each other), further signaling the
high school students from 290 government schools across New representativeness of our sample in terms of prior achievement.
South Wales (NSW), Australia’s most populous state. The data The majority of schools were located in major urban centers of
were collected as part of the NSW Department of Education’s an- NSW (78% of schools in the sample; the NSW average is 66%),
nual “Tell Them from Me”1 (TTFM) student survey, which has
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
Table 1
Descriptive and Factor Analytic Statistics
Variable M SD Mean factor loading (range)
Organization and clarity 2.62 0.83 .85 (.76–.91)
Feedback-feedforward 2.11 0.61 .74 (.72–.79)
Relevance 2.27 0.84 .80 (.73–.86)
Growth goal setting 2.55 0.88 .87 (.85–.88)
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
Note. We have adjusted the instructional support factor names from the original terminology used in their source survey—see the Method section for
details. Aspirations is a single-item indicator where the loading is fixed to unit value and the residual is fixed to zero.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
while PB goals appear more salient in mapping onto engagement” note that because students in high school typically have different
(p. 635). Subsequently, Martin and Elliot (2016a) showed that teachers for different school subjects, asking students to report on
self-based growth goals (assessed via personal best goals), mastery one particular teacher enabled students to focus more specifically
goals, and performance goals each uniquely predicted academic on their experiences in one class, rather than their overall experien-
outcomes. With special reference to mastery goals, they concluded ces in many different classrooms that might vary widely. This not-
“there is a potentially positive and complementary (not opposing withstanding, domain-specific models were run as well (e.g.,
or mutually exclusive) role for both personal best and mastery where only mathematics instructional support items were included)
goals and that together, mastery and personal best goals capture a and derived the same substantive findings (reported in the online
greater totality of variance in students’ motivation and engage- supplemental materials).
ment” (p. 1296). Most recently, Bostwick et al. (2020) demon- Relevance was assessed via the TTFM Teaching Relevance
strated that self-based goals such as the growth goals we Scale (three items with parallel wording across domains). This
administer in this study are a distinct and separable factor from included items about the meaningfulness, usefulness, and purpose-
task-based goals (such as mastery goals). fulness of the teaching and content (e.g., “[In the past two weeks]
We explored ideas and topics that are meaningful”). All items
Perceived Instructional Support were assessed on a scale of 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly
Perceived instructional support was assessed via three separate agree). The three items were used as latent indicators of the rele-
factors: instructional relevance, instructional organization and vance factor, which demonstrated reliability (x2019 = .84).
clarity, and feedback-feedforward. To reduce respondent burden, Organization and clarity was assessed via the TTFM Effective
students were randomly assigned to one domain (i.e., mathematics, Learning Time Scale (six items with parallel wording across
science, or English) for all measures of perceived instructional domains; e.g., “Our [math/science/English] teacher is good at
support (thus, e.g., one student was randomly assigned to report on explaining difficult ideas”). This included items about manage-
only their perceived instructional support from their science ment of lesson time to optimize learning and organization and
teacher, whereas another student was randomly assigned to report clarity of content and tasks. All items were assessed on a scale of
on only their mathematics teacher). Critically, the items were 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The six items were
worded the same across subject domains (i.e., parallel items). Stu- used as latent indicators of the organization and clarity factor,
dents’ responses to these items, regardless of their subject domain, which demonstrated reliability (x2019 = .94).
were used as indicators of the factor in modeling (viz., relevance Feedback-feedforward was assessed via the TTFM Explicit Teach-
item #1, relevance item #2, etc. as indicators of a relevance factor). ing Practice and Feedback Scale (six items with parallel wordings
For example, if Student A was assigned the mathematics instruc- across domains; e.g., “The feedback from assessments and quizzes
tion items, Student B was assigned the science instruction items, helps me learn”). To represent the breadth of the feedback-feedfor-
and Student C was assigned the English instruction items, then ward construct, these items captured reciprocity in information from
A’s relevance item #1 in mathematics, B’s parallel relevance item and to students, as well as teacher explanations, corrective informa-
#1 in science, and C’s parallel relevance item #1 in English would tion, and improvement-oriented information (thus connecting to
all be used as the item 1 indicator for relevance (see Table S7 in explicit instructional elements; Martin, 2016). Four items were rated
the online supplemental materials for visual example). This from 0 = never or hardly ever to 3 = in all lessons; and two items
approach was considered viable given previous research demon- were rated from 0 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree). These
strating the positive associations between students’ domain-gen- six items were used as latent indicators of the feedback-feedforward
eral and domain-specific perceptions (Bong, 2001; Green et al., factor, which demonstrated reliability (x2019 = .88).
2007) and given previous suggestions that there may be trait-like
Academic Engagement
motivations that traverse school subjects even in the context of do-
main-specificity (e.g., Trautwein, Lüdtke, Kastens, et al., 2006; Academic engagement included perseverance and aspirations (as
Trautwein, Lüdtke, Schnyder, et al., 2006). It is also important to cognitive engagement indicators) and attendance and homework
760 MARTIN ET AL.
behavior (as behavioral engagement indicators). All engagement fac- Preliminary Analysis of Multilevel Properties and
tors were domain general and assessed once in Term 1 2019 (time 2 Measurement Invariance
[T2]—with all the other measures in the study) and once in Term 1
2018 (time 1 [T1]). Perseverance was assessed via four items (e.g., “I Goal-setting theory and social–cognitive theory position goal
finish whatever I begin”), rated on a scale of 0 (strongly agree) to 4 setting as an intrapsychic individualistic phenomenon that is influ-
enced by personal perceptions—thus, inherently a student-level
(strongly disagree), and demonstrated reliability at T1 (x2018 = .88)
process. This has been supported in empirical work showing that
and T2 (x2019 = .89). Aspirations was assessed with a single item (“I
students’ own motivation and engagement are significantly con-
plan to finish year 12”), rated on a scale of 0 (strongly disagree) to 4
nected, but climate perceptions are unrelated to students’ own
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
(strongly agree). Attendance was assessed via two items (e.g., “[In
motivation and engagement (Ruzek & Schenke, 2019); and also
the past four weeks] I have missed a day at school without permis-
work showing substantial within-group student heterogeneity
sion”) which were measured on a scale from 0 (never) to 3 (almost (Schenke et al., 2017) and that most variance in motivation and
every day); these items were then reverse coded (viz., 0!3; 1!2; engagement appears to be at the student-(not school-) level (Marsh
2!1; 3!0). The attendance factor demonstrated reliability at T1 et al., 2008; Martin et al., 2011). However, for completeness the
(x2018 = .72) and T2 (x2019 = .77). Homework behavior was viability of multilevel modeling (i.e., both student- and school-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
assessed via three items (e.g., “I enjoy doing my homework and level analysis to account for the school context) was assessed
studying”) and measured on a scale of 0 (always) to 3 (never) and given the hierarchical nature of the data. Variance at the school-
then reverse coded. The homework behavior factor demonstrated level was determined via the intraclass correlation estimates (ICC)
reliability at T1 (x2018 = .76) and T2 (x2019 = .77). and the estimates of the variances of slopes (r2) between growth
goal setting and the engagement factors at the school-level. The
Student Personal Background Factors
recommended level of between-level variance is ICC $ 10%
The student personal background factors included in the present (Byrne, 2012). All but two variables demonstrated # 3% variance
investigation were year level, gender, socioeconomic status, and at the school-level (aspirations and homework behavior each dem-
prior achievement. Year level was assessed as a continuous vari- onstrated 8% variance at the school-level). Analysis of slope var-
able (year 7 to year 10). Gender was assessed as a dichotomous iance (r2) was estimated for the following parameters to assess
variable (0 = male; 1 = female). Socioeconomic status was the potential for school-level variance in associations: (a) growth
assessed as a continuous measure of an index of students’ social goal setting ! perseverance, (b) growth goal setting ! aspira-
and economic resources (described above). Prior achievement was tions, (c) growth goal setting ! attendance, and (d) growth goal
assessed as a continuous measure via students’ band scores (scaled setting ! homework behavior. All r2s , 1%, indicating a lack of
from 1–10) on NAPLAN (described above). In this study, the liter- variance at the school level. Taken together, there is little support
for multilevel modeling for the hypothesized model and so we pro-
acy and numeracy band scores were standardized by grade, and
ceeded with single-level modeling—that is, including school-level
these standardized scores were then used to generate a mean prior
effects (student-level data aggregated to school-level to account
achievement score (x = .93).
substantively for context, rather than just statistically for cluster-
ing) was not warranted. In addition, none of the items had
Data Analysis “school” as the referent and so modeling at the school-level was
Data analysis proceeded through four stages: confirmatory fac- not conceptually appropriate. Moreover, the nature of sampling
tor analysis (CFA), measurement invariance testing, structural was such that students were not clustered within classrooms,
equation modeling (SEM), and indirect effects testing. All analy- meaning class-level analyses were also not possible. The results of
ses were conducted in Mplus v8.40 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017). all these preliminary multilevel analyses are reported in Table S1
Maximum likelihood with robustness to non-normality (MLR) in the online supplemental materials.
In addition to testing the viability of multilevel analysis, tests of
was included as the estimator and full-information maximum like-
multigroup and longitudinal measurement invariance were con-
lihood (FIML) was included to handle missing data. The Complex
ducted. Multigroup invariance tests were run to ensure that all of
and Cluster commands in Mplus were used to cluster students by
the substantive measures (i.e., antecedents, mediators, and out-
school to account for the hierarchical nature of the data. Namely,
comes) included in this investigation were invariant across key
standard errors were adjusted for the nesting of students within
subgroups: year level, gender, socioeconomic status, and prior
schools. Student weights (based on 2018 data) were also included achievement (the latter two via mean split). This was done through
to avoid inflated standard errors due to larger cluster sizes. a series of six gradually constrained single-level, multigroup
Importantly, to guard against giving undue weight to small CFAs (Byrne, 2012; Meredith, 1993). The configural (baseline)
effect sizes that are nonetheless statistically significant (given the model allowed all parameters to be freely estimated across groups.
large sample size), we used Keith’s (2006) guidelines for educa- The subsequent models constrained factor loadings (factor loading
tional research to help determine whether a finding was interpreta- invariance); factor loadings and intercepts (intercept invariance);
ble. According to Keith (2006), effect sizes of .05 # b , .10 are factor loadings, intercepts, and residuals (factor variance invari-
considered small, .10 # b , .25 are considered moderate, and ance); factor loadings, intercepts, and covariances (factor covari-
b $ .25 are considered large in educational research. For our ance invariance); and factor loadings, intercepts, covariances, and
study, only the findings that are significant at p , .001 and effect residuals (full factor invariance; Byrne, 2012; Vandenberg &
sizes of at least b $ .05 are interpreted and subsequently discussed Lance, 2000). Intercept invariance is considered the minimum cri-
in this article. terion by which to conclude group invariance and to examine a
GROWTH GOAL SETTING 761
single sample (Van de Schoot et al., 2012). It should be noted that Adequate model fit is indicated by CFI values greater than .90 and
because no pairs of items were flagged as issues in the baseline RMSEA values lower than .08. Excellent model fit is indicated by
models, it was not necessary to constrain any error covariances CFI values greater than .95 and RMSEA values lower than .05
(Byrne, 2012). (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Tests of longitudinal measurement invariance were conducted For the SEM, longitudinal (auto-regressive) paths were included
to ensure that factors were measured consistently across time. for the engagement outcome variables (e.g., T1 2018 perseverance
Because only the engagement factors were measured across time, ! T2 2019 perseverance). By including these autoregressive pa-
only these factors were included in these tests. Importantly, aspira- rameters, it is possible to assess the extent to which, for example,
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
tions were not included in these tests because aspirations were growth goal setting predicted unique variance in engagement
measured via a single-item indicator; thus, tests of longitudinal above and beyond prior variance in engagement. Because of this,
invariance focused on perseverance, attendance, and homework significant unique effects of the antecedent variables can be inter-
behavior. Longitudinal invariance was conducted via a series of preted as gains (or declines) in engagement over time. We also
four gradually constrained single-level CFAs. The configural point out that for this analytical design there are advantages in
model (Table S2b in the online supplemental materials) included modeling students’ perceptions of instructional support, growth
the following constraints: factor loading of the first item of each
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Table 2
Standardized Results of the CFA
Organization Feedback- Homework
and clarity feedforward Relevance Growth goal Perseverance Aspirations Attendance behavior
Variable (2019) (2019) (2019) setting (2019) (2019) (2019) (2019) (2019)
2018 (prior) engagement .55*** .50*** .33*** .59***
Student background
Year level (2019) .02** .01 .06*** .02*** .01 .04*** .04*** .03***
Gender (2019) .01 .01 .03*** .05*** .02* .14*** .05*** .07***
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
SES (2019) .16*** .19*** .16*** .26*** .30*** .26*** .19*** .30***
Prior achv. (2018) .11*** .13*** .03*** .12*** .18*** .32*** .21*** .21***
Perceived instructional support
Organization and clarity (2019) —
Feedback-feedforward (2019) .79*** —
Relevance (2019) .68*** .62*** —
Central factor
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Growth goal setting was correlated with all outcomes (at T2): Main Effects
perseverance (r = .77), aspirations (r = .44), attendance (r = .22),
and homework behavior (r = .67)—such that growth goal setting Regarding students’ perceptions of instructional support, both
was associated with higher scores on these factors. Perceived feedback-feedforward (b = .31; large effect size, as per Keith,
instructional support was positively associated with growth goal 2006) and relevance (b = .38; large effect size) predicted higher
setting, such that organization and clarity (r = .48), feedback-feed- levels of growth goal setting. Growth goal setting predicted gains
forward (r = .52), and relevance (r = .54) were related to higher in perseverance (b = .64; large effect size), aspirations (b = .46;
rates of growth goal setting in the sample. large effect size), and homework behavior (b = .38; large effect
There were also significant links between perceived instruc- size). Growth goal setting did not have a significant main effect on
tional support and student engagement. Organization and clarity gains in attendance. There were also direct effects of perceived
was correlated with perseverance (r = .42), aspirations (r = .32), instructional support on engagement. Perceptions of organization
attendance (r = .18), and homework behavior (r = .48). Feedback- and clarity predicted increases in attendance (b = .10; medium
feedforward was correlated with perseverance (r = .47), aspira- effect size). Perceived feedback-feedforward predicted gains in
tions (r = .33), attendance (r = .17), and homework behavior (r = perseverance (b = .07; small effect size) and homework behavior
.52). Relevance was correlated with perseverance (r = .45), aspira- (b = .10; medium effect size). Perceived relevance predicted a
tions (r = .29), attendance (r = .10), and homework behavior (r = decrease in attendance (b = .09; small effect size) and an
.58). increase in homework behavior (b = .25; large effect size).
Moderation Effects
Structural Equation Modeling
In addition to testing these main effects, we also examined the
We then examined the extent to which (a) perceived instruc- extent to which growth goal setting moderated the effects of back-
tional support predicted growth goal setting, (b) growth goal set- ground factors (year level, gender, SES, prior achievement) on
ting predicted engagement, (c) growth goal setting mediated the engagement. Of the 16 interactions tested, two interactions
link between perceived instructional support and student engage- attained the level of interpretability (i.e., p , .001 and at least b $
ment, and (d) growth goal setting moderated the relationship .05; see the Method section): Growth Goal Setting 3 Prior
between student background factors and engagement (see Figure Achievement on aspirations (b = .07; small effect size) and
1). The SEM (without interactions) demonstrated adequate fit: Growth Goal Setting 3 SES on attendance (b = .10; medium
v2(753) = 77,928.30, p , .001; CFI = .935; RMSEA = .041. effect size). The nature of these interactions is presented in Figure
Importantly, the inclusion of 16 interactions in the one model sig- 3 and Figure 4, respectively. The results of simple slopes analysis
nificantly improved model fit, as per the results of a chi-square dif- are also included in the figures.
ference test: v2(16) = 653.85, p , .001. All significant and In terms of aspirations (see Figure 3), for students low in growth
nonsignificant beta estimates are presented in Table 3. Here we goal setting, there was a stronger positive relationship between
describe all substantive beta estimates that attain the level of inter- prior achievement and academic aspirations than for students high
pretability (at least a b $ .05 [as per Keith, 2006] and p , .001). in growth goal setting—suggesting that growth goals narrow the
All interpretable main effects are presented in Figure 2. gap in aspirations between low and high prior achieving students
GROWTH GOAL SETTING 763
Table 3
Standardized Results of SEM
Growth goal Perseverance Aspirations Attendance Homework
Variable setting (2019) (2019) (2019) (2019) behavior (2019)
2018 (prior) engagement .28***† .35***† .28***† .31***†
Student background
Year level (2019) .04*** .06***† .02*** .10***†
Gender (2019) .06***† .07***† .02* .02**
.06***† .16***† .10***† .07***†
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
SES (2019)
Prior achv. (2019) .03*** .05*** .07***† .07***†
Perceived instructional support
Organization and clarity (2019) .03* .01 .05*** .10***† .03***
Feedback-feedforward (2019) .31***† .07***† .04*** .02 .10***†
Relevance (2019) .38***† .01 .03*** .09***† .25***†
Central Factor
Growth goal setting (2019) .64***† .46***† .03 .38***†
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Interactions
Growth Goal Setting 3 Year Level .01 .02*** .01 .01*
Growth Goal Setting 3 Gender .01* .03*** .05*** .02**
Growth Goal Setting 3 SES .01** .05*** .10***† .03***
Growth Goal Setting 3 Prior Achv. .02*** .07***† .02 .02***
Note. SES = socioeconomic status; Prior achv. = prior achievement; SEM = structural equation modeling. We have adjusted the instructional support fac-
tor names from the original terminology used in their source survey—see the Method section for details. Please note that the covariates and perceived
instructional support factors were correlated within the model.
* p , .05. ** p , .01. *** p , .001. ***† Regression estimates that reach the level of interpretability of b $ .05 and p , .001.
smaller. In terms of attendance (see Figure 4), for students low in perceptions of feedback-feedforward and relevance were not
growth goal setting, there was a nonsignificant relationship only directly linked to engagement, they were also indirectly
between SES and attendance (though marginally nonsignificant, associated with engagement via students’ growth goal setting.
p = .054), whereas there was a negative relationship between SES That is, for example, if students perceive lessons to be relevant,
and attendance for students high in growth goal setting (the abso- they are more likely to set growth goals, which in turn is posi-
lute difference between the two slopes yielded the overall signifi- tively associated with their engagement.
cant moderation effect in Table 3)—suggesting a reversal of the
negative effects of low SES for high growth goal students. Taken Discussion
together, these results provide some support for growth goal set-
ting moderating the negative effects of low prior achievement (on The present investigation contributes to existing knowledge
aspirations) and the negative effects of low-SES background (on about growth goal setting in four ways. First, it identified the role
attendance). of perceived instructional support in predicting growth goal setting
and academic engagement, with most of the significant paths
Indirect Effects Testing yielding medium and large effect sizes. Second, it revealed signifi-
cant yields of growth goal setting for improvements on several
Indirect effects were examined to determine the extent to dimensions of academic engagement, with all significant paths
which growth goal setting may mediate the association between having large effect sizes. Third, the investigation showed that the
students’ perceptions of instructional support and their engage- link between students’ perceptions of instructional support and
ment. Of the 12 possible indirect effects, nine were tested engagement was significantly partially mediated by growth goal
because the nonsignificant association between growth goal set- setting, with most significant paths having medium effect sizes.
ting and attendance ruled out the remaining three. Of the nine Fourth, the study identified how growth goal setting may adap-
indirect effects tested, six attained the level of interpretability (at tively moderate the effects of some student background attributes
least b $ .05 and p , .001). The interpretable effects are on engagement, yielding small and medium effect sizes.
described here, and all results are presented in Table 4. Students’
report of their teacher’s feedback-feedforward was significantly Perceived Instructional Support, Growth Goal Setting,
positively related (via growth goal setting) to gains in persever- and Engagement
ance (b = .20; medium effect size), aspirations (b = .08; small
effect size), and homework behavior (b = .11; medium effect Students’ goal setting is impacted, in part, by their perceptions of
size). Perceived relevance was significantly positively associated the support they receive from teachers (Eberley et al., 2011). In our
with (via growth goal setting) gains in perseverance (b = .24; study, two of the three elements of instructional support examined
large effect size), aspirations (b = .10; medium effect size), and (relevance and feedback-feedforward) were found to significantly
homework behavior (b = .13; medium effect size). Perceptions predict growth goal setting. In addition, student reports of organiza-
of instructional organization and clarity did not have significant tion and clarity significantly predicted gains in attendance; feed-
indirect links with any engagement outcomes via growth goal back-feedforward significantly predicted gains in perseverance and
setting. Taken together, these results suggest that students’ homework behavior, and relevance significantly predicted gains in
764 MARTIN ET AL.
Figure 2
Significant Standardized Substantive Results From Structural Equation Model
Organization T1
and Clarity .28
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
.10 Perseverance
.64
.07
Feedback- .35
feedforward T1
Aspirations
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
.31
.46
Growth Goal
Setting
T1 .28
.38
Relevance Attendance
-.09
.25
.38
Homework
Behavior
T1 .31
.10
Note. All results presented in figure attain the level of interpretability (b $ .05 and p , .001). See Table 3 for all significant and
nonsignificant main, covariate, and moderating effects. We have adjusted the instructional support factor names from the original
terminology used in their source survey—see the Method section for details. T1 = 2018 (prior) engagement.
homework behavior but also declines in attendance. Predominantly, impact of organization and clarity and feedback-feedforward, rele-
then, students who felt they received adequate instructional support vance was associated with declines in school attendance. Accord-
from teachers were more likely to set goals targeting personal ing to Hidi and Renninger (2006), relevant content and tasks are
growth and improvement. In turn, these perceptions of instructional effective for initial and situational interest. This may be assistive
support were linked to students’ engagement directly and via their for behaviors such as homework but perhaps not sufficient for
growth goal setting. Indeed, we identified significant indirect paths motivating more substantial behaviors such as school attendance.
between perceived instructional support and engagement via growth It is when students are also provided with appropriate guidance
goal setting (see Table 4). and ongoing support that they are more likely to develop a deeper
With regard to relevance, we earlier argued how models of in- and more enduring drive to engage (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). We
terest development emphasize the importance of aligning content would therefore suggest that when seeking to enhance students’
and tasks with students’ personal interests and experience base. attendance at school, relevance alone may not be sufficient; teach-
When students perceive relevance in academic content and activ- ers should especially attend to organization and clarity, and feed-
ity, they are likely to establish and pursue self-set goals (Koestner, back-feedforward.
2008; see also Aelterman et al., 2019). Thus, perceived instruc- As we noted in the Introduction, researchers have looked to
tional support characterized by relevance will underlie goals that combine classic feedback (i.e., corrective information; Shute,
are integrated with the self—a hallmark of growth goals (Martin & 2008) with improvement-oriented guidance (feedforward)—lead-
Elliot, 2016a). Our findings supported this thesis: perceived ing to greater consideration of a construct referred to as feedback-
instructional relevance significantly predicted growth goal setting. feedforward (e.g., Basso & Olivetti Belardinelli, 2006; Burns et
Interestingly, perceived relevance was differentially related to al., 2019; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Martin, 2016). We contended
homework behavior and attendance. Relevance was associated that to establish the validity of this feedback-feedforward con-
with gains in adaptive homework behavior and this is consistent struct, research should demonstrate that it is associated with
with long-standing advice to educators to ensure relevance in order improvement-oriented strategies and outcomes. Indeed, this was
for students to engage with homework in a quality manner (e.g., what our study found: Student reports of feedback-feedforward
Wilson & Rhodes, 2010; see also Hulleman & Harackiewicz, were associated with growth goal setting (an improvement-ori-
2009; Hulleman et al., 2017). However, after controlling for the ented strategy) and gains in perseverance and homework behavior.
GROWTH GOAL SETTING 765
Figure 3
Plot of the Moderating Effects of Growth Goal Setting on the Relationship
Between Prior Achievement (P.Achv) and Aspirations
Low Growth Goal Seng High Growth Goal Seng
Low GG CI High GG CI
0.8
0.6
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
0.4
0.2
Aspiraons
-0.2
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
Low P.Achv. High P.Achv.
Note. The results presented here are from the unstandardized output. 1 SD (low growth
goal setting): b = .27, p , .001; þ1 SD (high growth goal setting): b = .10, p , .001. GG
CI = growth goal setting confidence interval (95%).
Growth Goal Setting and Gains in Engagement constructive to personal goal completion. These findings are fur-
ther “proof of concept” for growth goal setting: growth goals are
Growth goal setting predicted significant gains across one aca- fundamentally about growth, and our findings demonstrated
demic year in students’ perseverance, aspirations, and homework growth in engagement was significantly associated with stu-
behavior. This suggests that students who set growth goals are dents’ use of growth goal setting. Importantly, these findings
more likely to persevere, aspire to complete year 12, and demon- occurred in a large, representative sample of Australian high
strate more adaptive homework behaviors. Thus, with regard to school students (N = 61,879).
this study’s engagement factors, it appears that personally rele- DeShon and Gillespie (2005) proposed that goals create a men-
vant goals that push students to achieve new standards of perso- tal framework that influences individuals’ choices and behaviors.
nal success motivate them to think and behave in ways that are Harnessing this conception of goals, Burns et al. (2018) suggested
Figure 4
Plot of the Moderating Effects of Growth Goal Setting on the Relationship
Between Socioeconomic Status (SES) and Attendance
Note. The results presented here are from the unstandardized output. 1 SD (low growth
goal setting): b = .01, p = .054; þ1 SD (high growth goal setting): b = .07, p , .001. GG
CI = growth goal setting confidence interval (95%).
766 MARTIN ET AL.
Table 4
Standardized Results of Indirect Effects Testing (Nonparametric Bootstrapping)
Indirect path Indirect effect SE Lower 95% CI Upper 95% CI
Organization and clarity ! Growth goal setting ! Perseverance (2019) .02** .007 .03 .01
Feedback-feedforward ! Growth goal setting ! Perseverance (2019) .20***† .007 .19 .21
Relevance ! Growth goal setting ! Perseverance (2019) .24***† .006 .23 .25
Organization and clarity ! Growth goal setting ! Aspirations (2019) .01** .003 .01 .01
Feedback-feedforward ! Growth goal setting ! Aspirations (2019) .08***† .003 .07 .08
Relevance ! Growth goal setting ! Aspirations (2019)
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
that growth goals reflect a personally referenced improvement-ori- apparently helping to reduce the aspirations gap. This finding is in
ented mental framework that leads to adaptive choices and behav- line with previous research (Bardach et al., 2020) which showed
iors. Moreover, Burns et al. (2018) contended that because growth that growth goals helped to attenuate the relationship between con-
goals are inherently self-referenced and self-generated, they pre- textual problems (e.g., lack of support) and dropout intentions
dict activities and processes that require ongoing personal invest- among university students. Thus, students who pursue growth
ment, such as engagement. Our findings supported these ideas goals may be relatively more protected from the potential negative
through the gains in aspirations, perseverance, and homework impact stemming from a variety of sources (e.g., low prior
behavior that occurred as a function of students’ growth goal achievement, contextual issues).
setting. For the moderating association with attendance, we found an
It was interesting that growth goal setting did not significantly attenuation in the gap between students from low- and high-SES
predict attendance. This may reflect the wording of our growth backgrounds as a function of growth goal setting. In these data, for
goal setting measure that focused on schoolwork specifically, students with high growth goals, there was a negative relationship
whereas school attendance is a broader engagement construct that between SES and attendance, whereas this relationship was (mar-
encompasses not just schoolwork but also major activities such as ginally) nonsignificant for students with low growth goals. This
one’s social and physical (e.g., sport) life. However, it may also suggests that growth goal setting may minimize differences in
reflect the reality that school attendance is an issue for some stu- school attendance between students from low- and high-SES back-
dents more than others. It may be that growth in attendance is con- grounds. As we continue to strive to do better on narrowing school
strained by factors beyond and separate from students’ growth completion and attendance gaps between students and particular
goals (e.g., transport to school, physical health, etc.). It was thus student groups (e.g., low-SES etc.; Lamb et al., 2015), the findings
noteworthy that we found a significant interaction (moderation) here provide guidance on how we might do so from a motivation
between growth goal setting and socioeconomic status for attend- perspective. Specifically, for students with low prior achievement
ance, discussed below. and low-SES backgrounds, growth goal setting was associated
with gains in aspirations to complete school and in school attend-
The Moderating Role of Growth Goal Setting ance. When students attend school and continue through to year
12, they receive more hours of instruction and are significantly
The study also examined the interaction between growth goal more likely to develop the core skills and knowledge that underpin
setting and student background attributes. It was found that growth their learning through school—and beyond (Willms, 2003). Addi-
goal setting moderated the association between prior achievement tionally, year 12 completion is associated with a variety of positive
and students’ aspirations, and between SES and attendance. Thus, life outcomes, such as higher employment rates and life satisfac-
in line with SCT (Bandura, 1997), our findings demonstrated that tion (Bridgeland et al., 2006).
personal factors do interact to impact human agency; specifically,
background factors particular to a student and their growth goal Implications for Theory
setting interacted in their association with academic engagement.
Regarding the moderating associations with aspirations, students A major objective of the current study was to examine how
who reported low growth goal setting and who were lower in prior recent theoretical developments in goal setting (viz., growth goal
achievement reported the lowest intentions to complete year 12; setting) function in the context of SCT and triadic theorizing (Ban-
however, the aspirations gap between students with low and high dura, 1986, 1991). Consistent with Burns et al. (2018), who
prior achievement decreased if students with low prior achieve- grounded their research of growth goal setting in SCT, our find-
ment adopted growth goal setting. This suggests that although ings supported the viability of including growth goal setting as a
growth goal setting improved all students’ aspirations to complete personal (self-) strategy within the SCT and the triadic model. Our
year 12 (as seen in the significant main effect of growth goal set- data also confirmed Burns et al.’s observation that growth goal set-
ting on aspirations; Table 3 and Figure 2), it seemed to have an ting may represent an effective means of operationalizing one of
even greater bolstering effect for lower achieving students— the key mechanisms proposed under SCT. Specifically, SCT
GROWTH GOAL SETTING 767
contends that self-improvement occurs through a personal discrep- concrete, accurate, and so forth (Centre for Education Statistics &
ancy production and reduction process (Bandura, 1991). Here, Evaluation, 2020; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Shute, 2008) and so
individuals set and pursue personally challenging goals to reach we endorse that line of advice for practitioners. Additionally, we
their desired future states (Bandura, 1991). When they reach their recommend the importance of that feedback being accompanied
desired future state, the process begins again. Growth goal setting by improvement-oriented guidance (i.e., feedforward) to the stu-
scales (e.g., Martin, 2006) comprise items that inherently access dent. This, we contend, is a key means for growth—a claim we
this function and thus may represent an important development for suggest is borne out by the positive association between feedback-
operationalizing key functions within SCT (Burns et al., 2018). feedforward and growth goal setting in the present study (and the
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
The present study’s demonstration of engagement gains through association between feedback-feedforward and gains in persever-
growth goal setting provided further support for this. ance and homework behavior).
In promoting relevance, researchers have emphasized the im-
Implications for Practice portance of content and tasks that are personally meaningful, sig-
nificant, useful, and interesting (Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Lei et
One key finding was that students’ growth goal setting was al., 2017; Van de Pol et al., 2010). These approaches to enhancing
associated with academic engagement gains. Thus, promoting relevance enable content and tasks to be more integrated with the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
growth goal setting within the classroom is likely to have positive self which optimizes adaptive goal pursuit (Sheldon & Elliot,
engagement yields. Martin (2006) has articulated various practical 1999). Importantly, however, as per interest development theoriz-
directions for promoting growth goal setting. For example, stu- ing (Hidi & Renninger, 2006; and our finding that relevance was
dents can be taught how to identify clear, realistic, and personally associated with lower attendance), it is critical that relevance is
challenging goals (Martin, 2006). It is also important that students accompanied by quality organization and clarity and feedback-
are taught how to strive toward their growth goal, such as by map- feedforward; for some engagement outcomes, relevance alone
ping out the steps involved in working toward their growth goal may not be sufficient.
and monitoring their progress toward that goal (Martin, 2011; see
also Locke & Latham, 2013). Indeed, experimental research has Limitations and Future Directions
demonstrated the effectiveness of growth goal setting intervention
on students’ academic outcomes (Ginns et al., 2018; Martin et al., Alongside the various contributions to research, theory, and
2014; Martin & Elliot, 2016b). practice, the present study comprised some limitations important
In addition to targeting growth goal setting directly, our findings to consider when interpreting findings and that provide some
suggest that teachers’ instructional support may assist students’ direction for future research. First, although we had objective
growth goal setting and their academic engagement (directly and (prior) achievement as a covariate, our outcome variables were
indirectly via growth goal setting). Based on our findings, this is self-reported. This was a valid means for measuring personal phe-
particularly the case for instructional support characterized by nomena (Brener et al., 2003), but there are known limitations
feedback-feedforward and relevance. Here we suggest some indic- (e.g., misinterpreting items, under- or overreporting, etc.; Karabe-
ative ways that teachers may embed more feedback-feedforward nick et al., 2007). Future research might look to include data from
and relevance into their instructional approaches. Importantly, other sources, such as teacher observations and parent reports of
though, in identifying these instructional strategies we make the students’ engagement. Relatedly, our data were based on student
point that our study employed student reports of instructional sup- reports of instructional support (hence, perceived instructional
port. Thus, it is perceived instructional support that our study support). Collecting instructional data from the teachers them-
addresses, which has two implications for interpretation of find- selves or from observations will augment future research in this
ings and recommendations for practice. First, given perceptions of space. Moreover, when exploring these additional data, it may be
instructional support are clearly linked to growth goal setting and illuminating to test alternative models. Ours was a “fully-forward”
engagement, we might encourage students to be more aware of the model that was not assessed against models that had paths
instructional support they are receiving (thus, enhance their per- removed or against models that more explicitly and fully test re-
ception of instructional support). Second, notwithstanding this, ciprocal effects.
given perceptions (not objectively assessed practice) were our Second, although our growth goal setting and engagement
focus we must be appropriately circumspect in the practical advice measures were domain-general, we constructed domain-general
we do provide, as follows. instructional support measures through collapsing (domain-spe-
Reflective diary-keeping may be one means by which students cific) items from English, mathematics, and science subjects.
can become more aware of the instructional support they receive. There is a need for domain-specific data to be collected on growth
Here, students would be asked to reflect on what aspects of goal setting and engagement to enable us to investigate the links
instructional support may have helped them set and strive for goals between domain-specific instructional support and domain-specific
and/or assisted them to engage in their schoolwork and with goals and engagement. Third, we did not have between-class data
school (e.g., do homework, persist, etc.). Research has shown this and our variance components tests revealed negligible between-
to be an effective means of enhancing growth goal setting and school variance. Thus, our analyses were conducted at the student-
striving (Travers et al., 2015). This may instill in students an level (though, we did include cluster weighting and we did adjust
appreciation for the different ways that teachers are trying to sup- standard errors to account for the nesting of students within
port their learning. schools). Future investigations would do well to design research
With regard to feedback-feedforward, there has been substantial appropriate for multilevel modeling that accounts for student- and
guidance about feedback and the importance of it being timely, class-level relationships.
768 MARTIN ET AL.
Fourth, we focused on processes and factors consistent with Basso, D., & Olivetti Belardinelli, M. (2006). The role of the feedforward
SCT and the triadic model (Bandura, 1986, 1991), and we paradigm in cognitive psychology. Cognitive Processing, 7(2), 73–88.
acknowledge other factors that are potentially implicated. For https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-006-0034-1
example, integrating measures of perceived goal structures may be Bempechat, J., & Shernoff, D. J. (2012). Parental influences on achieve-
helpful (Meece et al., 2006). Also, we focused on goal-setting ment motivation and student engagement. In S. Christenson, A. Reschly
& C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp.
theory (Locke & Latham, 2013) but not so much on other goal
315–342). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_15
frameworks such as achievement goal theory (Elliot, 2005), which
Bong, M. (2001). Between- and within-domain relations of academic moti-
would involve additional growth-oriented measures under the pro-
vation among middle and high school students: Self-efficacy, task value,
posed 3 3 2 goal framework (Elliot et al., 2011). Finally, although
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit Gutman, L. M., & Schoon, I. (2018). Emotional engagement, educational
indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Model- aspirations, and their association during secondary school. Journal of
ing, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5 Adolescence, 67, 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018
Claro, S., Paunesku, D., & Dweck, C. S. (2016). Growth mindset tempers .05.014
the effects of poverty on academic achievement. Proceedings of the Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Mashburn, A. J., & Downer, J. T. (2007).
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(31), Building a science of classrooms: Application of the CLASS framework
8664–8668. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1608207113 in over 4,000 U.S. early childhood and elementary classrooms. Report
Collie, R. J., Granziera, H., & Martin, A. J. (2019). Teachers’ motivational for Foundation for Childhood Development https://www.fcd-us.org/
approach: Links with students’ basic psychological need frustration, building-a-science-of-classrooms-application-of-the-class-framework-in
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
Cook, T. D., Deng, Y., & Morgano, E. (2007). Friendship influences dur- .1207/s15326985ep4102_4
ing early adolescence: The special role of friends’ grade point average. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covari-
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17(2), 325–356. https://doi.org/10 ance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.
.1111/j.1532-7795.2007.00525.x Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Cutmore, M., MacLeod, S., Donlevy, V., Spence, C., Martin, A. J., & 10705519909540118
Collie, R. J. (2018). Against the odds—Academically resilient students Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and
with a migrant background and how they succeed: Final report. Euro- performance in high school science classes. Science, 326(5958),
pean Commission. 1410–1412. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1177067
DeShon, R. P., & Gillespie, J. Z. (2005). A motivated action theory Hulleman, C. S., Kosovich, J. J., Barron, K. E., & Daniel, D. B. (2017).
account of goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), Making connections: Replicating and extending the utility value inter-
1096–1127. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1096 vention in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(3),
387–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000146
Dweck, C. (2017). Mindset: Changing the way you think to fulfil your
Hulleman, C. S., Schrager, S. M., Bodmann, S. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M.
potential. Hachette.
(2010). A meta-analytic review of achievement goal measures: Different
Eberley, M. B., Holley, E. C., Johnson, M. D., & Mitchell, T. R. (2011).
labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar labels?
Beyond internal and external: A dyadic theory of relational attributions.
Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 422–449. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018947
Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 731–753. https://doi.org/10
Karabenick, S. A., Woolley, M. E., Friedel, J. M., Ammon, B. V., Blazevski,
.5465/amr.2009.0371
J., Bonney, C. R., Groot, E. D. E., Gilbert, M. C., Musu, L., Kempler,
Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal con-
T. M., & Kelly, K. L. (2007). Cognitive processing of self-report items in
struct. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence
educational research: Do they think what we mean? Educational Psycholo-
and motivation (pp. 52–72). Guilford Press.
gist, 42(3), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701416231
Elliot, A. J., Murayama, K., & Pekrun, R. (2011). A 3 3 2 achievement
Keith, T. Z. (2006). Multiple regression and beyond. Pearson Education.
goal model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 632–648. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation model-
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023952 ing (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
Elliot, A., Murayama, K., Kobeisy, A., & Lichtenfeld, S. (2015). Potential- Koestner, R. (2008). Reaching one’s personal goals: A motivational per-
based achievement goals. The British Journal of Educational Psychol- spective focused on autonomy. Canadian Psychology, 49(1), 60–67.
ogy, 85(2), 192–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12051 https://doi.org/10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.60
Fan, H., Xu, J., Cai, Z., He, J., & Fan, X. (2017). Homework and students’ Koestner, R., Lekes, N., Powers, T. A., & Chicoine, E. (2002). Attaining
achievement in math and science: A 30-year meta-analysis, 1986-2015. personal goals: Self-concordance plus implementation intentions equals
Educational Research Review, 20, 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 231–244.
.edurev.2016.11.003 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.231
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engage- Lamb, S., Jackson, J., Walstab, A., & Huo, S. (2015). Educational oppor-
ment: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational tunity in Australia 2015: Who succeeds and who misses out? Centre for
Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059 International Research on Education Systems, Victoria University, for
Froiland, J. M., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Intrinsic motivation, learning the Mitchell Institute.
goals, engagement, and achievement in a diverse high school. Psychol- Lei, H., Cui, Y., & Chiu, M. M. (2017). The relationship between teacher
ogy in the Schools, 53(3), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21901 support and students’ academic emotions: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in
Ginns, P., Martin, A. J., Durksen, T., Burns, E. C., & Pope, A. (2018). Per- Psychology, 8, 2288. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02288
sonal Best (PB) goal-setting enhances arithmetical problem-solving. Liem, G. A., Ginns, P., Martin, A. J., Stone, B., & Herrett, M. (2012). Per-
Australian Educational Researcher, 45(4), 533–551. https://doi.org/10 sonal best goals and academic and social functioning: A longitudinal
.1007/s13384-018-0268-9 perspective. Learning and Instruction, 22(3), 222–230. https://doi.org/
Green, J., Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2007). Motivation and engage- 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.11.003
ment in English, mathematics and science high school subjects: Towards Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Tyson, D. F., & Patall, E. A. (2008). When are
an understanding of multidimensional domain specificity. Learning and achievement goal orientations beneficial for academic achievement? A
Individual Differences, 17(3), 269–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif closer look at moderating factors. Revue Internationale de Psychologie
.2006.12.003 Sociale, 21, 19–70.
Grolnick, W. S. (2003). The psychology of parental control: How well-meant Lipstein, R., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). “Putting things into words”: 12-
parenting backfires. Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410606303 15-year-old students’ interest for writing. In P. Boscolo & S. Hidi
770 MARTIN ET AL.
(Eds.), Motivation and writing: Research and school practice. Kluwer Martin, A. J., & Liem, G. A. (2010). Academic Personal Bests (PBs),
Academic/Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1163/9781849508216_008 engagement, and achievement: A cross-lagged panel analysis. Learning
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory and Individual Differences, 20(3), 265–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
of goal setting and task motivation. A 35-year odyssey. American Psy- .lindif.2010.01.001
chologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705 Martin, A. J., Bobis, J., Anderson, J., Way, J., & Vellar, R. (2011). Patterns
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (Eds.). (2013). Goal setting theory: The cur- of multilevel variance in psycho-educational phenomena: Comparing
rent state. New developments in goal setting and task performance (pp. motivation, engagement, climate, teaching, and achievement factors
623–630). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203082744 Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie/German Journal of Educa-
Maehr, M. L., & Zusho, A. (2009). Achievement goal theory: The past, tional Psychology, 25(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
degree, differences of kind, or both? Australian Journal of Psychology, Personal best (PB) goal setting and students’ motivation in science: A
56(3), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530412331283363 study of science valuing and aspirations. Australian Educational and
Martin, A. J. (2006). Personal bests (PBs): A proposed multidimensional Developmental Psychologist, 31(2), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1017/edp
model and empirical analysis. The British Journal of Educational Psy- .2014.19
chology, 76(Pt. 4), 803–825. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X55389 Martin, A. J., Ginns, P., Burns, E., Kennett, R., & Pearson, J. (2020). Load
Martin, A. J. (2007). Examining a multidimensional model of student moti- reduction instruction in science and students’ science engagement and
vation and engagement using a construct validation approach. The Brit- science achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance
ish Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(Pt. 2), 413–440. https://doi online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000552
Martin, A. J., Way, J., Bobis, J., & Anderson, J. (2015). Exploring the ups
.org/10.1348/000709906X118036
and downs of mathematics engagement in the middle years of school.
Martin, A. J. (2009). Motivation and engagement across the academic life-
The Journal of Early Adolescence, 35(2), 199–244. https://doi.org/10
span: A developmental construct validity study of elementary school, high
.1177/0272431614529365
school, and university/college students. Educational and Psychological
Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student per-
Measurement, 69(5), 794–824. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409332214
ceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online
Martin, A. J. (2011). Personal best (PB) approaches to academic develop-
learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205–222. https://doi
ment: Implications for motivation and assessment. Educational Practice
.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092
and Theory, 33(1), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.7459/ept/33.1.06
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2010). Techniques that reduce extraneous
Martin, A. J. (2012a). Motivation and engagement: Conceptual, opera-
cognitive load and manage intrinsic cognitive load during multimedia
tional and empirical clarity. Section Commentary. In S. Christenson, A.
learning. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brunken (Eds.), Cognitive load
Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engage-
theory (pp. 131–152). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10
ment. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_14
.1017/CBO9780511844744.009
Martin, A. J. (2012b). The role of Personal Best (PB) goals in the achieve-
Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom
ment and behavioral engagement of students with ADHD and students goal structure, student motivation, and academic achievement. Annual
without ADHD. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37(2), 91–105. Review of Psychology, 57, 487–503. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.01.002 .psych.56.091103.070258
Martin, A. J. (2015). Implicit theories about intelligence and growth (per- Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and facto-
sonal best) goals: Exploring reciprocal relationships. The British Journal rial invariance. Psychometrika, 58(4), 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/
of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 207–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep BF02294825
.12038 Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.).
Martin, A. J. (2016). Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost Ramdass, D., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2011). Developing self-regulation
motivation and engagement. British Psychological Society. skills: The important role of homework. Journal of Advanced Academ-
Martin, A. J., & Elliot, A. J. (2016a). The role of personal best (PB) and di- ics, 22(2), 194–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X1102200202
chotomous achievement goals in students’ academic motivation and Reeve, J. (2006). Teachers as facilitators: What autonomy-supportive
engagement: A longitudinal investigation. Educational Psychology, teachers do and why their students benefit. The Elementary School Jour-
36(7), 1285–1302. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2015.1093606 nal, 106(3), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1086/501484
Martin, A. J., & Elliot, A. J. (2016b). The role of personal best (PB) goal Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing
setting in students’ academic achievement gains. Learning and Individ- students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Moti-
ual Differences, 45, 222–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.12 vation and Emotion, 28(2), 147–169. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MOEM
.014 .0000032312.95499.6f
Martin, A. J., & Evans, P. (2018). Load Reduction Instruction: Exploring a Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2015). The power of interest for motivation
framework that assesses explicit instruction through to independent and engagement. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315771045
learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 73, 203–214. https://doi.org/ Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. E. (2020). To level the playing field, develop
10.1016/j.tate.2018.03.018 interest. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7(1),
Martin, A. J., & Evans, P. (2019). Load reduction instruction: Sequencing 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732219864705
explicit instruction and guided discovery to enhance students’ motiva- Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P.
tion, engagement, learning, and achievement. In S. Tindall-Ford, S. (2012). Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and aca-
Agostinho, & J. Sweller (Eds.), Advances in Cognitive Load Theory: demic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3),
Rethinking teaching. Routledge. 700–712. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027268
GROWTH GOAL SETTING 771
Ruzek, E. A., & Schenke, K. (2019). The tenuous link between classroom Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in
perceptions and motivation: A within-person longitudinal study. Journal teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychol-
of Educational Psychology, 111(5), 903–917. https://doi.org/10.1037/ ogy Review, 22(3), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6
edu0000323 Van de Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilita- measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychol-
tion of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American ogy, 9(4), 486–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.686740
Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 Van Ryzin, M. J., Gravely, A. A., & Roseth, C. J. (2009). Autonomy,
Schenke, K., Ruzek, E., Lam, A. C., Karabenick, S. A., & Eccles, J. S. belongingness, and engagement in school as contributors to adolescent
(2017). Heterogeneity of student perceptions of the classroom climate: psychological well-being. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(1),
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Per- (2014). Moving the achievement goal approach one step forward: To-
sonality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 482–497. https://doi.org/10 ward a systematic examination of the autonomous and controlled rea-
.1037/0022-3514.76.3.482 sons underlying achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 49(3),
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonex- 153–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.928598
perimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychologi- Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., Dochy, F.,
cal Methods, 7(4), 422–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422 Mouratidis, A., Aelterman, N., Haerens, L., & Beyers, W. (2012). Iden-
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational tifying configurations of perceived teacher autonomy support and struc-
Research, 78(1), 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795 ture: Associations with self-regulated learning, motivation and problem
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A behavior. Learning and Instruction, 22(6), 431–439. https://doi.org/10
meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, .1016/j.learninstruc.2012.04.002
75(3), 417–453. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417 Wentzel, K. R. (1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal
Sterba, S. K. (2017). Pattern mixture models for quantifying missing data relationships: Implications for understanding motivation at school. Jour-
uncertainty in longitudinal invariance testing. Structural Equation Mod- nal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/
eling, 24(2), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2016.1250635 0022-0663.91.1.76
Sweller, J. (2012). Human cognitive architecture: Why some instructional Widaman, K. F., Ferrer, E., & Conger, R. D. (2010). Factorial invariance
procedures work and others do not. In T. Urdan, K. R. Harris, S. within longitudinal structural equation models: Measuring the same con-
Graham (Ed.), APA educational psychology handbook (pp. 295–325). struct across time. Child Development Perspectives, 4(1), 10–18. https://
American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13273-011 doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00110.x
The Learning Bar. (2019). Tell Them From Me Survey. https:// Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achieve-
thelearningbar.com/about-us/?lang=aue ment motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.
Titsworth, S., Mazer, J. P., Goodboy, A. K., Bolkan, S., & Myers, S. A. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
(2015). Two meta-analyses exploring the relationship between teacher Willms, J. D. (2003). Student engagement at school: A sense of belonging
clarity and student learning. Communication Education, 64(4), 385–418. and participation: Results from PISA 2000. OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2015.1041998
Willms, J. D. (2014). Student engagement in New South Wales secondary
Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Kastens, C., & Köller, O. (2006). Effort on
schools: Findings from the Tell Them From Me Pilot. The Learning Bar.
homework in grades 5-9: Development, motivational antecedents, and
Wilson, J., & Rhodes, J. (2010). Student perspectives on homework. Edu-
the association with effort on classwork. Child Development, 77(4),
cation, 131(2), 351–358.
1094–1111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00921.x
Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Schnyder, I., & Niggli, A. (2006). Predicting Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2019). The power of feedback
homework effort: Support for a domain-specific, multilevel homework revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers
model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 438–456. https://doi in Psychology, 10, 3087. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087
.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.438 Yu, K., & Martin, A. J. (2014). Personal best (PB) and ‘classic’ achieve-
Travers, C. J., Morisano, D., & Locke, E. A. (2015). Self-reflection, ment goals in the Chinese context: Their role in predicting academic
growth goals, and academic outcomes: A qualitative study. The British motivation, engagement, and buoyancy. Educational Psychology. An
Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 224–241. https://doi.org/10 International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 34,
.1111/bjep.12059 635–658. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.895297
Van de Gaer, E., Pustjens, H., Van Damme, J., & De Munter, A. (2009).
School engagement and language achievement: A longitudinal study of Received August 14, 2020
gender differences across secondary school. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Revision received March 12, 2021
55, 373–405. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.0.0034 Accepted March 15, 2021 n