Goal Setting at the Elementary Level

by
Student’s Name

In partial fulfillment of the requirements

of Education Research 604
at Peru State College-Masters Cohort Program
Dr. Anthony Citrin, Instructor
 2

Abstract

This project examines the effect of goal setting on student achievement. It discusses how

goal setting is defined, the characteristics of goal setting, who should set goals, and if, in

fact, goal setting students achieve more. Data will be collected from comparisons made

between two fourth grade classes regarding their grade point averages for major subject

areas in relation to goal setting and non goal setting over the course of a year. A t test

comparison of the data will be conducted to compare the means at the .05 level of

confidence. The results of this study will be viewed and discussed.

 3

Table of Contents

I. Abstract Page 2
II. Introduction-Chapter 1 Page 4
Context of Study 4
Problem Statement 4
Research Question 4
Hypothesis 4
Definition of Terms 5
Limitations 5
Method 5
Significance of Study 6
Conclusion 7
III. Review of Literature-Chapter 2 Page 8
Introduction 8
Goal Setting Defined 9
Characteristics of Goal Setting 10
Who Should Set Goals? 12
Do Goal Setting Students Achieve More? 13
Conclusion 16
IV. Methodology-Chapter 3 Page 17
Introduction 17
Context of Study 17
Research Question 18
Hypothesis 18
Participant and Site Information 18
Data Collection 18
Data Analysis 19
Conclusion 19
V. Bibliography 20
 4

Chapter 1

Introduction

Teachers are constantly searching for effective strategies to increase student

achievement. Much of the brain based learning research today supports students leading

their own portfolio conferences. A significant part of student led portfolio conferences is

a goal setting activity that requires the student to set a goal (or goals) for the next grading

period. The goal setting component of the conference is designed to increase student

achievement. Students who set effective goals …tend to achieve at higher levels than

other students (e.g. Locke & Latham, 1990; Zimmerman, 1989; Zimmerman & Schunk,

1989). Students are to set goals that are achievable, appropriate and measurable.

Problem Statement

The question arises regarding whether goal setting is an effective strategy for

increasing student achievement. In actuality, do goal setting students do better

academically than non goal setting students?

Research Question

1. Does goal setting make a measurable difference in academic achievement?

Hypothesis

1. Goal setting, when done within grade level appropriate limitations, should

yield gains in academic performance and achievement.

 5

Definitions

Defining these terms will aid in understanding this study:

1. Goal setting: the level of achievement that students establish for

themselves to accomplish (Madden, 1997)

2. Appropriate and achievable goals: goals that are attainable by an

average elementary student within their grade level requirements

3. Measurable: able to be quantified with a numerical value

4. Major subject areas: reading, writing, math, science, and social studies

at the elementary level

Limitations

There will be certain limitations to this study.

1. It will be looking at elementary students at the fourth grade level at

Hamlow Elementary School in Waverly, Nebraska.

2. The study will cover a regular school year schedule.

3. It will focus on the major subject areas of reading, writing, math,

science and social studies.

4. Goal setting will be for academic achievement in the above mentioned

subjects.

Method

The method to evaluate and find out if goal setting students achieve at higher

levels than non goal setting students will span a school year. To establish a base line

comparison, the first semester will be used by the two fourth grade classes at Hamlow
 6

Elementary School in Waverly, Nebraska, to determine their achievement levels

independent of any goal setting instruction or activities. To do this, the mean grade point

average of each of the major subject areas of reading, writing, math, science, and social

studies will be compared for the first two quarters/semester.

After the base line is established using the first half of the year, at the start of the

second semester/third quarter students in one of the fourth grade classes will be given

instruction on how to develop achievable, appropriate and measurable academic goals for

each of the major subject areas of reading, writing, math, science, and social studies for

the second semester. The students in the classroom receiving goal setting instruction will

then set an academic goal for each major subject area of reading, writing, math, science,

and social studies for the second semester. The students in the other fourth grade class

will not receive goal setting instruction and will set no goals for the second semester.

At the end of the second semester, the mean grade point average of each of the

major subject areas of reading, writing, math, science, and social studies will be

compared again to determine if there has been a significant difference between the grade

point average of the goal setting students and the non goal setting students for the second

semester. The first semester comparison will be taken into account to isolate the effect of

the goal setting activity apart from individual class performance.

Significance of Study

The significance of this study is to show the effect, if any, of academic goal

setting in the achievement of elementary students in the major subject areas of reading,

writing, math, science, and social studies. Student led portfolio conference models often

incorporate a goal setting piece as a part of the process of students taking more
 7

responsibility for their learning. The goal setting experience is designed to have students

think, plan, and write about how they will see growth and improvement in their

academics. This study seeks to determine if growth and improvement actually happens

and to what extent goal setting in academics is beneficial to elementary students.

Conclusion

The writer believes that this study will help validate the current research regarding

goal setting for academic purposes in student led portfolio conferencing. It will show goal

setting as being beneficial, and helping students who set goals achieve more and at higher

levels than students who do not set goals in academic areas

 8

Chapter 2

Literature Review

Introduction

Teachers are constantly searching for effective strategies to increase student

achievement. Much of the brain based learning research today supports students leading

their own portfolio conferences (Hainer, 2006). A significant part of student led portfolio

conferences is a goal setting activity that requires the student to set a goal (or goals) for

the next grading period. Students are to set goals that are achievable, appropriate and

measurable. The goal setting component of the conference is designed to increase student

achievement. Students who set effective goals …tend to achieve at higher levels than

other students (e.g. Locke & Latham, 1990; Zimmerman, 1989; Zimmerman & Schunk,

1989). This writer’s research focuses on the effectiveness of student goal setting as a

means of increasing student performance.

The question arises regarding whether goal setting is an effective strategy for

increasing student achievement. What is goal setting? What are characteristics of good

goal setting? Should students be allowed to set their own goals? In actuality, do goal

setting students do better academically than non goal setting students? Much debate and

research have been generated around these and related questions.

The purpose of this chapter will be to look at what the research literature has to

share regarding what goal setting is, the characteristics of goal setting, whether students

should be allowed to set their own goals or use teacher/class goals, and the overall

effectiveness of the goal setting activity in terms of achievement.

 9

Goal Setting Defined

The first topic of this study will be to look at what goal setting is, and is not.

There are so many variables that effect student achievement and classroom performance

that we need to establish which one this is. “Goal-setting is the level of achievement that

students establish for themselves to accomplish; whereas, academic expectation is

defined as the level of achievement that students must reach in order to satisfy the

standard established by the teacher. Unlike academic expectations, goal-setting is a target

to aim for rather than a standard which must be reached “(Madden, 1997).

Goal setting can be explained in several ways. Alderman (1999) states, “Have you

used terms such as aim, aspiration, purpose, or intent? These are terms we often hear that

imply goal setting. Goals have been defined simply as "something that the person wants

to achieve" (Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 2). "Goal setting theory assumes that human

action is directed by conscious goals and intentions" ( Locke & Latham, 1990, p. 4).

There is an important distinction between goal setting theory and goal orientation (chap.

3). Goal setting refers to a specific outcome that an individual is striving to achieve,

whereas goal orientation refers to a type of goal orientation or underlying purpose behind

the strived-for goal (Dweck, 1992).

Other terms used to define goal setting and describe the goal setting process are

self-determination and self-regulation. Problem solving and goal setting are important

components of self-determination that young people learn over time (Palmer &

Wehmeyer, 2003). One common misinterpretation of self determination is that it is

synonymous with independent performance. That is, people misinterpret self-

determination as meaning that you do everything yourself. However, causal agents do not
 10

necessarily do everything for themselves; instead, they are the catalysts in making things

happen in their lives. Students who are considering what plan of action to implement to

achieve a self-selected goal can recognize that teachers have expertise in instructional

strategies and take full advantage of that expertise (Palmer & Wehmeyer, 2003). These

terms are based on a theory in the problem solving and self-regulation literature that

suggests there is a means-ends problem-solving sequence that must be followed for any

person's actions to produce results to satisfy their needs and interests (Agran &

Wehmeyer, 1999; Bransford & Stein, 1993).

Characteristics of Goal Setting

There are several important factors to keep in mind when considering goal setting

with elementary students. In order for students to receive the greatest benefit from the

goal setting experience, Schunk (1984) states that goal setting for the learner involves the

establishment of an objective to serve as the aim of one's actions. He states that goal

properties are (1) specificity, (2) difficulty level, and (3) proximity. Specificity means

stating precisely what the learner wants to accomplish, such as spelling 8 out of 10 words

correctly rather than doing as good as you can or having no goals at all. Difficulty level

for specifically stated goals should be moderate. Too easy a goal is no challenge; too

difficult a goal causes discouragement and results in giving up. Proximity aims at helping

the learner reach the goal quickly.

Cauley, Linder and McMillian (1989) assert that students who feel that they have

the self-efficacy (competence or power, i.e., beliefs about one's ability to perform actions

that lead to desired ends (Ross & Rolheiser 2000) to attain a goal show greater effort and
 11

persistence than those who lack it. They also state that the need for performance explains

that effort and persistence are greater in individuals who have set their own goals than for

those who have expectations set by others. Punnett (1986) shares that goals provide a

form of motivation to perform well on given tasks. She also suggests that providing

rewards for successful completion of goals is also an effective motivational approach.

Schunk (1984) states that receipt of a reward also validates self-efficacy because it

symbolizes progress. He also asserts that combining performance-contingent rewards

with proximal goals leads to higher self-efficacy than either by itself and strengthens

goals commitment. Knowing that they are reaching their goals is important in developing

self-efficacy, particularly in young children who may not be aware of how well they are

performing. Learning about how well the task was completed (feedback) soon after the

performance also is effective pedagogy. Rapid feedback in relation to goal achievement

may be a form of reward for the student. Bardwell (1984) states that quantitative

(concrete) feedback is more effective for children than qualitative comments, such as

"you answered all the questions correctly" rather than "you are a great student."

Punnett (1986) also says that the perceived ability of the learner to achieve the

goal is necessary for successful goal setting. Consequently, individual goals are more

effective than one goal for all students. Bardwell (1984) states that children with accurate

perception of how well they can do perform at higher levels than learners with too high or

too low awareness of their abilities. Hart (1989) says that unreasonable goals prevent

students from becoming what they can be. He says that teachers fear that lowering goals

causes children to let down. But he says that establishing reasonable goals provide
 12

children with feelings of happiness and completeness and allows children to be

themselves.

Who Sets the Goals?

When considering who should set goals, the teacher or the student, it is suggested

that students be the author of their own goals. As was mentioned earlier, students will try

harder and stay at the task longer when they set their own goals, than they will when

working toward goals set for them by others. With the help and guidance of the

classroom teacher, students tend to “buy into” the goals that they develop with greater

enthusiasm and perseverance than generic “whole class” goals. A one-size-fits-all

approach to goal setting can actually be counterproductive to increasing student

achievement by demotivating students with impersonal or irrelevant targets of

achievement.

Students work more diligently on self-made goals than from the expectations of

others (Madden, 1997). One researcher asserts that students are interested in the things

which they plan themselves. They work much harder on self-made goals than they ever

would on the expectations of someone else. She states that "successful teachers seem to

have a special ability to involve students in goal-setting, in identifying with the learning

problem, and in generating a kind of sense of personal excitement for new ideas”

(Linskie, 1977).

Teachers can help students develop productive goals and action plans. The most

difficult part of teaching students how to evaluate their work consists of designing ways

to provide support for students as they use self-evaluative data to set new goals and levels
 13

of effort. Without teacher help, students may be uncertain whether they have attained

their goals. Teachers can also help students connect particular levels of achievement to

the learning strategies they adopted and the effort they expended. Finally, teachers can

help students develop viable action plans in which feasible goals are operationalized as a

set of specific action intentions (Ross & Rolheiser, 2000).

When can children start setting goals? Nicholls and Miller (1983) found that

children at age 5 set goals related to acquiring information rather than to increasing

ability. Children begin to independently set goals related to effort, ability, and task

performance at age 11 or 12 years (Woolfolk, 1990). Graham and Harris (1992)

suggested that young children and students with learning problems can set goals using

teacher-student interaction (Palmer & Wehmeyer, 2003).

Do Goal Setting Students Achieve More?

After looking at what goal setting means, the characteristics of goals and who

should set goals, the study will now turn to the question of whether goal setting students

achieve more than non goal setting students. From a motivational viewpoint, goals and

goal setting play a central role in self-regulation (Schutz, 1991). Goal setting influences

learning and motivation by providing a target and information about how well one is

doing (Alderman, 1999).

Students who set effective goals, utilize appropriate learning strategies, and

evaluate the requirements of learning tasks adequately tend to achieve at higher levels

than other students (e.g. Locke & Latham, 1990; Zimmerman, 1989; Zimmerman &

Schunk, 1989). Research into the variables that facilitate achievement has increasingly
 14

focused on students' regulation of their learning activities. Much of this research has

addressed self-regulated learning from a social-cognitive perspective (Bandura, 1986).

The basic assumption of this focus is that students can activate and sustain the cognitions,

behaviors, and affects oriented toward learning and thereby attain their goals (Hofer, Yu,

Pintrich, 1998; Zimmerman, 1989). Stated another way, self-regulated learners "seek to

accomplish academic goals strategically (Garavalia & Gredler, 2002).

Two studies investigated how goals and self-evaluation affect motivation and

achievement outcomes. In both studies, fourth-grade students received instruction and

practice on fractions over sessions. Students worked under conditions involving either a

goal of learning how to solve problems (learning goal) or a goal of merely solving them

(performance goal). In Study 1, half of the students in each goal condition evaluated their

problem-solving capabilities. The learning goal with or without self-evaluation and the

performance goal with self-evaluation led to higher self-efficacy, skill, motivation, and

task orientation than did the performance goal without self-evaluation. In Study 2, all

students in each goal condition evaluated their progress in skill acquisition. The learning

goal led to higher motivation and achievement outcomes than did the performance goal

(Schunk, 1996)..

It seems evident from these studies that (a) involving students in setting goals; (b)

helping to make students accountable for their learning through being part of the goal

setting, planning, and evaluating process, and (c) providing opportunity to evaluate

progress together are valuable teaching tools. The success of the teachers and children in

this study suggests that young children can benefit from instruction that incorporates

opportunities to self regulate problem solving and to self-direct learning. By doing so, we
 15

better prepare our young children to become self determined adolescents and adults

(Palmer & Wehmeyer, 2003).

Researchers have consistently found evidence for a positive relationship between

learning goals and productive achievement behaviors (Ames & Archer, 1988;

Greene & Miller; 1996; Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988). Students who are

focused on learning goals typically prefer challenging activities (Ames & Archer,

1988; Elliot & Dweck, 1988), persist at difficult tasks (Elliot & Dweck;

Schunk, 1996), and report high levels of interest and task involvement (Harackiewicz,

Barron, & Elliot, 1998; Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter, & Elliot, 2000).

Those students engage in a mastery-oriented belief system for which effort and outcome

covary (Ames, 1992a). For students who are focused on learning goals, failure does not

represent a personal deficiency but implies that greater effort or new strategies are

required. Such persons will increase their efforts in the face of difficult challenges and

seek opportunities that promote learning (Heyman & Dweck, 1992). Overall,

researchers have concluded that a learning-goal orientation is associated with more

adaptive patterns of behavior, cognition, and affect than is a performance-goal orientation

(Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Nicholls, Patashnick, &

Nolen, 1985).

“When students can set and reach goals, that builds self confidence, which

facilitates the student in being successful. It’s a cyclical thing.” (Cathy Hainer, project

coordinator for Heatherwood Middle School, Everett School District, Everett,

Washington, 2006).
 16

The above advice helps answer the question, "What is an effective way to

motivate students to learn?" The use of individual goal setting accompanied with

appropriate feedback and teacher support tend to be very effective motivational

approaches to motivate students to learn (Madden, 1997).

Conclusion

This study has looked at what the research literature has to share regarding what

goal setting is, the characteristics of goal setting, whether students should be allowed to

set their own goals or use teacher/class goals, and the overall effectiveness of the goal

setting activity in terms of achievement, it now remains to be seen through this particular

study what the answer will be to the question which will be answered through this study,

namely, do goal setting students do better academically than non goal setting students?
 17

Chapter 3

Methodology

Introduction

The quest to increase student achievement is at an all time high. While there are

several strategies to improve student achievement, there is much debate regarding the

effectiveness of each, and which is most effective. This particular study seeks to

investigate the effectiveness of goal setting as a strategy to improve student achievement.

Context of Study

Teachers are constantly searching for effective strategies to increase student

achievement. Much of the brain based learning research today supports students leading

their own portfolio conferences (Hainer, 2006). A significant part of student led portfolio

conferences is a goal setting activity that requires the student to set a goal (or goals) for

the next grading period. The goal setting component of the conference is designed to

increase student achievement. Students who set effective goals …tend to achieve at

higher levels than other students (e.g. Locke & Latham, 1990; Zimmerman, 1989;

Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989).

The question arises regarding whether goal setting is an effective strategy for

increasing student achievement. In actuality, do goal setting students do better

academically than non goal setting students?

 18

Research Question

1. The research question for this project is: Does goal setting make a measurable

difference in academic achievement?

Hypothesis

1. Goal setting, when done within grade level appropriate limitations, yields gains

in academic performance and achievement.

Null Hypothesis

1. Goal setting, when done within grade level appropriate limitations, neither

increases nor decreases academic performance and achievement.

Participation and Site Information

The participants of this study will be two fourth grade classes at Hamlow

Elementary School in Waverly, Nebraska. The classes number about twenty students for

each class, with about twenty percent special education students, thirty percent Chapter 1

students, five percent gifted, and the rest a mix of high, medium, and low ability students.

The students were selected for this study by virtue of their accessibility at the researcher's

place of employment. Waverly, Nebraska is a small farm community on the northeast

edge of Lincoln, Nebraska. The student population at Hamlow Elementary School is a

predominantly white population of about four hundred seventy-five students, with some

Eastern European students, very few Hispanic students, and no African American

students.

Data Collection

A baseline score of each class’s grade point averages for both fourth grade classes

in each major subject area: reading, writing, math, science, and social studies at the
 19

elementary level will be taken at the end of the first semester, to compare both classes

apart from any goal setting activities. Then, at the beginning of the second semester, the

students in one of the fourth grade classes will receive goal setting instructions and set at

least one academic goal in each subject area for the second semester. The other fourth

grade class will have no goal setting instruction and will not set any academic goals for

any of the subject areas. At the end of the second semester, taking into consideration the

baseline comparison from the first semester, the grade point averages of each major

subject area for both classes will again be compared to see the effect, if any, of goal

setting on academic improvement,

Data Analysis

A baseline comparison will be taken from the first semester with no goal setting

activities involved. Then a comparison will be conducted using the goal setting classes’

GPA for each major subject area: reading, writing, math, science, and social studies at the

elementary level, with the GPA of the non goal setting class in each major subject area at

the end of the second semester. Taking in consideration the baseline comparison from the

first semester, the second semesters’ comparison will show the effects of goal setting on

academic achievement. A t test comparison of the data will be conducted to compare the

means at the .05 level of confidence.

Conclusion

In the never ending search to find effective strategies to improve student

academic achievement, this study seeks to find out how effective goal setting is in

improving student academic performance. The research question for this project is: Does

goal setting make a measurable difference in academic achievement? The reasonable

 20

assumption is that goal setting, when done within grade level appropriate limitations,

should yield gains in academic performance and achievement.

 21

References

Alderman, M. K. (1999). Motivation for achievement: possibilities for teaching and

learning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 88. Retrieved Mar. 25, 2006, from:
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=10106436

Covington, M. V. (2000).Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: an integrative

review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51. Retrieved Mar. 25, 2006, from:
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.171;jsessionid=o
yrgOrU1x5qbUanHYO?cookieSet=1&journalCode=psych

Deci, L. & Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and
‌ ‌ ,,

education: the self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 3&4, 325-

346. Retrieved Mar. 25, 2006, from:
http://www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15326985ep2603%264_6?journalCode=ep

Garavalia, L. S. & Gredler, M. E. (2002). An exploratory study of academic goal setting,

achievement calibration, and self-regulated learning. Journal of Instructional Psychology,
29. Retrieved Mar. 25, 2006, from: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5000668519

Hahle, S. (2006). Student-led conferences geared to increase confidence. Mar. 25. The
Daily Herald Co. Everett, Washington, Retrieved Mar. 25, 2006, from:
http://www.enterprisenewspapers.com/archive/2003/2/7/2003279593259.cfm

Madden, L. E. Motivating students to learn better through own goal-setting. (1997).

Education, Retrieved Mar. 25, 2006, from:
http://elibrary.bigchalk.com.ezproxy.peru.edu/libweb/elib/do/document?
set=search&groupid=1&requestid=lib_standard&resultid=2&edition=&ts=302A2987D1
AF44BBAA39EBBD508E3115_1143315307656&urn=urn%3Abigchalk%3AUS
%3BBCLib%3Bdocument%3B28116923

Paglin, C. (2001). Caity’s conference: kids show their stuff at student-led parent
conferences. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Retrieved Mar. 25, 2006,
from: http://www.nwrel.org/nwedu/fall_96/article4.html

Palmer, S. B. & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2003). Promoting self-determination in early

elementary school: Teaching self-regulated problem-solving and goal-setting skills. 24,
2,115. Retrieved Mar. 25, 2006, from:
http://elibrary.bigchalk.com.ezproxy.peru.edu/libweb/elib/do/document?
set=search&groupid=1&requestid=lib_standard&resultid=1&edition=&ts=302A2987D1
AF44BBAA39EBBD508E3115_1143315307656&urn=urn%3Abigchalk%3AUS
%3BBCLib%3Bdocument%3B87155179
 22

Ross, J. & Rolheiser, C. (2000). Student self-evaluation: what do we know? Orbit, 30, 4,
33. Retrieved Mar. 25, 2006, from:
http://elibrary.bigchalk.com.ezproxy.peru.edu/libweb/elib/do/document?
set=search&groupid=1&requestid=lib_standard&resultid=17&edition=&ts=C4D4B5F3B
282D3E4AE5460D81B61D383_1143411366403&urn=urn%3Abigchalk%3AUS
%3BBCLib%3Bdocument%3B104769554

Schunk, D. H. (1996). Goal and self-evaluative influences during children’s cognitive

skill learning. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 2, 359-382. Retrieved Mar.
25, 2006, from: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-
8312(199622)33%3A2%3C359%3AGASIDC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6

Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: influence of modeling, goal
setting, and self-evaluation. Reading & Writing Quarterly,19, 2, 159-172. Retrieved Mar.
25, 2006, from: http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/(i5s34r45l3fhil55hymiq355)/app/
home/contribution.asp?
referrer=parent&backto=issue,4,7;journal,13,30;linkingpublicationresults,1:102487,1

Self-Brown, S. R. & Mathews, S. II. (2003). Effects of classroom structure on student

achievement goal orientation. The Journal of Educational Research, 97, 2, 106. Retrieved
Mar. 25, 2006, from:
http://elibrary.bigchalk.com.ezproxy.peru.edu/libweb/elib/do/document?
set=search&groupid=1&requestid=lib_standard&resultid=13&edition=&ts=302A2987D
1AF44BBAA39EBBD508E3115_1143315307656&urn=urn%3Abigchalk%3AUS
%3BBCLib%3Bdocument%3B90971393