Bachelor thesis
The influence of goal setting on academic
performance: a few new insights
Casper America 10502394
Graduation Project Business Administration Business Administration
Universiteit van Amsterdam 26/06/2017
Abstract
This research investigated if mastery goals and achievement goals are positively related to students their academic performance. 27 students filled in an online questionnaire which measures to what extent they set mastery and achievement goals. Furthermore, the questionnaire also measures to what extent they use several self-regulative actions. The research compares the effects of the two goal orientation types and tests if self-regulation is mediating between goal setting and academic performance. The results show that mastery goals indeed seem to improve student their grades. Also, self-regulation turned out to be a partial mediator between mastery goals and grades. Furthermore, according to the results, achievement goals don't affect student their grades or their self regulative actions.
Statement of originality
This document is written by Casper America who declares to take fully
resonpsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and
that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have
been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision
of completion of the work, not for the contents.
1.
Introduction
Students have become more active in the academic self-regulation of their learning and performances in the past few years. Academic self-regulation is better known as students proactively regulating their own performances. They regulate their performances through controlling their own motivation, behavior and metacognitive skills (Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992).
One effective way for students to regulate their own performances is through setting goals for themselves. Goal setting means that people consciously try to accomplish something in the future (Schunk, 1990). According to Bandura & Schunk (1981) experimental studies provided evidence that when helping and teaching low performing students to set goals for themselves that this enhances their academic performances, their interest in the subject matter and sense of cognitive efficacy. Goal setting makes them apply appropriate strategies and enlists personal regulative influences that helps them guide themselves and motivate their efforts (Zimmerman, 1989). Individuals working on a certain task will compare their goals with their current performance and if goal setting individuals notice they are making progress in fulfilling their goal, then this will have a positive influence on their self-efficacy and their motivation (Latham & Locke, 1991). On the other hand when an individual observes a discrepancy between their goal and current performance this might create dissatisfaction, and thus enhance their effort (Latham & Locke, 1991). Furthermore dissatisfaction can possibly also lead to quitting, unless people believe in their success and seek for improvements through assistance or strategies. Goal attainment in the end has a positive effect on the individual’s self-efficacy and leads to people choosing more challenging new goals (Latham & Locke, 1991).
The above aspects will be further explained in this study. The research question of this article is:
RQ: Does goal setting improve academic performance and to what extent does self-regulation have a mediating effect on this connection?
Research into goal setting and academic performance is of social importance because of students who sometimes aren’t able to achieve the high academic aspirations imposed on them. An important determinant of academic aspirations and performance concerning students is their self-regulation. Attempts to increase students’ academic performances
could be enhanced through setting demanding standards for them (Zimmerman, Bandura & Martinez-Pons, 1992). This research can contribute to the knowledge of students’ academic success by means of setting goals. If it appears that goal setting increases students’ academic performances, then in the near future teachers and parents should set demanding goals for their students or children to guide them to success. if this research shows that goal setting positively affects a student's self regulation, then teachers can use goal setting when they want to let students regulate their own actions. Furthermore, if this research shows that self-regulation has a positive effect on academic performance, then teachers and parents should take self-regulation into consideration when trying to improve students their academic success.
2. Theoretical framework
Figure 1 shows the conceptual model. The purpose of this research is to find new insights related to goal setting. We will be looking at two types of goal orientation called mastery goals and achievement goals. Both the goal orientation types will be turned into two separate variables to test individually what the effects are on student their academic performance and self-regulation. It is expected that both the goal orientation types will show a positive relationship with academic performance. Furthermore we expect that in both cases, self-regulation will have a mediating effect within goal setting and academic performance. The variables mentioned above will be further discussed in theoretical framework.
2.1 Goal setting and academic performance
Locke (1969) defines a goal as follows: ‘something that people try to accomplish, the object or aim of an action’. More recent research conducted by Locke, Shaw, Saari & Latham (1981) build on this definition, they state that individuals who set goals for themselves develop a certain action plan that is designed to motivate groups or individuals to achieve their goal. However, in their research they also state that people could make errors, lack the skills and thus the ability to reach their objectives or they could have subconscious conflicts that are contradictory to their conscious goals. As a result, there may be a difference between individuals goals and their actions (Locke, Shaw, Saari & Latham, 1981). dddddd
Several other studies also examined the effects of goal setting in relation to performance. Zimmerman, Bandura & Martinez-Pons (1992) in their literature suggest that individuals who are able to set challenging goals for themselves will create strategies to ensure that they will meet their goals. They also mention that goal setters will use self-regulative actions to meet their own demands. For example if an individual notice that he won’t be able to reach his goal in the available office time, then he could work late at night to make sure that he reach his purpose. Furthermore they found that through goal setting the individual's commitment increases, which will have a positive effect on someone’s effort to
meet their goals (Zimmerman, Bandura & Martinez-Pons, 1992). ddd More recently Locke & Latham developed a theory concerning goal setting; the
goal-setting theory. The theory was created inductively within organizational psychology over the past 25 years. They based the theory on field and 400 laboratory studies (Locke & Latham, 2006). According to Locke & Latham (2006) the goal-setting theory states that: ‘goals are one of the most important influences of human behavior’. Goals influence individuals performance in several different ways. They found that goals motivate people to carry out the efforts needed to perform a task with a certain degree of difficulty. Furthermore they motivate people to continue with certain activities for a certain period of time; until the goal is reached. Also, individuals focus, especially when the goals are specific to those activities that are the most relevant to achieve the goal. People are motivated through conscious problem solving and will be innovative when they have to develop new strategies to achieve their goals (Locke & Latham 1994) . dd
Goal orientation could be seen as the underlying reason why people set their goals (Wolters, Shirley & Pintrich, 1996). According to a study conducted by Pintrich (2000)
multiple studies recently focussed on several types of goal orientations in relation to achievements, self-regulated learning and motivation. They state that especially the mastery and achievement goals seem to play an important role concerning people their performance, self-regulated learning and motivation. Mastery goals orient students especially focus on mastering the learning material as good and complete as possible. According to Pintrich (2000) mastery goals seem to have several positive effects on students. They state that students will have more interest in the subject, put more effort and persistence, have a higher level of self-efficacy, higher task value and a better performance. Furthermore, students who set achievement goals seem to focus on their performances and abilities compared to other students. Their main objectives would be to perform better than the rest or on the other hand they wanna avoid looking less skilled or incompetent. According to Pintrich (2000) achievement goals normally seem to be less adaptive when they concern performance, the use of strategies and affection.
The above literature shows that mixed evidence has been found concerning the influence of goal setting on academic performance. Mainly the literature suggests that people have underlying reasons for setting goals (goal orientation) and that goals affect several performance related factors. In this study it is important to investigate if goal setting could significantly enhance the academic performance of students. Due to this our first hypothesis states:
H1: There is a positive relationship between goal setting and academic performance.
2.2 Goal setting and Self-regulation
Self-regulation itself is a pretty wide definition. According to research conducted by Barnard, Lan, Paton & Lai (2009) it could be divided into six subscales; goal setting, time management, help seeking, task strategies, and self-evaluation. Each of these dimensions are possibilities for individuals to regulate their own performances. ddddddd
According to Latham & Locke self-regulation is important when concerning goal setting because they state that individuals set their goals and also translate their goals into actions volitionally. However, most of the experiments concerning goal setting did not emphasize self-regulation explicitly. This is due to the fact that goals in these experiments were assigned to the individuals to make sure that there is enough variation in goal type and
level. Furthermore Locke & Latham (1990) found that when individuals set goals for themselves, that they are just as effective as goals that are set participatively or assigned by someone else. However, the self set goals don't seem to increase performance more than the assigned or participative goals. According to Locke & Latham this finding could be used as the base when training individuals skills in self-regulation.
Kanfer (1986) in his study states that setting goals improves a person their self-regulation. Goals can define for the individual what would be the acceptable level of performance. They will be able to compare their actions to their goals and when their current actions will fall short compared to the described goal, then this will result in a negative performance evaluation. Negative performance evaluations according to Kanfer (1986) most of the time lead to new action plans and problem solving activities to eliminate the dissatisfactions. On the other hand when an individual seem to perform better than the goals they set, then this could encourage the person to set higher goals for themselves in the future.
Kanfer & Gaelick( (1986) gave people self-control training in which they try to improve someone's self-control. Each person that participated the training had to set hard but achievable goals. The participants improve their self-control through making their own decisions and generating their own personal incentives. Most of the time they have to overcome social and internal aversive feelings. This training including clearly defined goals has been proven to improve a person's self-regulation skills concerning stopping with smoking and losing weight.
A few years later Zimmerman & Bandura (1992) in their research did sort of the same as Kanfer & Gaelick but their participants were students. They investigated if goal setting students would get higher grades than students who don't set goals. Their results show that the self set goals some how forced the students to stay committed with their work to obtain specific grade achievements. Also goal setting encourage students to use a lot of self regulated learning methods such as, organizing their academic activities, cognitive methods to remember school material or planning to complete their schoolwork in time. They also found that when students have a higher self-efficacy, that they also set higher goal standards
for themselves (Bandura 1992). hhhhhh
There has been several studies investigating the connection between goal setting and self-regulation. Most studies indicate that goal setting has an effect on a person's self regulative actions. In this study it is important to know if setting goals affects someone’s self regulation. Due to that our second hypotheses indicates:
H2: There is a positive relationship between goal setting and self-regulation
2.3 Self-regulation and academic performance
Zimmerman & Schunk (2001) quotes in their study; ‘the ultimate goal of the education system is shift to the individual the burden of pursuing his own education’. According to Zimmerman their study a self regulated learning perspective not only contributes to students achievements and learning but also seem to have great importance in the way how schools are organized and the way that teachers should interact with their students.
Research conducted by Wong (2008) examined if student their self-regulation could be a predictor of academic performance. They hypothesized if effortful control and self-regulation could affect academic performance. They investigated several self regulative variables such as identified regulation, attention, inhibitory control and activation control. There results showed significant proof that these self regulative variables indeed did influence a student's academic performance.
Pintrich & De Groot (1990) in their study developed a theoretical framework which conceptualized students motivation. In their model they propose that three motivational factors might influence students self regulated learning and performance: first of all they discuss a value component, which includes a student’s beliefs of tasks importance and their interest in it. Furthermore they mention an expectancy component, this includes the beliefs that students have in their own skills and abilities to perform a certain task. Finally there is an affective component which concerns the emotional reactions to a task. While analyzing the value component Pintrich & De Groot (1990) concluded that people who believe that a certain task is important and interesting, will use more cognitive strategies, manage their efforts more effectively and engage more in metacognitive activities. According to research conducted by Fincham & Cain (1986) important aspects of the expectancy component is that it has a link with students their efforts and cognitive strategies. In their research they state that students who believe that they have enough capabilities to fulfill a task, will be more likely to perform better and finish a certain task. The affective component that Benjamin & Leckie, (1981) studied seemed to show mixed results. Students that were anxious didn’t seem to be less effortful or persistent then the other students. However, they were learning
inefficient and ineffective. The connection between self-regulation and academic performance is of great relevance for a lot of daily practices. Probably this is why there is a wide range of studies concerning these two variables. in this study it is important to find out if there is a connection between self-regulation and academic performance. Due to this our third hypothesis indicates:
H3: Is there a positive relationship between self-regulation and academic performance?
3. Methodology
3.1 Data-analysis planThis research is based on secondary data using the online self-regulation questionnaire from Barnard, Paton & Lan (2008). The first variable goal setting was measured through 12 questions concerning two types of goal orientation; goal mastery and goal achievement. The first 6 questions concern mastery goals and the last 6 question concern achievement goals. 2 scale variables will be created out of the 12 questions called; mastery goals and achievement goals. Furthermore, the 24 self regulation questions according to the OSLQ could be divided into 6 subscales. In this research self-regulation will be tested as 1 variable through making it one variable consisting 6 sub-scales of self-regulation.
The first hypothesis that will be tested, concerns the effect of ‘goal setting’ on ‘academic performance’. The dependent variable ‘academic performance’ is an ordinal and continuous variable. The independent goal setting variables, mastery goals and achievement goals are scale variables. Goal setting will be divided into two different types of goal orientation; mastery goals and achievement goals. Both these types of goal orientation will be tested separately to see if there would be any interesting differences in the results.
The second hypothesis concerns the effect of ‘goal setting’ on ‘self-regulation’. The independent scale variables are still mastery goals and achievement goals. The dependent variable ‘self-regulation’ is also an scale variable and will be tested through 2 regressions with each of the goal setting subscale variables.
Also the third hypothesis will be analyzed with a regression. The ordinal continuous dependent variable ‘academic performance’ will be analyzed to see what the effect of the independent ordinal scale variable ‘self-regulation’ is.
If the results of the first three hypothesis indicate that there indeed is a mediation, then there will be mediation analysis. In other words if all three hypothesis for achievement goals or mastery goals are significant then there will be one or two mediation analyzes.
4.
Results
4.1 Beforehand analysis
In total 34 persons who set goals for themselves filled in the online questionnaire. While analyzing the data three participants had to be removed from the data because they failed to answer all the questions from the survey. Furthermore another group of four persons were cut from the sample because three didn't receive their grades yet and one person couldn't be found in the grade results excel sheet. These 7 participants couldn't be of any value due to incomplete data and thus had to be removed from the total sample, meaning that in the end 27 remaining people filled in the questionnaire (N=27).
To ensure that the variables age and gender don't seem to cause significant differences in the results, we have to check the relationship between these variables and the dependent variables, academic performance and self regulation. In total 96% of the sample were females and 4% male. A Sharipo-Wilk’s test (p < 0.05) (Shapiro & Wilk, 1965; Razali & Wah, 2011) showed that the grades were not significantly normally distributed for females. However, a visual inspection of their histograms, normal Q-Q plots and boxplots didn't seem to show any inconveniences. There was just 1 male in the sample so there weren't possibilities to test for males. The skewness for females was -1,575 (SE = 0,456) and the kurtosis is 3,329 (SE =
0,887).
dddddd Furthermore the students their age will be tested to see if it has a significant effect on the variables grades and self-regulation. The mean of the sample was 26,3 years (SE = 6,6). Age does seem to be normally distributed (skewness = 1,683, SE = 0,448). According to the regression analysis there don't seem to be a significant effect between age and grades, r = 0,333, p = 0,09. Also age and self-regulation dont seem to be significant, r = 0,098, p = 0,682. Furthermore the visual inspection of the the histograms and scatter plots seem to show a normal distribution.
The variable concerning goal setting consists of secondary data, using the achievement goal questionnaire with 12 questions measuring goal orientation (Elliot & Murayama, 2008). The participants had a likert-scale giving five different answer possibilities ranging from ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly agree’. Goal orientation in the questionnaire is divided into two dimensions, with each 6 questions representing goal mastery and goal achievement (Elliot & Murayama, 2008). The questions related to the two
dimension are split into two categories called; mastery-approach goals, mastery-avoidance goals, achievement-approach goals and achievement-avoidance goals. In this study there will be a focus on the two dimensions; mastery and achievement goals. The influence of each goal orientation dimension will be tested on self-regulation and grades. The reason behind this is to find out to what extent each dimension affect the self-regulation and grades. A reliability test has been conducted for each dimension to measure the internal consistency. The 6 goal mastery questions resulted according to in a good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0,738, N=6). Furthermore the 6 questions concerning goal achievement also resulted in a good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0,825, N=6). According to Field (2009) an internal consistency above 0.7 could be considered as a good internal consistency. Also, the correlation between mastery and achievement goals has been calculated (0.748), which is a high correlation but in this case not a problem for the study.
The self regulation variable is based on secondary data, the online self-regulation questionnaire and this includes 24 questions in total (Barnard, Paton & Lan, 2008). Just like the goal setting variable the participants answered the questions on a Likert-scale giving them five different answer possibilities ranging from ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly agree’. According to Barnard, Paton & Lan (2008) these 24 questions could be divided into 6 dimensions. In their research they state that the questions 1 to 5 concerns goal setting, furthermore, question 6 to 9 relate to environment structuring, question 10 to 13 concern task strategies, question 14 to 16 measures time management, question 17 to 20 concern help seeking and finally question 21 to 24 measures self evaluation. In this research we like to measure regulation as one variable. The internal consistency regarding the 24 self-regulation question has been calculated (Cronbach’s alpha = 0,906, N=24). According to Field (2009) the given internal consistency is very good.
The academic performance variable is based on student their grades and has been measured on a scale from 1 to 10.
4.2 Goal setting and academic performance
H1 states: There is a positive relationship between goal setting and academic performance. First a linear regression will be conducted concerning goal mastery and student their grades. The grades in this regression could be seen as the dependent variable and goal mastery as the independent variable. Both goal mastery and achievement were
measured on a Likert scale from 1 to 5. Furthermore, grades were measured from 1 to 10. A significant regression equation was found (F(1,25)= 12,297, p < 0,002), with an R2 of 0,33. So 33% of student their grades could be explained by goal mastery. Participants predicted grades is equal to 0,909 + 1,421 (goal mastery). Student their grades increased 1,425 points for each higher level on the Likert-scale. The assumption of independent errors is accepted (Dublin-watson = 2,452). So no causes for concerns of correlated errors (Field, 2009). Also, The scatter plot doesn't show anything to be concerned of. The second linear regression investigated the effect of achievement goals on student their grades. Student their grades could be seen as the dependent variable and achievement goals as the independent variable. No significant regression equation was found (p = 0,082). H1: will be accepted because there seem to be a significant relationship between goal mastery and student their academic performance. However, achievement goals don't seem to show a significant effect on student their grades.
4.3 Goal setting and self-regulation
H2 states: Is there a positive relationship between goal setting and self-regulation. First a linear regression will be conducted with self-regulation as the dependent variable and
mastery goals as the independent variable. A significant regression equation was found (F(1,25)= 5,691, p < 0,025), with an R2 of 0,185 . So 18,5% of student their self-regulation could be explained by mastery goals. Participants predicted self-regulation is equal to 2,337 + 0,355 (goal mastery). Student their self-regulation increased 0,355 points for each higher level on the Likert-scale. The assumption of independent errors is accepted (Dublin-watson = 1,719). So no causes for concerns of correlated errors (Field, 2009). Also, The scatter plot seem to show a normal distribution. The second linear regression investigated the effect of achievement goals on student their self-regulation. in this regression self-regulation is the dependent variable and achievement goals the independent variable. No significant regression equation was found (p = 0,072) H2: will be accepted because there is a significant relationship between mastery goals and student their self regulation. However, achievement goals don't seem to have a significant effect on student their self regulation.
4.4 Self-regulation and academic performance
H3 states: Is there a positive relationship between self-regulation and academic performance? There will be one linear regression to see if there is a relationship between self-regulation and student their academic performances. In this regression academic performances will be measured in grades and self-regulation on a Likert-scale. Grades will be the dependent variable and academic performance will be the independent variable. A significant regression equation was found (F(1,25)= 4,593, p < 0,042), with an R2 of 0,155 . So 15,5% of student their grades could be explained by self-regulation. Participants predicted grades is equal to 2,009 + 1,183 (self-regulation). Student their grades increased 1,183 points for each higher level on the self-regulation Likert-scale. The assumption of independent errors is accepted (Dublin-watson = 2,349). So no causes for concerns of correlated errors (Field, 2009). Also, The scatter plot doesn't show anything to be concerned of. H3 will be accepted because according to the regression self-regulation seem to show a significant effect on student their grades.
4.5 Mediational analysis
To see if self regulation is a mediator between the independent variable mastery goals and the dependent variable academic performance we have to conduct a mediation analysis. Baron & Kenny (1986) proposed a four step approach in which several analysis are conducted which are required for testing various meditational hypothesis. The first step in Baron & Kenny's procedure shows that the independent variable mastery goals is correlated with the outcome variable academic performance. In this step we’ll be looking at the total effect. According to the regression (conducted in 4.2) there seem to be a beta coefficient of 0,574 between mastery goals and academic performance. The beta coefficient indicates that there is an effect that may be mediated. The seconds step treats the mediator variable self-regulation as an outcome variable to see if mastery goals correlate with self-self-regulation. According to the regression (conducted in 4.3) the beta coefficient between goal mastery and self-regulation is 0,431. The third step involves an establishment of the correlation between self-regulation and academic performance. In this step the mastery goals must be controlled
while establishing the correlation between self-regulation and academic performance. This is due to the fact that they are both caused by mastery goals. According to the multiple regression the beta coefficient between self-regulation and academic performance is 0,180. The assumption of independent errors is accepted (Dublin-watson = 2,576). So no causes for concerns of correlated errors (Field, 2009). Also, The scatter plot seem to show a normal distribution. The indirect effect could now be computed through multiplying the beta coefficient of the second step with the third step (0,431 x 0,180 = 0,077). The fourth step was measured in the same multiple regression as the third step and tests the effect of mastery goals on academic performance while being controlled for self-regulation. According to the multiple regression the coefficient beta for mastery goals controlled for self-regulation is 0,497. This beta coefficient could be seen as the direct effect. According to fourth step results we can conclude that there still is a beta coefficient higher then zero when controlling for self-regulation and thus this indicates that there is partial mediation. As mentioned before in step one, the total effect of mastery goals on academic performance is 0,574. This effect is mainly caused by goal mastery (0,497) and the rest of the effect is caused by the mediator self-regulation (0,077).
5.
Discussion
This current research examined the influences of goal setting on self-regulation and student their grades. Also, we examined if self-regulation was a mediator in this process. Two types of goal orientation, mastery and achievement goals have been tested individually on academic performance and self-regulation. The goal of this research is to compare the two types of goal orientation to see if there are some interesting differences in the outcomes. It appears in the results that mastery goals seem to have a significant effect on student their grades and self-regulation. In other words when student set goals for themselves with the intention to master the subject-matter or to avoid mastering less then possible, they seem to get higher grades, and also improve the regulation of their own actions. Furthermore there seem to be a significant relationship between self-regulation and academic performance. In other words, when people use self regulative actions such as help seeking or task strategies
they will receive higher grades than if they don’t. After recognizing that there was some sort of mediation we found that this type of mediation was partial. Partial mediation means that the mediation variables count for some, but not all, of the relationship between the independent and dependent variable. In other words partial mediation implies that there is not only a significant relationship between self-regulation and the student their grades, but also a direct relationship between goal setting and grades. Furthermore, the achievement goals didn't seem to show a significant relationship with both student their grades and their self-regulative actions. In other words, we didn't find any proof that shows that there is a relationship between achievement goals, student their grades and self-regulation.
The findings that indicate that mastery goals seem to improve self-regulation are in contrast with the earlier findings by Zimmerman, Bandura & Martinez-Pons (1992). In their research they found that goal setters use self-regulative actions to meet their own demands. However, our findings are more specific since we investigated the effect of mastery and achievement goals in relation with self-regulation. This gives us the opportunity to compare the two types of goal orientation. Due to the fact that we did find a significant relationship for mastery, and that we didn't find one for achievement goals means that we could say that mastery goals are a better way to improve student their grades and self-regulation in comparison with achievement goals. These findings suggest that students should focus on mastery goals and not on achievement goals if they want to improve their academic performance.
However it is still unknown why achievement goals don't seem to have a significant effect on self-regulation and grades. A possible answer would be that students are less committed to their goals when they set achievement goals instead of mastery goals. Furthermore mastery goal setters might have a clearer goal since they want to master as much content as possible, wherein achievement goals might be more vague or have a wider range of acceptable performance.
The current research shows interesting results in relation to the effects of the two goal orientation types. However, it is important while analyzing the results to take a few limitations into consideration. One important aspect is that the sample size in the current research was 27. A sample size of 27 might not be representative for the whole population. So beside the fact that we did find significant results, people could doubt if the sample size would be representative for the whole population. A second limitation could be the fact 96% of the participants were female. This means that we almost only measured the effects within
the female population and thus couldn't say anything about the total or male population. Furthermore, the female population and age don't seem to be normally distributed according to the tests, which could make people questions how reliable the used data is.
Concluding, current research gives us a better inside within the effects of two types of goal orientation in relation to grades. as expected, the given results do support that the mastery goal orientation type improves student their grades and self-regulation. Furthermore self-regulation seems to be a partial mediator between goal setting and student their grades. However we didn't expect that achievement goals wouldn’t be significant, and thus don't seem to be a predictor of student their grades. Now we know that there is a difference in the effects of mastery and achievement goals we could state that; if students want to improve their grades they should focus primarily on mastery goals.
References
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of educational psychology, 80(3), 260.
Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation.
Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., To, Y. M., Paton, V. O., & Lai, S. L. (2009). Measuring self-regulation in online and blended learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education,
12(1), 1-6.
Barnard, L., Paton, V., & Lan, W. (2008). Online self-regulatory learning behaviors as a mediator in the relationship between online course perceptions with achievement. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 9(2). dddd
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173.
Benjamin, M. M., & Leckie, J. O. (1981). Multiple-site adsorption of Cd, Cu, Zn, and Pb on amorphous iron oxyhydroxide. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 79(1),
209-221.
Conti, R. (2000). College goals: Do self-determined and carefully considered goals predict intrinsic motivation, academic performance, and adjustment during the first semester?. Social Psychology of Education, 4(2), 189-211.
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 18(1), 105. ddddddd
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1994). Goal setting, achievement orientation, and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of personality and social psychology, 66(5), 968
Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique, illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 613.ssss
Fincham, F. D., & Cain, K. M. (1986). Learned helplessness in humans: A developmental analysis. Developmental Review, 6(4), 301-333.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2.006) New directions in goal-setting theory. Current directions in psychological science, 15(5), 265-268. sssssssss
Locke, E., & Latham, G. (1994). Goal-setting theory. chair in human resources at the State University of New York–Buffalo and was faculty director of the Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership there. Previously he was Research Professor of Management at Georgia State University. He has written over fifty books and over 135 other publications.,
159. ddddddd
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.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of educational psychology, 82(1),
33. sssdddddddddd Turner, E. A., Chandler, M., & Heffer, R. W. (2009). The influence of parenting
styles, achievement motivation, and self-efficacy on academic performance in college students. Journal of College Student Development, 50(3), 337-346.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of educational psychology, 92(3), 544.
Wolters, C. A., Shirley, L. Y., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The relation between goal orientation and students' motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning. Learning and individual differences, 8(3), 211-238.
Wong, M. M. (2008). Perceptions of parental involvement and autonomy support: Their relations with self-regulation, academic performance, substance use and resilience among adolescents. North American Journal of Psychology, 10(3), 497-518.
Vallerand, R. J., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). 12 Intrinsic Motivation in Sport. Exercise and sport sciences reviews, 15(1), 389-426.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American educational research journal, 29(3), 663-676.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives. Routledge.
