Assessing Students’ Study Strategies and Achievement Goals

108 The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment December 2012, Vol. 12(1)

© 2012 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

Assessing Students’ Study Strategies and Achievement Goals

Carlo Magno

De La Salle University, Manila

Abstract

The present study examined the relationship between achievement goal orientation

(mastery-approach, performance-approach, mastery-avoidance, and performance-

avoidance) and the learning and study strategies (information processing, selecting main

ideas, test strategies, anxiety, attitude, motivation, concentration, self-testing, study aids, and

time management). Data were gathered from 260 college students taking basic college

mathematic classes by indicating their goals in the Achievement Goal Questionnaire (Elliot

& McGregor, 2001) and their strategies used in learning and studying using the Learning

and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI, Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). A correlational

analysis between the subscales of the achievement goal orientation and learning and study

strategies was conducted to determine the constructs’ convergent and divergent validity.

Key results showed that (a) there is a weak to moderate relation within the subscales of

achievement goals, (b) there is a moderately strong relation within the subscales of learning

and study strategies (c) mastery-avoidance goals was unexpectedly positively associated with

all learning and study strategies (d) performance-approach goals showed more positive

association compared to mastery-approach, and (e) selecting main ideas and time

management were both positive consequences of the different achievement goals. Path

analysis from achievement goal factors to each study strategy showed significant parameter

estimates. Convergence was attained from achievement goals to each study strategy.

Keywords: Learning strategies, Achievement goals, Mathematics learning

Introduction

College students have their own distinctive goal orientations when performing

certain tasks. Students’ goal orientations direct their effort and performance, serving as a

form of motivation to accomplish an academic task successfully. If students focus on

mastery goals in general, they are more concerned on developing their competencies

through task engagement. But if students focus on performance goals in general, they

concentrate on demonstrating their competence relative to others. Also, these general

orientations can be further understood as an approach-oriented or avoidant-oriented type.

An approach-oriented type of goal orientation whether its mastery or performance in

nature is task engaging. On the other hand, an avoidant- oriented is task- avoiding

regardless if they are mastery or performance. These goal-orientations toward an academic

task make an individual use effectively or ineffectively different learning and study strategies

(Somuncuoglu & Yildrim, 1999). Such strategies include how learners process, examine,

and construct information in ways that they are able to prepare and demonstrate

acquisition of knowledge in different areas (Smith, 1995). These learning strategies include

attribution of attitudes, interests, motivation, and discipline in achieving academic success.

Learning strategies also makes students self-regulate and control their whole learning



process through time management, concentration or attention to the time and task at hand,

and self-assessment on how they meet their learning demand and making use of their study

supports (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). If there are differences in the focus on goals, there

must be a pattern on how they correlate with learning strategies. For example, of students’

goal on a task is developing competency (mastery approach), the learning strategies are

carried out effectively.

Studies on educational psychology have looked between the predicted relationship

between achievement goals and learning and study strategies show that through the effective

use of achievement goals they are able to comment and assert a great deal of use of higher

order learning and study strategies (McMillan, 1987; Pascarella, 1989; Somuncuoglu

&Yildirim, 1999; Elliot, McGregor & Gable, 1999; Pintrich, 2000; Walker, 2003).

However, the direction of the relationship between specific achievement goals and learning

strategies needs to be studied especially in domain-specific courses such as mathematics.

Somuncouglu and Yildrim (1999) thought that goal orientations and study strategies have

an important effect if it is based on a specific context or subject.

There is a need to study the relationship of achievement goals and learning and

study strategies because adapting to a specific or to a multiple achievement goal will have an

effect on a student’s study strategies whether the adoption of goals depicts a positive or a

negative effect on a student. The study is focused on subject specific context which is the

math subject.

For the past three decades, various studies have shown that there were distinctive

characteristics of mastery goal orientation and the performance goal orientation (Was,

2006; Zweig & Webster. 2004; Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999). Recently, there are

several researches that provide evidences for further distinction of achievement goals.

Students adapting a mastery approach on their goals enhance the use of higher order

learning strategies and this results in better outcome such as performance (Was, 2006).

The present study sought to test the relationship of specific achievement goals

(mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, and performance-

avoidance) to different learning and study strategies (information processing, selecting main

ideas, test strategies, anxiety, attitude, motivation, concentration, self-testing, study aids and

time management) in the context of mathematics learning. This link between the two

constructs when established provides information on the convergent and divergent validity

of the two scales.

Achievement Goal Orientation

Ames (1992) defined goal orientation or achievement goals as an integrated pattern

of beliefs, attributions, and affect that produces the intentions of behavior and is

represented by different ways of approaching, engaging in, and responding to achievement

type of activities. The theories about goal orientation or achievement goals were mostly

western and focused on the purpose of student’s achievement behavior and propose that

achievement goals have performance standards which student’s consider whenever they

evaluate their own performance in school. Theories on achievement goals were first

dichotomous and presumes that student achievement goals can be separated into mastery

goals, which involves task- mastery orientation, intrinsic motivation, and internal regulation

and performance goals, which involves ego-social orientation, extrinsic motivation and



external regulation (Nicholls, 1984; Ames & Archer, 1988, Meece, Hoyle, & Blumenfeld,

1988, Nolen & Haladyna, 1990; cited in Somuncuoglu & Yildirim, 1999; Ames, 1992; Cho

1992; cited in Somuncuoglu & Yildirim, 1999; Harackiewicz & Elliot, 1993; Meece and

Holt, 1993; Maehr, 1994; cited in Was, 2006). The theory also focuses on a great deal of

research in education due to the impact that achievement goals were hypothesized to have

a great effect on student performance and achievement (Was, 2006). Studies on the two

different achievement goal orientations were described further by approach-avoidance

distinction. The trichotomous framework of achievement goals was conceptualized and

divided performance goals into performance- approach and performance avoidance,

depending on whether the goal is directed at exceeding normative competence or avoiding

normative incompetence (Elliot, 1999; cited in Bernardo 2008).

Elliot and McGregor (2001) presented a new achievement goal framework which

was both a revision of the mastery- performance dichotomy and an extension of the

trichotomous framework. This framework was called the 2 x 2 achievement goal

framework that incorporates the application of approach-avoidance distinction to mastery

goals and so creating mastery-approach and mastery-avoidance goals (Elliot & McGregor,

2001). The first dimension of the 2 x 2 framework has the mastery and performance

orientation that defines success, while the second dimension consists of approach and

avoidant orientations that defines valence (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). When a student

recognizes success as a use of learning and improving skills they are the mastery type of

students. Success is called self- referenced, which individuals usually looks into themselves

and compare his/her performance to previous performances. Performance goals type of

students recognizes their success by being better than another person or by achieving the

things that others cannot achieve. Success is called norm-referenced. It’s when they

compare with another person (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). When it comes to valence,

students either view their goal in an approach or avoidant fashion. When a student gets an

approach style, students aimed to be dominant in success. When students avoid failure

these types of students have the avoidant style. In the present study, the researchers will test

the 2x2 achievement goals namely performance-approach, performance-avoidance,

mastery-approach, and mastery-avoidance because researchers wanted to find out more

positive association of these achievement goals to positive learning outcomes such as

learning and study strategies.

On western studies, mastery-approach goals, performance-approach goals,

performance-avoidance goals and mastery-avoidance goals were uniform in their

relationship to achievement and to different of learning strategies across different level of

students (high school or college, students) different learning environments (traditional or

online classrooms), and different learning domains (English or Mathematics) (Rosenhaultz

& Simpson, 1984; Meece, Hoyle, & Blumenfeld, 1988; Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999;

Somuncuoglu & Yildrim, 1999; Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Midgley, et al., 2002; Greene et

al, 2004; Wolters, 2004; Linnenbrink, 2005; Duperyat & Marine, 2005; Watson, 2007).

Mastery-approach goals were good indicators of cognitive and metacognitive learning

strategies, motivation, cognitive engagement (self- regulation) in learning, deep processing

strategies like elaboration and organization, higher persistence and effort during exam

performance, and low levels avoidance and procrastination. While performance-approach

goals were indicators of less use of cognitive strategies, lower level motivation and cognitive

engagement compared to mastery goals, lower level of deeper learning compared to



mastery goals, high surface processing strategies, lower persistence and effort compared to

mastery goals. In performance-avoidance goals, it showed indicators of lowest level of use

of cognitive and metacognitive strategies, lowest level of motivation, lower levels of surface

learning strategies compared to performance-approach goals, task disengagement,

disorganization, state test anxiety, worry and emotionality but were bad indicators of deeper

learning strategies, persistence and effort in exam performance. For mastery-avoidance

goals, it showed that it was a positive indicator of disorganization, state test anxiety, worry,

emotionality, procrastination, but still with a higher level of use cognitive and metacognitive

strategies and deep learning strategies, and task engagement.

When achievement goals were tested among Asian students such as Hong Kong

Chinese, Singaporeans, and Filipinos, both mastery and performance-approach goals were

positively related to achievement (Bernardo, 2005; Chan, Lai, Leung, & Moore, 2005; Ee

& Moor, 2004; cited in Bernardo, 2008) and use of deeper strategies (Bernardo, 2004; Ng,

2000; cited in Bernardo, 2008). These studies suggest that there is a positive association

between mastery and performance-approach goals (Bernardo, 2003; Salili, Chiu, & Lai,

2001; Tao & Hong, 2000; cited in Bernardo, 2008). The correlation was explained through

the belief of students that both meeting the personal expectations and expectations of

others could gain social approval which is influenced by culture for Chinese cultures since

that culture values achievement as a moral obligation of fulfilling personal and social

standards (Somuncuoglu &Yildirim, 1999; Tao, & Hong 2000; Chan, & Lai, 2006). These

outcomes could also be explained by Yu and Yang’s (1994) assertion that in Asian

societies, individual achievement goals must conform to in-group values so among Asian

students their academic motivation are socially oriented. The study of Yip and Chung

(2005) tested LASSI and showed that there is a significant difference between the study

habits of Hong Kong college students with high and with low academic achievement in

their matriculation but those strategies used during matriculation may not work completely

when they are in the university (Yip & Chung, 2005). In addition, Yip (2007) found out that

motivation and attitude where the two major differences between the use of different

learning and study strategies of low and high achieving Hong Kong university students (Yip,

2007). In general, Asian students employ the use of both mastery-approach and

performance-approach goals related to school performance and achievement through

expression of their social-oriented achievement motivation.

Filipino students share their knowledge and practices in learning because of their

concept of shared identity and humanity (Enriquez, 1992; cited in Bernardo, Zhang &

Callueng, 2002) but there were no huge data in particular available in saying that Filipino

students’ achievement motivation are individually or socially oriented or both (Bernardo,

2008). Some relevant studies showed that compared to American students who inhibit their

achievement motivations when doing classroom tasks, Filipino students were more

communicating about their achievement motivations to their peers which eventually makes

them self- improving in their classroom performance (Church & Katigbak, 1992). They

develop high performance

standards and high intrinsic value of the task when they affiliate

their motivation and enjoyment

of to others but this implies differently to western uniform

conceptions about the different achievement goals (Church & Katigbak, 1992). Also,

Filipino students draw cognitive resources from their peers when they are focused on doing

single or multiple tasks (Bernardo, Zhang, & Callueng, 2002). Other studies on Filipino

students show that their parents possessed strong influences on how they make educational



decisions even if the orientation was social or individual (Gastardo-Conaco, Jimenez, &

Billedo, 2003; Lamug, 1989; cited in Bernardo, 2008). However, there have been no

studies that documented the influence of teachers to their students in terms of making

educational decisions also (Bernardo, 2008). Since research documents that Asian

students use both mastery and performance-approach goals in their achievement because

of the influence of their socially oriented achievement motivation, Bernardo (2008)

explored these conditions to Filipino university students and supported the fact that there

are parent-oriented motivations in social- oriented achievement motivations of students and

found also that teacher-oriented was also influential to Filipino students’ socially-oriented

achievement motivation. For individual oriented motivations, Filipino students exhibit

performance standards and personal goal choice (Bernardo, 2008). On the other hand,

each of these achievement motivations was not related to achievement (Bernardo, 2008).

Only achievement goals specifically mastery goals, and performance-approach goals were

related to achievement and also to some achievement motivations namely personal

performance standards and parent-oriented achievement motivations (Bernardo, 2008).

Learning and Study Strategies

Learning strategies is defined globally as mental processes where learners have

chances to intentionally employ to help themselves in learning and understanding

something new that they regard as fundamentals of their self-regulation and autonomous

learning (Watson, 2006). Also, learning strategies involve specific actions that is said to be

like a trick because it helps learners in certain circumstances to make them recall things

better and make tasks easier pleasant, more efficient, and more manageable (Oxford,

1990). In addition, it is translated into the form of behaviors or thoughts that is gained

during learning period that helps influence the learner's encoding development (Weinstein

& Mayer, 1986). Therefore, learning and study strategies in general can be understand as

the behavioral or cognitive manifestation of techniques, philosophies, or rules which aids

the attainment, manipulation, assimilation, storage, and retrieval of information through

different situations and settings (Masters, Mori, Mori, 1993; Nisbet & Shucksmith, 1986).

One of the widely used instruments is the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI)

that determines students learning behavior as well as studying behaviors (Weinstein,

Palmer, & Schulte, 1987; cited in Braten & Olaussen, 1998). LASSI is a diagnostic

measure which is composed of an 80- item assessment of self- awareness of students about

their use of learning and study strategies particularly on the domain of skill, will and self-

regulation type of learning strategies. The skill component is composed of information

processing, selecting main ideas, and test strategies. These three subscales of the skill

component of LASSI examines student’s learning strategies, skills, thoughts, processes

related to identifying, acquiring and constructing meaning for important new information,

ideas, and procedures, and how they prepare for and demonstrate their new knowledge on

tests or other evaluative procedures (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002, p. 5). Next, the will

component of learning and study strategies inventory is composed of anxiety, attitude and

motivation. These three subscales of the will component of LASSI measures the degree to

which students worry about their academic performance, their receptivity to learning new

information, their attitudes and interest in college, their diligence, self-discipline, and

willingness to exert the effort necessary to successfully complete academic requirements



(Weinstein & Palmer, 2002, p. 5). The last component of the learning and study strategies

inventory which is self-regulation is composed of 4 subscales namely concentration, self-

testing, study aids, and time management. These four subscales of the self-regulation

component of LASSI measures how student manage, or self-regulate and control, the

whole learning process through using their time effectively, focusing their attention and

maintaining their concentration over time, checking to see if they have met the learning

demands for class, an assignment or a test, and using study support such as review sessions,

tutors, or special features of a text book (Weinstein, & Palmer, 2002, p. 5). The study of

Flowers (2003) retested the reliability of LASSI to find the extent to which subscale scores

obtained from the first edition of the LASSI was still stable and provided consistent

measures of student’s knowledge and use of different study skills. Another study by Sizoo,

Jerome, and Wilfred (2005) tested the learning strategies of adult careers and vocational

students by using LASSI and it provided a detailed evaluation of their learning strengths

and weaknesses of the students (Sizoo, Jerrome, & Wilfred, 2005).

There were different studies that tested LASSI in terms of race to achievement.

The study by Olaussen and Braten (1998) tested learning and study strategies by correlate

both low and high perceived ability, age, gender and its interaction to all of the variables of

LASSI from Norwegian college student samples and eventually compared it to American

students who established the measure. Their study evidenced that only motivation subscale

from LASSI has a low norm score for Norwegian students compared to American

students, that students with high perceived ability reported more use of learning strategies,

that female students use more learning strategies, that older college student reported higher

level of use of learning strategies yet the interaction between the variables did not produce a

positive result (Braten & Olaussen, 1998). Both Braten and Olaussen (2000) explored the

reason why Norwegian college students do result an evident low score on the motivation

subscale and found out in their follow-up interview after administering LASSI to new

respondents they discovered contextual differences of value Norwegian College students

show to motivation subscale. They found out that students who have higher scores in the

motivation subscale showed wholeheartedness in valuing the activities and reflected self-

disciplined and duty- oriented motivation as described and presented by the items which

are contrary to those students who obtained lower scores in the motivation subscale (Braten

& Olaussen, 2000). The study of Rhody (1993) characterized the study behavior and

attitudes of high school freshman at a country-suburban school in Oregon using LASSI to

academic performance. After conducting intercorrelation, 8 out of the 10 scales: attitude,

motivation, time management, anxiety, concentration, selecting main ideas, self- testing,

and test strategies were significant to academic achievement.

There were also studies that tested the LASSI subscales based on classroom

context i.e. medicine class to achievement or performance. The study by Smith (1995)

identified critical thinking abilities, learning and study strategies associated to academic

achievement in associate degree nursing students. There was a significant difference

between learning and study strategies and academic achievement of various levels of college

students’ anxiety, test strategies, selecting main ideas, concentration, and motivation scales.

Furthermore, nursing college students with superior academic achievement demonstrated

more effective use of test strategies compared with those below average academic

achievement who reported experiencing more anxiety related to learning and testing.

Another study by Clow (1998) evidenced that there was a strong correlation of motivation,



time management, anxiety, concentration, test taking, selecting main ideas and attitude to

academic achievement on distance education for medical practitioners. Heard (2002)

tested the relationship of the subscales of LASSI to student persistence on 169 student

applicants who voluntarily enrolled community college students through a longitudinal

study. The 125 participants who graduated after two years showed an increase on their

motivation and anxiety to their persistence. Primus’ (2003) study on the learning and study

strategies of associate degree nursing students showed that anxiety, attitude, motivation, and

test strategies have small negative associations with achievement. While students with high

levels for selecting main ideas, high level of test strategies, and low level of anxiety showed

high achievement. The study of Proctor, Prevatt, Adams, Hurst, and Petscher (2006)

showed that when learning and study strategies was compared with academically struggling

and normal achieving college students, the skill components such as information

processing, selecting main ideas and test strategies of those academically struggling college

students were significantly lower with the use of the learning and study strategies inventory

(LASSI). Hoveland’s study (2006) investigated the relationship between LASSI and

academic achievement by testing it also to associate degree nursing college students. The

LASSI subscales that obtained lowest subscale scores in self- testing, time management, and

study aids. Those with the highest subscale scores were information processing, motivation

and selecting main ideas. When LASSI was correlated to academic achievement, only

motivation and test strategies were significant.

Achievement Goals and Learning Strategies in Mathematic Learning

The present study analyzed the achievement goals and learning strategy within the

context of a mathematics course so that students will focus on this area since it was

suggested that student’s perceptions of goal orientations and learning strategies were more

meaningful if their responses were based on a specific course (Somuncuoglu & Yildirim,

1999). Several studies have shown that different learning strategies, approaches, and beliefs

are related in the context of college mathematics. The study of Gutman (2006) examined

the effects of students’ and parents’ goal orientation and their perceived goal structures on

grades and self-efficacy during their transition in their high school in the context of their

mathematics class. The study resulted that students who encourage themselves in using

mastery goals showed more positive changes in their grades and self- efficacy compared to

college students who encouraged performance goals. In terms of high school transition,

students who encourage more mastery than performance goals also showed the same

positive change (Gutman, 2006). It was also found that for African-American students,

mastery goals are more influential in determining achievement and motivation in

mathematics most especially in their high school transition (Gutman, 2006). Leigh,

Husman, Duggan, and Pennington (2007) tested the relationship between learning

strategies, motivation, self- efficacy and student achievement in the context of an online

developmental mathematics course. The findings revealed that motivation, concentration,

information processing and self-testing along with self-efficacy significantly predicted

academic achievement.

Furthermore, student’s motivation and learning strategies are sensitive to context-

specific differences and are dependent on the goal orientations and background

characteristics (Pintrich & Garcia, 1991; cited in Somuncuoglu & Yildirim, 1999). Gutman



(2006) gave more a detailed explanation that mastery goals might be significant in

determining achievement and motivation in mathematics during the transition in high

school. If student’s internal structures such as their achievement goals are explored, its

facilitative effects on how they approach mathematical equations or problems will be

identified because it is not limited only how they are skilled in mathematics but also on

how they define their competence and view their striving. The Learning and Study

Strategies Inventory (LASSI) when administered to Filipino students’ revealed mixed

results of deep or surface approach and obtained higher or lower levels of student

approach to learning (Bernardo, 2003).

Based on a proposed model by Pintrich (1995, 2004), self-regulated learning

showed that when academic courses are articulated with cognitive, motivational, behavioral,

and contextual features, students were able to learn how to regulate their resources, beliefs,

and strategies in the service of an achievement goal (Bail, Zhang, & Tachiyama, 2008). In

the same way, when Albaili (1998) investigated the relationship among the learning goal

orientations, use of cognitive strategies, and academic achievement of middle-east college

students it was found that when students score higher in the learning or mastery goal

orientation, elaboration and organizational strategies were likely to be used in their

cognitive engagement. On the other hand, rehearsal and low levels of elaboration and

organizational strategies use were found on performance goal orientation. These findings

were consistent with Elliot, McGregor, and Gable’s (1999) results, where Hong Kong

students who use mastery goals were significantly and positively related to adopting a deep

learning strategy in studying but it was negatively related to surface strategy. For

performance- type of goals, both approach and avoidance goals were significantly related to

adopting shallow or surface strategy to studying (Chan, Leung, & Lai, 2005; Chan & Lai

2008).

Bernardo (2002) studied about the causal relationship between value of education,

achievement goals (mastery goals, performance-approach goals and performance-avoidance

goals) and learning strategies (rehearsal, elaboration, organization, critical thinking, and

metacognition) between low achieving and average-achieving Filipino students and

discovered a pattern that if students have a low regard to education they less likely adopt

achievement goals orientations and also less likely use learning strategies. Two other studies

conducted by Bernardo (2003, 2004) tested the relationship between culturally-rooted

beliefs and social axioms with achievement goals (mastery goals, performance goals, and

work avoidance goals) and learning strategies (rehearsal, elaboration, organization, critical

thinking, metacognition). The study yielded results related to the correlation between

achievement goals and learning strategies such as mastery goals were related to all learning

strategies and performance goals were related to all learning strategies (Bernardo, 2003;

Bernardo, 2004).

In summary, our present research will focus on the correlational utility of the 2 x 2

achievement goal framework (mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-

approach and performance-avoidance) to learning and study strategies (information

processing, selecting main ideas, test strategies, anxiety, attitude, motivation, concentration,

self-testing, study aids and time management) of Filipino college students in a basic college

mathematics classroom. The study speculates that adopting one specific achievement goal

can yield more than to a number of different learning and study strategies through a

positive relationship.



The Present Study

The present study is anchored on the 2 x 2 Achievement Goal Framework. The

framework provides the same explanation that students have their own understanding and

distinctive orientation towards the types of goals they use for the purpose of engaging in

tasks such as implementing learning strategies, and reaching for existing standards or

criteria which is self-referenced or social comparative (Elliot & Church, 1997; Pintrich,

2000). Mastery-approach goals define competence as intrapersonal and absolute and it

valence towards attaining success (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Mastery-avoidance goals

defines competence also as intrapersonal and it valences towards avoiding failures (Elliot &

McGregor, 2001). Performance-avoidance goals defines competence as interpersonal and

normative and it valences towards avoiding failures (Elliot & McGregor, 2001).

Performance-approach goals defines competence as interpersonal and normative and it

valences towards attaining success (Elliot & McGregor, 2001).Research shows that 2x2

framework works better because these four factor structure fits better than the use of the

trichotmous or dichotomous models (Kaliski, Finney, & Horst, 2006).

Individual differences in terms of goal orientations namely for mastery-approach,

performance- approach and performance-avoidance learners is evident in the use of their

cognitive and metacognitive strategies translated through learning and study strategies

(Somuncuoglu & Yildirim, 1999; Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Learning and study strategies

are divided into three specific main components which are skill, will and self-regulation.

The skill component involves cognitive strategies consisting of selecting main ideas,

information processing and test strategies (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). It helps students to

implement techniques on how they would encode, elaborate and organize information

(Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). The self- regulation component is related to metacognitive

strategies that deal with concentration, time management, study aids and self-testing

(Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). It helps students to plan, monitor and regulate their control

towards their learning (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). In addition, the will component

focuses on anxiety, attitude and motivation of students towards their academic

performance, success and requirements which measures affective strategies in learning

(Weinstein & Palmer, 2002).

The proposed convergent validity between specific achievement goals and learning

and study strategies is tested in the present study using path analysis. The model indicates

the individual effect of each achievement goal on a specific learning and study strategy as

measured by the LASSI. Validity is established by obtaining significant paths from the

achievement goal factors to the study strategy factors. Convergent validity is attained by the

positive parameter estimates and positive zero-order correlations. Such convergence would

mean similarity in the proposed theoretical link between the achievement goal and study

strategy constructs. Divergent validity is obtained through significant negative parameter

estimates and negative zero-order correlations. The divergence means dissimilarity or

opposite direction of the scales involved.

Consistent with literature, mastery-approach goals and performance-approach goals

yield positive association to all learning strategies in college mathematics learning. Mastery-

approach goals and performance- approach goals were positive indicators of surface

learning strategies such as rehearsal, elaboration and organization, deep learning strategies

such as critical thinking and metacognition, use of cognitive engagement or self- regulation



(Albaili, 1998; Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999; Bernardo, 2003b; Bernardo, 2004;

Bernardo, 2005b; Chan, Leung & Lai, 2005; Gutman, 2006; Leigh, Husman, Duggan, &

Pennington, 2007 Chan, & Lai, 2008).

It can be generated from the literature that both mastery-avoidance and

performance-avoidance goals does have a positive association with motivation, time

management, self- testing, and study aids. Researchers argue that based from previous

studies both mastery-avoidance and performance-avoidance orientations were positive

indicators of cognitive disengagement, disorganization, lack of persistence and effort, state

test anxiety, worry, emotionality and procrastination, low self-efficacy (low motivational

belief) (Rosenhaultz & Simpson, 1984; Meece, Hoyle and Blumenfeld, 1988; Elliot,

McGregor, & Gable, 1999; Somuncuoglu & Yildrim, 1999; Elliot & McGregor, 2001;

Midgley, et al, 2002; Greene et al, 2004; Wolters, 2004; Linnenbrink, 2005; Duperyat &

Marine, 2005; Gutman, 2006; Watson, 2007)

There is a need to study the relationship between achievement goals and learning

and study strategies because (1) students’ perceptions about their effort or ability being

translated into achievement goals influence the quality or degree of using learning and

study strategies in solving learning problems like in mathematics (2) studies on the 2 x 2

achievement goal framework (mastery- approach, mastery- avoidance, performance-

approach and performance avoidance) of goal orientation are mostly western in perspective

and therefore this study wanted to provide more information for the correlational utility of

these achievement goals especially for mastery-avoidance in an Asian setting more

specifically for Filipino college students since studies about the positive associations of

different achievement goals to different learning strategies used trichotomous model of

achievement goal orientation from Hong Kong Chinese Filipinos and Singaporeans

participants.

The study determines the relationship of achievement goals with learning and study

strategies in domain specific to mathematics. The present study aims to: (1) determine the

convergence and divergence of the achievement goals and study strategies subscales, (2) test

the consistency of the zero order-correlations in a path model where specific achievement

goal scales predicts the factors of study strategies, and (3) test if the overall path model will

fit the observations when the items are contextualized in mathematics learning.

Method

Participants

The participants were 260 college freshmen students enrolled in a mathematics

course in a private university in the Philippines. The students participated in exchange for

extra credit. The participants that were selected are currently taking fundamental

mathematics course. During their four years in high school, their mathematics education

started from Basic or Elementary Algebra during first year, Intermediate Algebra during

second year, Geometry during third year, and Trigonometry during their fourth year.



Instrument

Achievement Goal Questionnaire. This is a 12-item questionnaire designed to

capture each of the four described goals orientations (mastery- approach, mastery-

avoidance, performance- approach, and performance avoidance orientation). Participants

answered the items using a seven point scale (1=not at all true of me, 2=moderately not

true of me, 3=slightly not true of me, 4=neither not true nor true of me, 5=slightly true of

me, 6=moderately true of me, and 7=very true of me). The subscales on mastery approach,

mastery- avoidance, performance- approach, and performance avoidance has a Cronbach’s

alpha of 0.87, 0.89, 0.92 and 0.83 respectively (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Convergent

validity was used to assess the validity. For this study, reliability was tested using the

Cronbach’s alpha which of the four 2 x 2 achievement goals. The obtained Cronbach’s

alpha was 0.76 for performance- avoidance, 0.90 for performance- approach, 0.82 for

mastery- avoidance, 0.81 for mastery- approach and 0.81 for the whole achievement goal

questionnaire. For this study, reliability was tested by obtaining Cronbach’s alpha for

performance-avoidance subscale, performance-approach subscale, mastery-avoidance

subscale, mastery-approach subscale and for the whole achievement goal questionnaire

which are 0.76, 0.90, 0.82, 0.81, and 0.81 respectively.

Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI). The LASSI is composed of 77

items that serve as a prescriptive and diagnostic assessment of “student’s awareness” about

the use of learning and study strategies. Each item is answered using a 5-point scale. The

three components cover the scope of: (a) Skill-learning strategies, skills and thought

processes that help prepare and demonstrate new knowledge on tests or other evaluative

procedures, (b) Will-worry to academic performance, receptivity to learning new

information, attitudes and interest in college, diligence, self-discipline, and willingness to

exert the effort necessary to successfully complete academic requirements and (c) Self-

Regulation-manage, or self-regulate and control, the whole learning process through time

management, maintaining concentration, checking learning demands, an and using study

aids (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). Participants answered the learning and study strategies

inventory in such a way where cases and scenarios on education and classroom were

presented. After which, they assessed on how often do they do the given case/scenario

through the response format “Not at all like me” (has this not necessarily meant that the

statement/case would never describe the participant, rather it would be true very rarely for

the participant), “Not very much like me” (this would mean that generally, the statement

would not be true about the participant), “Somewhat like me” (this would mean that the

case/ situation would be true for the participant about half of the time), “Fairly much like

me” (this would mean that the situation would be true most of the time with the participant)

and “Very much like me” (this not necessarily means that the statement/case would always

describe the participant, rather it would be true for the participant most of the time). The

reliability of LASSI indicates a Cronbach’s Alpha of .84, .89, and .80 for Information

Processing, Selecting Main Ideas and Test Strategies scales for the “Skill” component

respectively. For the scales of the “Will” component, Anxiety, Attitude and Motivation

indicate a Cronbach’s Alpha score of .87, .77, and .84, respectively. The Cronbach’s alpha

scores of concentration, self-testing, study aids, and time management for the “self-

regulation” component obtain .86, .84, .73, and .85 correspondingly. Also, a test-retest



correlation of .88 was computed for the total instrument. There were different approaches

the author used to determine the validity of learning and study strategies inventory: (1) The

scale scores were compared to other tests or subscales which are measuring related factors;

(2) some scales were validated adjacent to performance measures; and (3) the learning and

study strategies inventory had repeated tests of user validity (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002).

In this study reliability was tested through Cronbach’s alpha of all ten subscales of learning

and study strategies. The Cronbach’s alpha scores obtained was 0.54 for information

processing, 0.58 for selecting main ideas, 0.53 for test strategies, 0.50 for anxiety, 0.60 for

attitude, 0.51 for motivation, 0.52 for concentration, 0.54 for self- testing, 0.58 for study

aids, and 0.50 for time management.

Procedure

All 260 participants were selected through purposive sampling. All the participants

were briefed about the guidelines in answering the questionnaires. The participants were

guided accordingly on how they answered the forms: (1) The researcher gave the rationale

of the study and that they should read the questions carefully; (2) they were briefed that

there are no right or wrong answers for the achievement goal questionnaire and LASSI.

The researcher informed the participants that the study is trying to get authentic answer as

much as possible for more accurate result. The participants were also made aware that

their answers will not affect their class standings in school and failure to follow the

guidelines will be forfeited on the participation in the study. The researcher administered

to the participants the Achievement Goal Questionnaire and the Learning and Study

Strategies Inventory at the same time. The researcher then scored the questionnaires for

each subscale of the achievement goal questionnaire (mastery- approach, mastery- avoidant,

performance- approach or performance avoidant group) and LASSI (Information

Processing, Selecting Main Ideas, Test Strategies, Anxiety, Attitude, Motivation,

Concentration, Self- Testing, Study Aids and Time Management). Each participant was

assigned with a research call number used for the purpose of identification and recording

for all the instruments.

Results

The descriptive statistics of the different variables are briefly presented. Means and

standard deviations were obtained. The internal consistency of the scales was also

determined using Cronbach’s alpha. Zero-order correlations were conducted between the

subscales of the achievement goals and LASSI, within the subscales of achievement goals,

and within the subscales of the LASSI. The prediction from achievement goals to LASSI

was tested using path analysis.

The mean scores, standard deviations, and internal consistencies of the different

subscales of both achievement goals and learning and study strategies are summarized in

Table 1. For achievement goals, the students in the sample tend to hold strong adoption to

mastery-approach goals and performance-avoidance goals and relative to both

performance-approach goals and to mastery-avoidance goals. In terms of learning and

study strategies, motivation and selecting main ideas reported stronger use while time

management, attitude, and concentration showed relatively strong use for students.



Information processing, anxiety, study aids and test strategies held moderate use for

students learning and study strategies. Self-testing obtained the weak score student’s use

among all the learning and study strategies.

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for Achievement Goals and LASSI

Variable M SD Cronbach's alpha

Achievement Goals

.81

Performance-Avoidance 5.45 1.27 .76

Performance-Approach 4.34 1.66 .90

Mastery-Avoidance 4.46 1.4 .82

Mastery-Approach 5.46 1.2 .81

Learning and Study Strategy

.92

Information Processing 2.9 0.54 .49

Selecting Main ideas 3.06 0.58 .55

Test strategies 2.88 0.53 .49

Anxiety 2.89 0.5 .46

Attitude 3 0.6 .47

Motivation 3.07 0.52 .51

Concentration 3 0.54 .52

Self-testing 2.77 0.6 .54

Study-Aids 2.89 0.55 .58

Time Management 3.01 0.52 .50

Table 1

Zero-Order Correlation of LASSI and Achievement Goals

Performance-

Approach

Performance-

Avoidance

Mastery-

Avoidance

Mastery-

Approach

Information Processing -.06 .12** .15** -.02

Selecting Main ideas .15** .25** .29** .24**

Test strategies .13** -.03 .16** .02

Anxiety .12** .09 .16** .04

Attitude .13** .12** .16** .08

Motivation .14** .15** .27** .10

Concentration .02 .18** .28** .04

Self-testing -.01 .08 .20** -.04

Study-Aids .01 .21** .17** .01

Time Management .16** .14** .18** .20**

Table 2 summarizes the correlations among the different subscales of achievement

goals (mastery-approach goals, mastery-avoidance goals, performance-approach goals and



performance-avoidance goals) and learning and study strategies (information processing,

selecting main ideas, test strategies, anxiety, attitude, motivation, concentration, self-testing,

study aids, and time management). Regarding the relationship between the different

achievement goals, it was hypothesized that mastery-approach goals would be associated

with all use of learning and study strategies but statistical analysis did not reveal complete

association of all learning and study strategies. Only selecting main ideas and time

management were correlated to mastery-approach goals. The same was hypothesized for

performance-approach goals. However, only selecting main ideas, test strategies, attitude,

motivation, and time management showed positive correlation to performance-approach

goals. For mastery-avoidance goals, it was tentatively hypothesized that mastery-avoidance

goals will be correlated to all learning and study strategies except for time management,

motivation, self-testing and study aids. Surprisingly, all different learning and study

strategies were found to be associated with mastery-avoidance goals. The same hypothesis

was tested also to performance-avoidance goals and the result of the correlational analysis

revealed that self-testing was not associated with performance-avoidance goals. However

time management, motivation, and study aids were not found to be associated with

performance-avoidance which was also an unexpected new finding for this study. Also,

attitudes and concentration were found to be positively associated to performance-

avoidance which somehow supported our hypothesis. It is also interesting to note that the

selecting main ideas subscale and the time management subscale are positively associated

with all four achievement goals.

Table 3

Intercorrelations of the Subscales of the Achievement Goals

Performance-

approach

Performance-

avoidance

Mastery-

avoidance

Mastery-

approach

Performance-approach --- .13** .14** .35**

Performance-avoidance --- .31** .37**

Mastery-avoidance

--- .26**

Mastery-approach

---

**p<.05

Table 3 describes the inter-correlations between the subscales of Achievement Goal

Questionnaire. Results indicate rather moderate to weak correlations among achievement

goals. There was a weak positive correlation between the performance-avoidance and

performance-approach. The correlation suggest that the goal of trying to perform better to

others to avoid being labeled a failure is somewhat likely associated with the goal of trying

to perform better than others to attain high self-approval and self- esteem. Also, there is a

weak positive correlation between mastery-avoidance and performance-approach but a

moderately strong correlation between mastery-avoidance and performance-avoidance.

This suggest that the goal of striving to reach absolute requirements to avoid the experience

of failure is also likely to be accompanied with goal of trying to perform better than others

to attain high self-approval and self- esteem. On the other hand, there is a moderately

strong association between the goal of avoiding failures even if the basis of competence is

from personal criteria of success or from a normative criterion of success in the classroom.



For mastery-approach, there is a moderately strong correlation to all its counterparts

namely: performance-approach, performance-avoidance and mastery-avoidance. It can be

inferred that the goal of striving to success based on personal and absolute standards is

more likely associated with all other goals which avoids failure like with performance-

avoidance and mastery-avoidance and which are normative in nature such as with

performance-approach and performance-avoidance. The kind of association between

mastery-approach goals to performance-approach, performance-avoidance is quite

puzzling.

Table 3 Intercorrelations of the Subscales of LASSI

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

(1) Information Processing

.42** .49** .49** .45** .48** .48** .55** .51** .36**

(2) Selecting Main ideas

--- .51** .45** .52** .50** .53** .55** .50** .55**

(3) Test strategies

--- .55** .55** .48** .50** .66** .54** .46**

(4) Anxiety

--- .49** .60** .52** .61** .62** .40**

(5) Attitude

--- .55** .52** .48** .45** .40**

(6) Motivation

--- .60** .54** .56** .45**

(7) Concentration

--- .53** .59** .43**

(8) Self-testing

--- .67** .41**

(9) Study-Aids

--- .39**

(10) Time Management

---

**p<.01

Table 4 shows the inter-correlation for the different learning and study strategies,

and the results indicate rather high to moderate correlations among the various learning

and study strategies. The pattern suggests either least three explanations: First, the sample

of students tends to use these strategies all together in association. Second, the sample of

students is not distinguishing well their learning and study strategies well enough. Three,

the sample of students is not aware and reflecting their use of different learning and study

strategies.

The four achievement goals were used to predict the subscales of the LASSI using

path analysis. The procedure allows verification of the results of the zero order correlation

and the overall model as a whole is also tested for goodness of fit.

When the path model was tested, all paths from the four achievement goals were

significant in explaining the variance for each learning and study strategies. It can also be

noted that all achievement goals had a strong path for selecting main ideas and time

management. Achievement goals predict well the study strategies involved in selecting main

ideas and time management. Self-testing and test strategies obtained low estimates as

predicted by the achievement goals, however they are still significant. The path model also

attained an adequate fit: 2

=114.78, RMSEA.=04, CFI=.91, GFI=.91, PGI=.93, and

TLI=.91.

The results in the zero-order correlation showed very few significant correlations of

the study strategies for mastery-approach. However, the results of the path analysis showed

significant estimates for mastery-approach.



Figure 1 Path Model for the Convergence of Achievement Goals and LASSI

Discussion

The study was undertaken to determine the convergence and divergence between

achievement goals and learning and study strategies. It was hypotheses that a pattern would

exist regarding the possible association between among the variables of achievement goals

namely: mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach and performance-

approach to specific variables of learning and study strategies which are information

processing, selecting main ideas, test strategies, anxiety, attitude, motivation, concentration,

self-testing, study-aids and time management. However, it was found in the path analysis

that all factors of the achievement goals converged with the study strategies.

.19* .27*

.22*

.10*

.11*

.11*

.22*

.16*

.06* .10*

.10*

.08*

.60*

.12*

.52*

.10*

.06*

Mastery-Approach

Goals

Mastery-

Avoidance Goals

Performance-

Approach Goals

Performance-

Avoidance Goals

Selecting Main Ideas

Test Strategies

Motivation

Attitude

Anxiety

Concentration

Self-Testing

Study-Aids

Time Management

Information Processing

.08* .11*

.10*

.20*

.21* .24* .08* .07*

.08*

.15*

.08*

.19*



The results of the study showed that the 2 x 2 achievement goal framework is

helpful for conceptualizing the use of different learning and study strategies of college

students from their achievement goals in the context of a basic college mathematics course.

It should be noted that low internal consistency reliability was found for the Learning and

Study Strategies Inventory. The study could not be completely conclusive on the reliability

on the scales obtained for the LASSI. Future investigations should help ensure the

reliability of the scales to improve the validity of the study.

Many of the results are surprising for the correlation between the specific

achievement goals to different learning and study strategies. One would be the positive

association between mastery-avoidance goal to all learning and study strategies. It can be

explained by the belief students who adopt mastery-avoidance need to reach high standards

by avoiding failure (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Based on prior studies on avoidant

orientation, students with avoidance type of goals indicates low motivation, task

disengagement, surface learning, disorganization, low levels of cognitive engagement, and

low reports of mastering the materials or task, less use of cognitive and metacognitive

strategies, low persistence, and high procrastination (Meece, Hoyle, & Bluemenfeld, 1988;

Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999; Turner, Midgley, Meyer, Gheen, Anderman, Kang, &

Patrick, 2002; Wolters, 2004; Kolic-Vehovec, Roncevic, & Bajsanski, 2008; Lau & Nie,

2008). Contrary to performance-avoidance that demonstrates a lack of ability just to gain

self-approval of self-esteem in front of other people, the advantage of mastery- avoidance is

to demonstrate more than what is expected beyond normative comparisons to gain

personal and absolute standards of performance and achievement. In addition, Elliot and

McGregor (2001) described that empirical prediction on mastery- avoidance goal is dual

because it has both an optimal antecedent that facilitate positive consequences like mastery-

approach goals and an non- optimal component to have negative consequences like

performance-avoidance. Therefore it is impossible to determine if the relative strength of

optimal and non- optimal components is in conjunction to each other (Elliot & McGregor,

2001) but some studies showed that mastery- avoidance goals can also predict cognitive

strategies yet it must be mediated by other factors such as persistence, procrastination

(Wolters, 2004; Howell & Watson, 2007). In this study, mastery- avoidance has more

optimal components and positive consequences. With this reason, the study speculate that

these Filipino students adopt and exhaust all types of strategies in order to reach their goal

to avoid the risk of experiencing dismay within themselves because they cannot reach their

intrapersonal and absolute standards about their performance and achievement even with

regards to mathematics.

Another new finding is that Filipino college student who placed an emphasis on

performance approach has more use of learning and study strategies compared to mastery-

approach goals. This result supports previous research that in some cases performance-

approach goals produces adaptive patterns of learning despite of examining performance

approach goals independently with mastery-approach goals (Harackiewicz, Barron, &

Elliot, 1998; Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton, 2001; Bernardo, 2003b; Bernardo, 2004;

Bernardo, 2005b). The findings also supports a number of studies that performance-

approach goals has a positive relation to cognitive, metacognitive, and self- regulatory

strategies specifically on English, social studies, and mathematics (Midgley, Kaplan, &

Middleton, 2001).



It is interesting to note that the two subscales of LASSI which are selecting main

ideas and time management are significant to all achievement goals. Selecting main ideas is

a surface learning strategy that deals with choosing important material for in-depth attention

and separating unimportant or simply didactic information that does not have to be

remembered (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). Based on prior research, surface learning

strategies such as selecting main ideas which quite similar to organization learning strategies

have positive association with both mastery and performance type of goals more specifically

when tested to Filipino student samples (Bernardo, 2003b; Bernardo, 2004; Bernardo,

2005b). Since time management is a self- regulatory skill that assesses proper distribution of

time from single to multiple task in maximizing performance and achievement (Weinstein,

& Palmer, 2002). Time management is also a practice of metacognition because it requires

students some knowledge about themselves as students and learners to schedule and finish

their academic demands effectively (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002). In addition, when

students are self-aware they are also able to create motivation, accept more responsibility,

set realistic goals and create plans that will facilitate their goal achievement (Weinstein, &

Palmer, 2002). In this case, what the Filipino student samples facilitate are goals that aim to

avoid experiencing failures and to show people or their classmates that they are competent.

Considering the fact that the participants are Filipino college students, mixed results of

deep or surface approach as a consequence of different achievement goals (mastery goals,

performance-approach and work-avoidance) can be obtained (Bernardo, 2003b). Also, the

outcomes of the relationship of goal orientations to learning and study strategies is more

meaningful if dependent or based on context which is in this study a basic mathematics

course on a college level (Pintrich & Garcia, 1991; cited in Somuncuoglu &Yildirim, 1999;

Gutman, 2006).

It was hypothesized that there will be a significant relationship within the subscales

of achievement goals and within the subscales of learning and study strategies.

Performance-approach, performance-avoidance, mastery-avoidance and mastery-approach

goals were all significantly related to each other with a positive magnitude. Consistent with

prior research, college students belonging Asian countries like Filipinos showed the same

positive correlation within mastery and performance goals (Bernardo, 2002; Bernardo

2003b; Bernardo, 2004; Bernardo, 2005b; Chan, Lai, Leung, & Moore, 2005; Ee & Moor,

2004; cited in Bernardo, 2008,Tao & Hong, 2000; cited in Chan & Lai, 2006).

Information processing, selecting main ideas, test strategies, anxiety, attitudes,

motivation, concentration, self- testing, study aids, and time management were significantly

related to each other in terms of mathematics course. Previous studies do not report

consistent significant correlations among different learning strategies among college

students even if in the context of mathematics- related course (Rhody, 1993; Smith, 1995;

Clow, 1998; Primus, 2003; Hoveland, 2006; Leigh, Husman, & Duggan, 2007). This can

be explained that when Filipino college students socialize and affiliate to their peers their

academic motivation and cognitive resources about the nature of their task neither single or

multiple, there is an increase their high performance and intrinsic task engagement

(Bernardo, Zhang & Callueng, 2002; Church, & Katigbak, 1992). All learning and study

strategies work well among Filipino students adopting certain achievement goals in

processing math courses because they specialized the meaning of mathematical task by

comfortably using their own language especially with conversations with their seatmates



during the process of learning and developing mathematical knowledge in the classroom

(Gallos, 2003).

References

Albaili, M. A. (1998). Goal orientations, cognitive strategies and academic achievement

among United Arab Emirates college students. Educational Psychology, 18(2), 195-

203.

Ames, A., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning

strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-

267.

Bail, F. T., Zhang, S., & Tachiyama, G. T. (2008). Effects of a self- regulated learning

course on the academic performance and graduation rate of college students in an

academuic support program. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 39(1), 54-

73.

Braten, I., & Olaussen, B (1998). Identifying latent variables measured by the learning and

study strategies inventory (LASSI) in Norwegian college students. Learning and Individual Difference, 10(4), 309- 327.

Braten, I., & Olaussen, B. (2000). Motivation in college: Understanding Norwegian college

students’ performance on the LASSI motivation subscale and their beliefs about

academic motivation. Learning and Individual Difference, 12, 177- 187.

Bernardo, A. B. I. (1996). Task specificity in the use of word in mathematics: Evidence

from bilingual problem solvers. International Journal of Psychology, 31(1), 13- 28.

Bernardo, A. B. I., Zhang, L. R., & Callueng, C. M. (2002). Thinking styles and academic

achievement among Filipino students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163, 149-163.

Bernardo, A. B. I. (2003a). Approaches to learning and academic achievement of Filipino

students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 164(1), 101- 114.

Bernardo, A. B. I. (2003b). Do Filipino youth really value education? Exploring Filipino

adolescents’ beliefs about the abstract and pragmatic value of education and its

relationship to achievement goals and learning strategies. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 36, 49–67.

Bernardo, A. B. I. (2004). Culturally rooted beliefs and learning: Exploring the

relationships among social axioms, achievement goals, and learning strategies of

Filipino college students. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 37, 79–100.

Bernardo, A. B. I. (2005a). Language and modeling word problems in mathematics among

bilinguals. The Journal of Psychology, 139(5), 413- 425.

Bernardo, A. B. I. (2005b). Exploring new areas for helping low-achieving students in the

Philippines: Beliefs, goals, and strategies. In A. D. Thomas, N. Dayan, A. B. I.

Bernardo, & R. Roth (Eds.), Helping others grow (pp. 133–142). Aachen,

Germany: Shaker Verlag.

Bernardo, A. B. I. (2008). Individual and social dimensions of Filipino students’

achievement goals. International Journal of Psychology, 43(5), 886-891.



Chrysikou, E.V. (2006). When shoes become hammers: Goal derived categorization

training enhances problem solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 32, 935- 942.

Chamot, A. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1, 14-26.

Chan, K. W., Lai, P. Y., & Leung, M. T. (2005). Students’ goal orientation, study strategies

and achievement : A closer look in Hong Kong Chinese cultural context. The Asia- Pacific Educational Researcher, 14(1), 1- 26.

Chan, K. W., & Lai, P. Y. (2008). Revisiting the trichotomous achievement goal framework

for hong kong secondary students: A structural model analysis. The Asia- Pacific Education Researcher, 16(1), 1- 21.

Church, A. T., & Katigbak, M. S. (1992). The cultural context of academic motives: A

comparison of filipino and American college students. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23(1), 40-58.

Clow, E. D. (1998). Two-year college college students in interactive distance education classes: The relationship of learning strategies to persistence and performance. Thesis Dissertation. University of Georgia.

Conceicao, S. (2004). Exploring the relationship between learning style and critical thinking in an online course. [on-line available]

https://idea.iupui.edu/dspace/bitstream/1805/246/1/Conceicao1.pdf

Davis, A (2006). Social cognitive research. [on-line available]

http://www.istheory.yorku.ca/socialcognitivetheory.htm

Duperyat, C., & Marine, C. (2005). Implicit theories of intelligence, goal orientation,

cognitive engagement and achievement: A test of Dweck’s model with returning

school adults. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(1), 43-59.

Dweck, C. S. (1985) Intrinsic motivation, perceived control, and self-evaluation

maintenance: An achievement goal analysis. Research on Motivation in Education, 2. New York: Academic Press

Elliot, A., & Church, M. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance

achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-232.

Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and

exam performance: A mediational analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 549- 563.

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501- 519.

Flowers, L. A. (2003). Test- retest reliability of the learning and study strategies inventory

(LASSI): New evidence. Reading Research and Instruction, 43(1), 31- 47.

Gallos, F. L. (2003). Patterns of students’ private conversations in a mathematics

classroom. Paper presented: Conference of the Learner’s Perspective Study international research team. University of Melbourne.

Gutman, L. M. (2006). How student and parent goal orientations and classroom goal

structures influence the math achievement of African Americans during high school

transitions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 44-63.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Rethinking achievement goals:

When are they adaptive for college students and why? Educational Psychologist, 33, 1- 21.



Heard, M. (2002). The relationship between learning and study skills and student persistence on community college. Thesis Dissertation. University of Virginia.

Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories:

Beliefs about knowledge and knowing their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88-140.

Howell, A. J., & Watson, D. C. (2007). Procastination: Association with achievement goal

orientation and learning strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(1), 167- 178.

Hoveland, C. M. (2006). Relationship between learning and study strategies and academic achievement in associate degree nursing students. Thesis Dissertation. University of

Wyoming.

Inman, J. (2006). Social cognitive theory: A synthesis. [on-line available]

http://www.wetherhaven.com/Documents/socialcognitivetheory.pdf

Jarvela, S., & Salovaara, H. (2004). The interplay of motivational goals and cognitive

strategies in a new pedagogical culture. European Psychologist, 9, 232- 244.

Kaliski, P. K., Finney, S. J., & Horst, S. J. (2006). Does socioeconomic status influence achievement goal adoption? An investigation of group differences using structured means modeling. Paper presentation at the 2006 meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California.

Kolic-Vehovec, S., Roncevic, B., & Bajsanski, I. (2008). Motivational components of self-

regulated learning and reading strategy use in university students: The role of goal

orientation patterns. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(1), 108- 113.

Leigh, M. W., Husman, J., Duggan, M. A., & Pennington, M. N. (2007). Online

mathematics achievement: Effects of learning strategies and self- efficacy. Journal of Developmental Education, 30(3), 6-13.

Liem, A. D., Lau, S., & Nie, Y. (2008). The role of self- efficacy, task value, and

achievement goals in predicting learning strategies, task disengagement, peer

relationship, and academic outcome. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 486-512.

Linnenbrink, E. A. (2005). The dilemma performance- approach goals: The use of

multiple goal contexts to promote students’ motivation and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 197- 213.

Masters, L. F., Mori, B. A., & Mori, A. A.(1993) Teaching secondary students wild mild learning and behavior problems: Methods, materials, strategies (2

nd

ed.). Texas: Pro-

Ed.

Meece, J. L., Hoyle, R. H., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and

cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80,

514- 523.

Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001).Performance- approach goals: Good for

what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 77- 86.

Muis, K. R. (2004). Personal epistemology and mathematics: A critical review and synthesis

of research. Review of Educational Research, 74, 317–377.

Muis, K. R. (2008). Epistemic profiles and self-regulated learning: Examining relations in

the context of mathematic problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 177- 208.

http://www.wetherhaven.com/Documents/socialcognitivetheory.pdf



Myers, N. A. (1999). A study of the learning strategies of metacognition, metamotivation,

metamemory, critical thinking, and resource management of nursing students on a

regional campus of a large midwestern university. AAT 9924369, [on-line

available]http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=733955791&sid=1&Fmt=2&clientI

d=47883&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Learning strategies. (2006). Retrieved July 30, 2008 from Professional learning and

Leadership development [on-line available]

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/stress/article_em

Lindsay, S. (2003). Progress feature: Task achievement. Database Info, 3- 10.

Nisbet, J., & Shucksmith, A. (1986) Learning strategies. [on-line

available] http://www.k12.nf.ca/fatima/define.htm

Oxford, R. (1990). Learning strategies. [on-line available]

http://www.k12.nf.ca/fatima/define.htm

Pascarella, E. (1989). The development of critical thinking: Does college make a

difference. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 19-26.

Pintrich, P. R. (1995). Understanding self- regulated learning. In P. R. Pintrich (Ed.),

Understanding self- regulated learning (pp. 3- 12). San Fransisco: Jossey- Bass

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The Role of Goal Orientation in

learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544- 555.

Pintrich P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self- regulated

learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385- 407.

Primus, P. (2003). Use of the learning and study skills inventory (LASSI) as a predictor of success in associate degree nursing students. Master’s Thesis. University of

Wyoming.

Proctor, B., Prevatt, F., Adams, K., Hurst, A., & Petscher, Y. (2006). Study Skills Profiles of normal-achieving and academically-struggling college students. Florida State

University, Tallahassee ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Vol. 47, Iss. 1, [on-line

availble]http://0proquest.umi.com.lib1000.dlsu.edu.ph:80/pqdweb?did=986122521

&sid=3&Fmt=4&clientId=47883&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Rhody. T. W. (1993). The study skills, habits, and attitudes of high school freshmen and their relationship to first- term academic achievement. Thesis Dissertation.

University of Oregon.

Roebken, H., (2007) multiple goals, satisfaction, and achievement in university

undergraduate education: a student experience in the research [on-line available]

http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/docs/ROP.Roebken.2.07.pdf

Ruggerio , V. R. (1988). Teaching thinking across the curriculum. New York: Harper &

Row.

Sizoo, S. L., Jerrome, A., & Wilfried , I. (2008). Measuring and developing the learning

strategies of adult career and vocational education students. Education, 125(4), 527-

538.

Smith, M. L. (1995) A quantitative analysis of critical thinking abilities, learning and study

strategies, and academic achievement in associate degree nursing students. Ph.D.

dissertation, Boston College, United States -- Massachusetts. Dissertations &

Theses: A&I database. (Publication No. AAT 9602082)



Somuncuoglu, Y., & Yildirim, A. (1999). Relationship between achievement goal

orientations and use of learning strategies. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 267-277.

Standage, M, & Treasure, D. (2002). Relationship among achievement goalorientations

and multidimensional situationalmotivation in physical education. British Journal of

Educational Psychology , 72, 87–103.

Teaching and learning strategy. (2002, September). New horizons from learning. [on-line

available] http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/front_strategies.html

Turner, J. C., Midgley, C., Meyer, D. K., Gheen, M., Anderman, E. M., Kang, Y., &

Patrick, H. (2002). The classroom environment and students' reports of avoidance

strategies in mathematics: A multimethod study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 88- 106.

Vermetten, , Y. J., Lodewijks, H. G., & Vermunt, J. D. (2001). The role of personality

traits and goal orientations in strategy use. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 149- 170.

Was, C. (2006). Academic achievement goal orientation: taking another look. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology , 10, 531-546.

Walker, S. (2003) Active Learning Strategies to Promote Critical Thinking. [on-line

available] http:www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender. i?artid=233182

publication number: PMC233182

Watson, D. (2006) Procrastination: Associations with achievement goal orientation

and learning strategies a

Department of Psychology, Grant MacEwan College,

P.O. Box 1796, Edmonton, Alta., Canada T5J 2P2 [on-line available]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9F-

West, K. S. (1994). Enhancing critical thinking in the political science curriculum. D.A.

dissertation, Idaho State University, United States -- Idaho. Dissertations & Theses:

A&I database. (Publication No. AAT 9420271).

Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). Learning strategies. [on-line available] Website:

http://www.k12.nf.ca/fatima/define.htm

Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal

orientations to predict students’ motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 236- 250.

Weinstein, C. E., & Palmer, D. R. (2002). LASSI: User's manual learning and study strategies inventory second edition. FL: H&H Pub.

Yip, M. C. W., & Chung, O. L. L. (2005). Relationship of study strategies and academic

performance in different learning phases of higher education in Hong Kong.

Educational Research and Evaluation, 11(1), 34-46.

Yip, M. C. W. (2007). Differences in learning and study strategies between high and low

achievement university. A Hong Kong study. Educational Psychology, 27, 597- 606.

Zweig, D., & Webster J. (2004). Validation of a Multidimensional Measure of Goal

Orientation. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 36(3), 232-243.



About the Author

Dr. Carlo Magno is presently a faculty of the Counseling and Educational Psychology

Department at De La Salle University, Manila. He has an active research agenda on

student learning strategies. Further correspondence can be addressed to him at

[email protected].

mailto:[email protected]