|
Goal Setting – The Key to Success? A Critical Review of Academic Goal Setting Literature
W. Williams
Performance is influenced by the type of goal The effects of goal specificity Effective implementation of goals
Multiple reviews and meta-analyses of goal setting literature (Locke et al, 1981, Tubbs, 1986) support the basic principles of goal setting theory, suggesting goals to be a fundamental influence - if not necessity - of improved self-efficacy and performance in all areas of life. Locke et al. (1981) indeed report that the beneficial effect of goal setting on task performance is one of the most robust and replicable findings in psychological literature.
Goals may be described as the product of a cognitive transformation, of behaviourally undetermined needs into something specific to be achieved. Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilising effort, increasing persistence and motivating strategy development (Locke et al, 1981). Lemos (1999) describes self-regulation as the modulation of behaviour according to the changing environment, both internal and external. Behaviour is modulated through operations such as planning, executing and monitoring, which are achieved through goal setting. Since goals are then the product of relationships between individuals and their environments, self-regulation revolves around changing the existing circumstances, and organising behaviour according to the desired outcome.
An environment in which these processes are both highly prevalent and important is that of academia, where desired outcomes are largely common across the student body in the form of academic success. Stein et al (1993) found that lower motivation to achieve in academic adolescents significantly predicted more negative job behaviours and lower job satisfaction in young adulthood, suggesting the importance of motivation, and therefore goal setting, as a prerequisite of achievement. West and Thorn (2001) similarly found that the young are more receptive to goal setting than adults, further supporting academic education as an important period for goal setting behaviour.
Performance is influenced by the type of goal
Goals may be divided at the simplest level into two fundamental orientations, mastery versus performance goals (Ames and Archer, 1988), or similarly, task-involvement versus ego-involvement goals (Nicholls, 1984). Students who pursue a learning or mastery goal value learning itself and rely on effort to attain that goal, which dominates their self-regulated behaviour in the academic domain. In contrast, students who pursue performance goals value their ability standards and avoid tasks involving a high exertion of effort. Attention is therefore focused on the evaluation of one's ability and directed away from the requirements of the task. It is easy to see how this type of goal can make self-regulation more difficult, and hinder progress compared to goals of learning and mastery. As monitoring of goal progress involves demonstrating that one’s ability is higher than other’s, progress and achievement become more dependent on extrinsic factors such as the performance and social approval of peers. Analysis of the consequences of goal setting for achievement goals has established that learning goals are generally more beneficial to excelling in academic achievement contexts than are performance goals (Ames and Archer, 1988). In response to difficulties, students with performance goals are more vulnerable to a helpless orientation and deteriorate in their problem-solving strategies, while students with learning goals show a mastery orientation in response to difficulty, maintaining their problem-solving strategies (Elliot and Dweck, 1988). Within an academic domain, Wentzel (1989) found that goals such as understanding concepts, time and work management, or being dependable and responsible also favour academic achievement. Term grades were found to be positively correlated with student’s efforts to be successful, and negatively correlated with trying to have fun, offering valid ecological support for the positive effects of learning goals for academic achievement.
Despite the distinction of goals into learning and performance orientations, they are more likely to vary between dominance rather than exclusivity, depending on the present context. If the situation is academic, it is more likely that learning goals will be implemented. Lemos (1999) classified student’s activities into further various types of goal, which were divided as follows: discipline goals (3%); enjoyment goals (5%); interpersonal relationship goals (6%); complying goals (17%); learning goals (19%); evaluation goals (21%); and working goals (29%). Complying goals represent statements referring to activities directed to the compliance with classroom norms and management demands. Learning goals refer to activities oriented toward the acquisition of knowledge or the mastery of skills. Evaluation goals refer to activities directed by academic evaluation practices, such as exams or coursework. Finally, working goals refer to activities directed by the academic work (e.g., students who want to "finish it" or "get it done"; teachers who want to promote student on-task behaviour). Of those listed, enjoyment, interpersonal relationship, and compliance goals are arguably the only performance-oriented goals, and account for only 29% of student behaviours. Others have also pointed out that the structure of student tasks, the type of evaluation and recognition they receive from parents and teachers, and the amount of responsibility authorities take for the students’ learning are important influences that determine whether students adopt learning, performance, or social achievement goals (Nicholls, 1984, Wentzel, 1989). Studying the interaction of goal difficulty with competition from peers, Campbell and Furrer (1995) found that performance of college students solving arithmetic problems was enhanced by difficult goals and by a lack of competition. However, Allscheid and Cellar (1996) found no effect of competition on the performance of college students performing an anagram task, which suggests the influence of goal difficulties and external pressures are also likely to be dependent on the nature and demands of the task. Feedback has also been shown to increase not only performance (Gibson, 1953, Locke et al, 1981, Tubbs, 1986), but also the difficulty of future goals (West and Thorn, 2001). Bandura (1997) also suggested that the increased self-efficacy from having successfully achieved a set goal stimulates the setting of ever more challenging goals, creating a seemingly exponential growth of success. This illustrates the complexity of student goal setting and the inherent difficulties and invalidity of simplifying self-regulation into distinct classifications. It is perhaps more beneficial therefore to focus on aspects of goal setting that are known to improve performance.
The effects of goal specificity
Goal Setting theory has established that specific challenging goals lead to higher task performance than specific, unchallenging goals, vague goals or no goals (e.g. Maltz, 1960, Tubbs, 1986, Robbins, 1992, West and Thorn, 2001). Specific goals refer to goals that are defined in quantitative terms, in contrast to more vague goals, which instruct performers to ‘do their best’. In a meta-analysis of goal setting research, Locke et al (1981) found that over 90% of investigated studies reported higher performance as a result of specific and challenging goals than easier ‘do your best’ goals. According to theory, specific challenging goals influence performance by directing attention, effort and persistence toward the prescribed role and by developing appropriate task strategies that promote goal attainment.
Positive effects of goal-specificity have also been observed by the author in a qualitative field setting. Participants who were asked to describe their goals after graduation were also required to embellish their plans with specific details of when and how they would like to progressively reach their goal step-by-step. After recording these plans through writing, they reported an improved sense of determinism and displayed improved self-efficacy. Lacking longitudinal data however, it is unknown as to how actual achievement of goals were affected.
Taylor et al (1998) provide such evidence for the improved academic performance resulting from goal-specificity. University students preparing for an exam were placed into one of three conditions. Participants in the process condition were required to imagine the behaviours necessary to achieve an ‘A’ grade, including the amount of work, how it would be revised, when, where and for how long. The outcome condition required participants to imagine achieving the ‘A’, turning up on results day, reading the grade on the chart, and how they would feel. A control group were given irrelevant instructions of the same detail and duration. The process condition showed improvement over the control condition, with grades increasing by an average of 8 points. The outcome condition however showed no difference in improvement, suggesting that the imagined process of goal pursuit is an important factor in goal specification.
Further empirical evidence for goal-specificity was also found by Oettingen et al (2000) in an experiment where student participants performed maths exercises one morning a week for four weeks. The goal intention group were required to specify the time and place of the exercises, i.e. "I will perform as many arithmetic tasks as possible each Wednesday at [self-chosen time before noon]". The implementation intention group had to establish an “if - then” plan, where by times of day provided cues for particular actions, i.e. "If it is Wednesday at [self-chosen time before noon], I will perform as many arithmetic tasks as possible!". The latter condition was significantly closer to the actual desired time than the goal intention condition. It appears then that goal intentions benefit from additional implementation intentions as motivators for more efficient time management. It is also important to note however that whilst the timing was more accurate, the performance on the arithmetic tasks was indifferent, and so the accurate timing may simply be seen as a further goal, irrelevant to the primary task of arithmetic.
Kirschenbaum (1987) conversely suggests that specificity may actually hinder goal-progress. Step-by-step planning of goal pursuit to a finely detailed structure may cause a rigidity that lacks the flexibility normally beneficial to goal achievement, such as modification of self-regulatory behaviour in response to current experiences and opportunities. This risk seems to be minor with specific plans in the form of implementation intentions, however. Even though implementation intentions exactly specify the when and where of getting started with goal-directed behaviours, they allow freedom as to how the individual may follow the course of goal attainment once action has commenced.
Effective implementation of goals
Through the theories and evidence discussed, effective implementation of goal setting seems to rely on specific planning and the juxtaposition of present circumstances with a future-based desire. Both of these variables were investigated in the research of Oettingen et al (2000). Participants consisted of college students who were required to fantasise about getting to know an attractive stranger, and female doctoral students fantasising about successfully combining work and family life. Both groups were asked to mentally contrast fantasies with present reality, and then to use their individual expectations of success to determine their strength of commitment towards fantasy realisation. Both groups reported to be strongly committed, eager to reach their desired future, and anticipated strong disappointment if the desired future were to fail. If however, expectations were found to be unfavourable, levels of goal commitment were reduced to the lowest levels found in the study. Participants who were required to only indulge in positive fantasies, or dwell on the negative reality (in comparison to the fantasy) formed only moderately strong goal commitments independently of underlying expectations. These results suggest that planning and an imagined goal as contrasted to present circumstances interact to provide optimum conditions for successful achievement of the goal. The goals described by the students in this study are however of a performance nature, as opposed to learning or skill and therefore not representative of all student goals (Lemos 1999).
Oettingen et al (2000) also studied the effects of the goal and present circumstance contrast with skill-based learning. Children of 10-12 years starting their first language provided ideal participants, allowing easy creation of excitement and desired goals, and wanting to achieve in a novel area. Three conditions were tested for their influence on the emergence of academic goals: contrasting positive fantasies with negative reality, indulging in positive fantasies, and dwelling on negative reality. After two weeks and again at three months, the link between students’ expectations of success and academic performance was stronger in the contrast condition than either of the other two, of which there was no difference in performance. A positive correlation was also found between expectations of success and exerted effort. Strong goal commitments were found to emerge when individuals mentally contrasted their fantasies about a desired future with negative aspects of impeding reality and chances of success were perceived as being high. This study holds validity in that effort and performance were measured by external evaluators naïve to the conditions instead of merely relying on participants meta-knowledge and introspection, which may be biased by expectations. The findings were also self-replicated for academic success related to achievement in mathematics, suggesting valid and reliable results. It is evident therefore that mental contrasting is a straightforward and effective self-regulatory procedure, where a single aspect of the positive future has to be mentally elaborated prior to a single aspect of negative reality. When expectations of success are high, binding goal commitments leading to increased effort and high academic performance emerge.
Bandura (1997) and Oettingen et al (2000) have pointed out that different methods of imagining the future reflect different attitudes and deterministic qualities. These may be divided into thoughts of expectations based on the likelihood of events, and therefore experience and performance history, and free fantasies, which are independent of likelihood. This somewhat echoes Freud’s (1923) model of the unconscious, contrasting the free-desire of the ‘id’, with the reality-based knowledge of ‘ego’. Where Freud acknowledged the ‘superego’ as the ultimatum, this may reflect the contrasting of future goals with the present state as a balance to provide the optimum chances of success. To illustrate this distinction applied to academic achievement, a student can indulge in positive fantasies of academic success despite perceiving the chances of excelling in academic performance to be low. This lack of negative doubt is then likely to propel the efforts of self-regulation to a greater extent.
The reviewed research illustrates that goal-setting seems a valuable tool with which all students could benefit, yet academic success continues to follow a wide-ranging normal distribution despite similar circumstances and resources. Given that goals of a certain content or type facilitate successful academic achievement, whereas goal setting of another content or type are hindrances, it seems important for students to learn to set goals of appropriate content (e.g., learning goals, Wentzel 1989). Such knowledge-based goals are shown to be robust in promise of performance, independent of task requirements and situations (Ames and Archer, 1988). Goal pursuit also benefits from a specific route of action, which can provide motivation cues and determinism (e.g. West and Thorn, 2001). Robbins (1992) also places firm emphasis on the initial action towards goals, which can be made more approachable following a plan of action. It is important that whilst encouraging students to indulge in positive fantasies about their future achievements, teachers should find ways to strengthen students’ expectations of success (e.g., by having students acquire new skills and competencies such as speaking to an audience or by providing powerful models, Bandura 1997). Although there are a host of intervention programs geared at promoting high expectations in school (Bandura, 1997) as well as work (Ambrose and Kulick, 1999), research on goal setting indicates that high expectations of success alone do not guarantee that students will set themselves binding academic goals to be pursued with great effort and success. Sheer fantasizing about reaching academic success and mere reflecting on present reality have been shown to lead to only moderate goal setting and goal striving independent of perceived chances of success (Oettingen, 2000). If students are to translate their academic optimism into binding goals, it also seems critical to encourage them to contrast their respective fantasies with impeding reality.
References
Allscheid, S. P., & Cellar, D. F. (1996). An interactive approach to work motivation: The effects of competition, rewards, and goal difficulty on task performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 11, 219-237.
Ambrose, M.L. & Kulik, C.T. (1999). Old friends, new faces: motivation research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25 (3) 231-292.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology 84, 261-271.
Ames, C. & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivational processes. Journal of Educational Psychology 80, 260-267.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Blumenfeld, P.C. (1992). Classroom learning and motivation: clarifying and expanding goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology 84, 272-281.
Campbell, D. J. & Furrer, D. M. (1995). Goal setting and competition as determinants of task performance. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 16, 377-389.
Elliot, E.S. & Dweck, C.S. (1988). Goals: an approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Psychology, 54 (1), 5-12.
Freud, S. (1923). The Ego and the Id. In Strachey, J. (Ed.) (1955-74). Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. London: Hogarth Press.
Gibson, E.J. (1953). Improvement in perceptual judgements as a function of controlled practice or training. Psychological Bulletin, 50 (6), 401-431.
Kirschenbaum, D.S. (1987). Self-regulatory failure: A review with clinical implications. Clinical Psychology Review, 7, 77-104.
Lemos, M.S. (1999). Students' goals and self-regulation in the classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 31 (6), 471-485.
Locke, E.A., Shaw, K.M., Saari, L.M. & Latham, G.M. (1981). Goal Setting and task performance: 1960-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125-152.
Maltz, M. (1960). Psycho-Cybernetics. California: Wilshire Press.
Nicholls, J. (1984). Achievement motivation: conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review 91, 328-346.
Oettingen, G., Hönig, G. & Gollwitzer, P.M. (2000). Effective self-regulation of goal attainment. International Journal of Educational Research, 33 (7-8), 705-732.
Robbins, A. (1992). Awaken the Giant Within. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Stein, J. A., Smith, G. M., Guy, S. B. & Bentler, P. M. (1993). Consequences of adolescent drug use on young adult job behaviour and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 463-474.
Taylor, S.E., Pham, L.B., Rivkin, I.D. & Armor, D.A. (1998). Harnessing the imagination: Mental simulation, self-regulation, and coping. American Psychologist, 53, 429-439.
Tubbs, M.E. (1986). Goal Setting: a meta-analytic examination of the empirical evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (3), 474-483.
Wentzel, K.R. (1989). Adolescent classroom goals, standards for performance, and academic achievement: an interactionist perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 131-142.
West R.L. & Thorn R.M. (2001). Goal-setting, self-efficacy, and memory performance in older and younger adults. Experimental Aging Research, 27 (1), 41-65. |