2GED SS 01:

UNDERSTANDING
THE SELF
CARLINO G. SANTOS JR., LPT, RGC, PhD
Instructor
 SELF-EFFICACY,
SELF-REGULATION,
AND
GOAL SETTING
 What is
Self-Efficacy?
Bandura (1999) defined self-
efficacy as the "belief in one's
capabilities to organize and
execute the courses of action
required to produce given
attainments."
Self-efficacy is a
person's belief in his
or her ability to
succeed in particular
situations.
Bandura described these
beliefs as the determinants
of how people think,
behave, and feel.
Since the publication of Albert Bandura's
1977 paper titled "Self-Efficacy:
Toward a Unifying Theory of
Behavioral Change," self-efficacy has
become one of the most studied topics
in psychology.
 Self-efficacy is
not self-esteem.
According to Neill (2005),
Self-esteem is conceptualized
as a sort of general or overall
feeling of one’s worth or value.
The focused of self-esteem
is more on “being” for
example, the feeling that you
are perfectly acceptable as you
are.
The focused of self-
efficacy is more on “doing”
for example, the feeling that
you are up to a challenge.
Self-efficacy and
Motivation
Although self-efficacy and
motivation are deeply
entwined, they are two
separate constructs.
Self-efficacy is based on an
individual’s belief in their
own capacity to achieve,
while motivation is based on
the individual’s desire to
achieve.
Self-efficacy, or the belief in one's
own ability to deal with various
situations, plays a role not only on
how you feel about yourself, but also
whether or not you successfully
achieve your goals in life.
The concept of self-efficacy is central
to psychologist Albert Bandura's
Social Cognitive Theory, which
focuses on how personality is
shaped and developed by
observational learning, social
experience, and reciprocal.
According to Bandura, a
person's attitudes, abilities,
and cognitive skills consist of
what is known as the self-
system.
Self-system plays a major role in
how we perceive situations
and how we behave in
response to different
situations, and self-efficacy is an
essential part of this self-system.
Why has self-efficacy
become such a very
important topic
among psychologists
and educators?
As Bandura and other researchers
have demonstrated, self-efficacy
can have an impact on everything
from psychological states to
behavior to motivation.
Our belief in our own
ability to succeed plays a
role on how we think, how
we act, and how we feel
about our place in the
world.
It also determines what goals
we choose to pursue, how we
go about accomplishing those
goals, and how we reflect upon
our own performance.
Virtually, we can identify goals we
want to accomplish, things we would
like to change, and things we want to
achieve. However, most of us realize
that putting these plans into action is
not quite simple.
Bandura and other researchers
have found that an individual's
self-efficacy plays a major role
in how goals, tasks, and
challenges are approached.
People with a strong sense of self-efficacy:
• View challenging problems as tasks to be mastered
• Develop deeper interest in the activities in which
they participate
• Form a stronger sense of commitment to their
interests and activities
• Recover quickly from setbacks and
disappointments
People with a weak sense of self-efficacy:

● Avoid challenging tasks

● Believe that difficult tasks and situations are
beyond their capabilities
● Focus on personal failings and negative outcomes
● Quickly lose confidence in personal abilities
 How does
self-efficacy
develop?
These beliefs begin to form in
early childhood as children
deal with a wide variety of
experiences, tasks, and
situations.
As children have new experiences
and gain new knowledge they gain
a better understanding of
themselves. Their experiences with
different tasks, people, and
situations help contribute to this
sense of self-efficacy.
The growth of self-efficacy does
not end during youth but
continues to evolve throughout
life as people acquire new skills,
experiences, and understanding.
According to Bandura people's
beliefs concerning their
efficacy can be developed by
four major sources of self-
efficacy:
FOUR MAJOR
SOURCES OF
SELF-EFFICACY
 Mastery
Experience
Bandura explained, "Enactive mastery
experiences are the most influential
source of efficacy information because
they provide the most authentic
evidence of whether one can muster
whatever it takes to succeed”.
Mastery experiences are the most
effective way to boost self-efficacy
because people are more likely to
believe they can do something new
if it is similar to something they
have already done well (Bandura,
1994).
The results of one’s own previous
attainment are gained not only on
easy successes but in overcoming
obstacles through perseverant
effort.
 If people experience only easy
successes, they come to
expect quick results and are
easily discouraged by
failure.
In addition, when a person
experiences difficulties and
setbacks and learns to overcome
these hindrances, he then later
acquires the necessary experience
needed to overcome difficult tasks.
If the new tasks are always
easy and is similar to ones
already mastered, and
difficult, unfamiliar ones are
avoided, it does not develop
a strong sense of efficacy.
To develop a strong sense of
efficacy, difficult task also
needs to be attempted
(Bandura, 1994).
In reality, it’s just like trying to
make brownies, and if it were
become successful, and now
make them all the time.
But we can't live on
brownies alone. At some
point, we need to try
making a meal.
Examples:
Babysitting in math, learners start on
simple tasks and progresses to harder
tasks. Workshops, training programs,
internships, and clinical experiences.
 Vicarious
Experiences/
Social Modeling
Another influential way of strengthening
efficacy is through the vicarious
experiences provided by social
models, or the observation of the
success and failures of others,
models, who are similar to one's
self.
According to Bandura (1986),
"Seeing people similar to oneself
succeed by sustained effort
raises observers' belief that they
too possess the capabilities to
master comparable activities to
succeed."
Witnessing other people
someone like yourself
successfully completing a task
that you would like to attempt
increases self-efficacy.
By the same token, observing
others fail despite high efforts
lowers observers' judgement of
their own efficacy and undermines
their level of motivation.
The impact of modeling on
beliefs of personal efficacy
is strongly influenced
through perceived
similarity to the models.
The more one associates with the
person or the model being
watched, the greater the influence
on the belief that one’s self can
also accomplish the behavior being
observed.
The assumed similarity the greater
persuasive are the models' successes and
failures. If people see the models as very
different from themselves their beliefs of
personal efficacy are not much influences
by the models' behavior and therefore the
result it produces.
This construct can be used to explain how
group weight loss programs work. If an obese
person sees someone just like himself or
herself lose weight and keep it off by following
a sensible diet and exercise, then the belief in
his or her own ability to also do this is
strengthened (Brown, Malouff, &Schutte,
2004).
Example:
The "Sun Protection is Fun" program (Tripp,
Hermann, Parcel, Chamberlain, & Gritz.,
2000) was designed to teach children about
cancer prevention, and vicarious learning was
used not only with the children, but also with
the parents and teachers as well.
Within this program, children observed their
teachers and other students demonstrating how to
protect their skin by using sunscreen and wearing
protective clothing. Instead of using actors as the
role models in the program, families and teachers
from the intervention schools were used instead.
This is also like how we learned to tie your shoe,
brush your teeth. You watched and observed your
parents or older siblings, then copied what they did.
 Verbal/
Social
Persuasion
The third source of
strengthening people's beliefs
that they have what it takes to
succeed is through verbal or
social persuasion.
Bandura stated that "people who
are persuaded verbally that
they possess the capabilities
to master given activities are
likely to mobilize greater
effort and sustain it."
Bandura asserted that people
could be persuaded to
believe that they have the
skills and capabilities to
succeed.
When people are persuaded
verbally that they can
achieve or master a task,
they more likely to do the
task.
Consider a time when
someone said something
positive and encouraging
that help you achieve a
goal.
Getting verbal encouragement
from others helps people
overcome self-doubt and
instead focus on giving their
best effort to the task at hand.
If people are persuaded to
believe in themselves, they
will exert more effort
(Bandura, 2008).
Example:
Coach frequently uses verbal persuasion to psyche up
players. If a team performs poorly, the team members'
perception of ability can be negatively affected
depending on the coach's reaction. For example, saying
we lost the game because you are all lousy players
doesn't do much for improving self-efficacy, whereas
saying we lost because we need more practice does
(Brown, Malouff, & Schutte, 2013).
Somatic and
Emotional
States
The physical and emotional states
occur when someone contemplates
doing something provides clues as
to the likelihood of success or
failure (Brown, et al., 2013).
Moods, emotional states, physical
reactions, and stress levels can all
impact on how a person feels
about their personal activities in a
particular situation.
 It can also negatively affect self-
efficacy and can lead to a self-
fulfilling prophecy of failure or
inability to perform the feared
tasks (Parajes, 2002).
As stated by Bandura, people
interpret their stress
reactions and tensions as
signs of vulnerability to
poor performance.
In activities involving strength
and stamina, people judge
their fatigue, aches, and pains
as signs of physical debility.
Moods also affects people's
judgement of their personal
efficacy. Positive moods
enhance perceived self-
efficacy, while despondent
mood diminishes it.
An example of how physiological state affects self-
efficacy is when people that is new to exercising at a
gym, especially if they perceive that others are
watching them, they tend to become anxious in
anticipation of an exercise session. This is a negative
somatic state that may be detrimental to their self-
efficacy, and in turn, threaten their continued
exercising.
The fitness professional in this
situation then can minimize the
negative effects through teaching
relaxation techniques and positive
self-talk to reduce anxiety and
support self-efficacy.
If the emotional state improves,
that is, emotional arousal or stress
decreases, and a change in self-
efficacy can be expected (Bandura
& Adams, 1977).
People's fear of the dentist is a
classic example of how the
emotional state affects self-
efficacy.
The mere thought of going to the dentist
is associated with intense pain and
anxiety, it is certainly a stressful situation
(Brown, Malouff, &Schutte, 2013). As a
result, they cannot bring themselves to
make appointments for preventive dental
care.
This avoidance behavior results in a situation
in which dental health can be affected, causing
them to experience the pain they don't desire,
and the need for more extensive treatment or
possible tooth loss (Rowe & Moore, 1998). As
is clear from this situation, emotional
arousal affects self-efficacy, self-
efficacy affects the decisions people
make.
Example:
A person who becomes extremely nervous before
speaking in public may develop a weak sense of self-
efficacy in these situations.

Self-efficacy theory has had considerable influence on

research, education, and clinical practice. It plays an
important role in health psychology and how people
manage their health, nutrition, and illness.
Bandura suggests that self-efficacy can
benefit a person's sense of well-being in
many ways. Individuals with high
self-efficacy look at difficulties as
challenges instead of threats, they tend
to be more intrinsically interested in the
tasks they pursue.
Difficulty and failure do not imply defeat,
instead, these individuals redouble their
efforts and look for new ways to
overcome. They remain optimistic and
confident in their abilities, even when
things become difficult.
People who are low in self-efficacy
have a tendency to see difficult
tasks as threats they should avoid.
Because of this, they also tend to avoid
setting goals and have low levels of
commitment to the ones they do make.
When setbacks happen, they tend to
give up quickly. Because they don't
have much belief in their ability to
achieve, they are more likely to
experience feelings of failure and
depression.
Developing a strong sense of self-
efficacy is an important aspect of your
life. Life is full of challenges and
having a high level of self-efficacy can
help you better deal with these
difficulties more effectively.
 Your belief in your abilities can
predict how motivated you feel,
how you feel about yourself, and
the amount of effort you put into
achieving your goals.
 What is
Self-regulation?
Self-regulation refers to the ability of
individuals to monitor and control
their behavior whenever they
pursuing tasks and goals. Bandura
(1997) believed that people self-
regulate either reactively and
proactively.
1. Reactive self
-regulation is just simply responding
to the demands of the environment.
For example, a student may just did
his task the night before the deadline
because it is just a mere requirement.
2. Proactive self
-regulation is pursuing higher goals
for themselves (Feist, Feist & Roberts,
2013). In proactive self-regulation, a
person pursues tasks voluntarily in
relation to much bigger goal.
They do not need external factors
such as deadlines and grades - they do
their tasks because is a part of their
long-term goal. Self-regulation is an
important aspect of one's grit and
motivation to pursue tasks.
Self-regulated strategies that were noted by
Zumbrum and colleagues (2015):
1. Setting goals
2. Planning
3. Motivating oneself
4. Controlling one’s attention
5. Implementing flexible strategies
6. Monitoring oneself
7. Seeking help
8. Evaluating oneself every now and then
Self regulated learners are
active, strategic, self-conscious,
reflective and motivationally
driven in pursuing their goals.
What is
Goal
Setting?
Goal setting is a powerful
motivator, the value of which has
been recognized in an abundance
of clinical and real-world settings
for over 35 years.
 ‘Goals,’ as defined by Latham &
Locke (2002, p.705) are “the object
or aim of an action, for example,
to attain a specific standard of
proficiency, usually within a
specified time limit.”
They are the level of
competence that we wish to
achieve and create a useful
lens through which we assess
our current performance.
Goal setting is the
process by which we
achieve these goals.
The importance of the goal setting
process should not go unappreciated,
according to Locke (2019) “Every
person’s life depends on the process
of choosing goals to pursue; if you
remain passive you are not going to
thrive as a human being.”
Goal setting theory (Locke &
Latham, 1984) is based on the
premise that conscious goals affect
action (Ryan, 1970) and that
conscious human behavior is
purposeful and regulated by
individual goals.
Simply put, we must
decide what is beneficial
to our own welfare, and
set goals to achieve it.
The theory states that the simplest and
most direct motivational
explanation of why some people
perform better than others is due to
disparate performance goals,
implying that setting and adjusting goals
can significantly impact performance.
 Basic
Assumptions of
Goal-Setting
Theory
1. Goals must be specific.
-This provides clear and
distinct steps as to how
specific tasks are done in order
to achieve certain goals.
2. Goals must have at least some
level of difficulty.
-Both very easy and very difficult goals do
not guarantee success. Moderately
difficult goals provide a higher chance of
success because of the challenge brought
by the tasks.
3. Feedback must be given after
the attainment of the goal.
Feedback is an important aspect in
order for us to evaluate whether our
goals are being attained or not.
Without feedback, goals become
stagnant and vague.
Goals should be specific
and attainable in nature
as stated in the assumption
of goal-setting theory.
It must also be measurable
in a way that there is a clear
criterion in which you can
say that your goal is being
achieved or not.
Goals should also be
relevant in the context of
the tasks being given and
must be done with a
doable amount of time.
In a study by Rowe, Mazzotti,
Ingram, and Lee (2016),
students who received goal-
setting instructions from
their teachers tended to be
more engaged in the pursuit
of their academic tasks.
Even when the students
were considered as at-
risks, they tended to be more
engaged during classroom
lectures and activities.
The study highlighted how
teachers can be an
instrument for students
to be more active
during class hours.
In another study by Morisano, Hirsh,
Peterson, Pihl, and Shore (2010),
academically challenged students who
underwent goal-setting activities got
higher GPAs than their usual
performance. They were also more likely to
experience less negative emotions due to
their success.
Locke’s research showed that there
was a relationship between how
difficult and specific a goal was
and people’s performance of a
task. He found that specific and
difficult goals led to better task
performance than vague or easy
goals.
Telling someone to “Try hard” or
“Do your best” is less effective
than “Try to get more than 80%
correct” or “Concentrate on
beating your best time.” Likewise,
having a goal that’s too easy is
not a motivating force.
 Hard goals are more
motivating than easy goals,
because it’s much more of an
accomplishment to achieve
something that you have to
work for.
 Another researcher, Dr. Gary Latham,
studied the effect of goal setting in the
workplace. His results supported
exactly what Locke had found, and the
inseparable link between goal
setting and workplace
performance was formed.
In 1990, Locke and Latham published
their seminal work, “A Theory of Goal
Setting and Task Performance.” In
this book, they reinforced the need to
set specific and difficult goals, and
they outlined three other
characteristics of successful goal
setting.
Clarity
Clear goals are measurable
and unambiguous. When a goal
is clear and specific, with a definite
time set for completion, there is
less misunderstanding about
what behaviors will be
rewarded.
You know what’s expected, and you
can use the specific result as a source
of motivation. When a goal is vague –
or when it’s expressed as a general
instruction, like “Take initiative” – It
has limited motivational value.
When you use SMART
acronym to help you set goals,
you ensure the clarity of the
goal by making it Specific,
Measurable, Achievable,
Relevant, and Time-bound
Challenge
One of the most
important characteristics
of goals is the level of
challenge.
People are often motivated by
achievement, and they’ll judge
a goal based on the
significance of the anticipated
accomplishment.
When you know that what
you do will be well received,
there’s a natural motivation
to do a good job.
Rewards typically increase for
more difficult goals. If you believe
you’ll be well compensated or
otherwise rewarded for achieving a
challenging goal, that will boost
your enthusiasm and your drive to
get it done.
Setting SMART goals that
are relevant links them
closely to the rewards given
for achieving challenging
goals.
Commitment
Goals must be
understood and agreed
upon if they are to be
effective.
Employees are more likely to “buy
into” a goal if they feel they were part
of creating that goal. The notion of
participative management rests on
this idea of involving employees in
setting goals and making decisions.
One version of SMART – for use
when you are working with
someone else to set their goals
– has A and R stand for Agreed
and Realistic instead of
Attainable and Relevant.
Agreed goals lead to commitment.
This doesn’t mean that every goal has to
be negotiated with and approved by
employees. It does not mean that goals
should be consistent and in line with
previous expectations and organizational
concerns.
As long as the employee believes
that the goal is consistent with
the goals of the company, and
believes the person assigning the
goal is credible, then the
commitment should be there.
As you use goal setting in
your workplace, make an
appropriate effort to
include people in their own
goal setting.
Encourage employees to develop their
own goals and keep them informed
about what’s happening elsewhere in
the organization. This way, they can
be sure that their goals are consistent
with the overall vision and purpose
that the company seeks.
Feedback
An effective goal program must
also include feedback. Feedback
provides opportunities to
clarify expectations, adjust
goal difficulty, and gain
recognition.
It’s important to provide
benchmark opportunities or
targets, so individuals can
determine for themselves how
they’re doing.
These regular progress reports,
which measure specific success
along the way, are particularly
important where it’s going to
take a long time to reach a goal.
Breakdown the goals into
smaller chunks, and link
feedback to these
intermediate milestones.
SMART goals are Measurable, and
this ensures that clear feedback
can be provided. With all your goal
setting efforts, make sure that you
build in time for providing formal
feedback.
 Task
Complexity
The last factor in goal setting theory
introduces two more requirements for
success. For goals or assignments that
are highly complex, take special care
to ensure that the work doesn’t
become too overwhelming.
People who work in
complicated and demanding
roles probably have a high
level of motivation already.
However, they can often push themselves too
hard if measures aren’t built into the goal
expectations to account for the complexity of
the task. It’s therefore important to do the
following:
● Give the person sufficient time to meet the
goal or improve performance.
● Provide enough time for the person to
practice or learn what is expected and required
for success.
The whole point of goal setting is
to facilitate success. Therefore, you
want to make sure that the conditions
surrounding the goals don’t frustrate
or inhibit people from accomplishing
their objectives. This reinforces the
“Attainable” part of SMART.
Why Goal
Setting is
awesome?
1. Goals direct effort and attention.
By properly setting goals, our attention
and effort is constantly redirected
toward goal-relevant activities and away
from goal-irrelevant activities. For this
reason, they help to increase focus and
decrease procrastination.
2. Goals energize, excite, and motivate.

The more challenging a

goal is, the more it
motivates and pushes
the goal-setter forward.
3. Goals make you more attractive (really).

When someone talks about a goal they

have set that they are passionate about,
they light up! They become very
charismatic, confident, and enthusiastic;
this energy is very contagious and
attractive to those who get to witness it.
4. Goals encourage you to take control of
your life.
When you begin accomplishing
goals, you are intensely reminded
of the power you have to rule your
own life; oh, and it is so
rewarding.
 5. You begin craving more
accomplishments.
Once you begin setting goals
and accomplishing them, you
will be eager to set and
accomplish more.
References:
• Akturk, A. O., & Sahin, I. (2011). Literature Review on Metacognition and its
Measurement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,15, 3731-3736.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.364
• Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching,
and Assessing:A Revision of Blooms Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.
Longman: New York.
• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
• Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press.
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
References:
• Bandura, A. (1999). A social cognitive theory of personality. In L. Pervin & O. John (Ed.),Handbook of
personality (2nd ed., pp. 154-196). New York: Guilford Publications.

• Bandura, A. (2004). Swimming against the mainstream: The early years from chilly tributary
totransformative mainstream. Behavior Research and Therapy, 42, 613-630.

• Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Bandura, A. (in press). An agentic perspective on positive psychology. In S. J Lopez (Ed.).Positive

psychology: Exploring the best in people. Greenwood Publishing Company.

• Bandura, A., & Adams, N. (1977). Analysis of Self-Efficacy Theory of behavior change, Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 1(4) 287-310.
References:
• Boekaerts, M., & Corno, I. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and
intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 199-231.

• Brown, L. J. Malouff, J. M. Schutte, N. S. (2013). Chapter 2: Self-efficacy Theory.

• Brown, L. J., Malouff, J. M., and Schutte, N. S., (2013). Chapter 2: Self-efficacy Theory.

• Carson, J., Heslyn, P., Vandewalle, V. (2009). Practical Applications of Goal Setting Theory to
Performance Management. M. London. PP 91

• Cherry, K. (2019). Albert Bandura’s Influence on the Field of Psychology. Retrieved

fromwww.verywellmind.com/albert-bandura-biography-1295-2795537

• Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice. Needham Heights, MA : Allyn & Bacon.

• Cruz, C. O. (2006). Assessing Metacognitive Skills of Selected Intermediate Pupils of St. Paul School of
Sta. Maria.
References:
• Edwin A. Locke. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives, Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance [online]. Volume 3, Issue 2, Pages 157-189.

• Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969–1980.
Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 125-152.

• Locke, E. and Latham, G. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs: Pearson
College Div.

• Myers, D. G., & Dewall, C. N. (2015). Psychology in modules. New York: Worth.

• Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of Social Cognitive Theory and of Self-Efficacy. Retrieved from
https://www.uky.edu/-eushe2/Pajares/eff.html.

• Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., & Ghatala, E. S. (1984). Memory strategy monitoring in adults and children. Journal
of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23(2), 270-288. Doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(84)90181-6
References:
• Sari, J. (2018). Locke’s Goal-Setting Theory. Retrieved (August 02, 2019) from
ToolsHero:https://www.toolshero.com/time-management/edwin-locke-goal-setting-theory/

• Young, J. (2017). Heroes of Employee Engagement: No.4 Edwin A. Locke. Retrieved ( August 02, 2019) from
https://peakon.com/blog/future-work/edwin-locke-goal-setting-theory/

• Latham, G. P., Winters, D., & Locke, E. (1994). Cognitive and motivational effects of participation: A mediator
study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 49–63.

• Locke, L. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation.
American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.

• Kadian-Baumeyer, K. Locke's Goal-Setting Theory: Using Goals to Advance Motivation. Retrieved (August 02,
2019) from https://study.com/academy/lesson/lockes-goal-settingtheory-using-goals-to-advance-
motivation.html

• Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (2005). Handbook of positive psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
References:
• Tripp, M.K., Herrmann, N.B., Parcel, G.S., Chamberlain, R.M., &Gritz, E.R. (2000). Sun protection is fun! A skin cancer
prevention program for pre-schools. Journal of School Health, 70 (10), 395-401.

• Wanderly, N. (2018). Why Locke’s Goal Setting Theory Is The Best Way To Accomplishing Your Goals. Retrieved (August
02, 2018) from https://blog.mindvalley.com/goal-setting-theory/

• Wroblewski, M. T. (2019). A Theory of Goal Setting By Locke & Latham. Retrieved ( August 02, 2019) from
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/theory-goal-setting-locke-latham-1879.html

• Wroblewski, M. T. (2019). A Theory of Goal Setting By Locke & Latham. Retrieved ( August 02, 2019) from
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/theory-goal-setting-locke-latham-1879.html

• Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

• Zull, J. E. (2011). From brain to mind: Understanding neuroscience to guide change in education. Sterling, VA: Stylus Pub.

• Zumbrunn, S., Tadlock, J., & Roberts, E. D. (2011). Encouraging self-regulated learning in the classroom: A review of the
literature. Metropolitan Education Research Consortium (MERC), Virginia Commonwealth University.