Motivatie Chestionar

8/12/2019 Motivatie Chestionar

1/20

Educational Psychology, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2002

A Cognitive-behavioural Measure of StudentGoal Setting in a Tertiary Educational Context

FIONA WHITE, School of Psychology, University of Western Sydney, Australia

ABSTRACT This study investigated the psychometric properties of a newly developed

measure, the Student Goals and Behaviour Questionnaire (SGBQ). The SGBQ is a unique

measure in that it assesses both students goal setting attitudes and behaviour within a tertiary

education context. In other words, the SGBQ measures students actual, rather than preferred

academic goals. To date, no such instrument exists in the psychological and educational

literature. The SGBQ, a modied version of Locke & Lathams (1990) Goal Setting

Questionnaire (MGSQ), and Wood & Lockes (1987) measure of academic self-efcacy

(ASEQ) were administered to 100 rst-year Psychology students. With regard to construct

validity, predicted moderate levels of convergence were found between the SGBQ factors, and

MGSQ and ASEQ. It was also found that the SGBQ had predictive validity with respect to

subsequent academic performance. Furthermore, a number of demographic characteristics, suchas course of study and age were found to be associated with goal setting attitudes and

behaviour. The SGBQ would seem to have some promise as an instrument for the assessment

and monitoring of student goal setting.

There is a voluminous literature concerning goal setting as a motivational technique

for enhancing task performance in organisational and work-related contexts. One

consistent result obtained in the literature is that setting specic and challenging goals

result in superior performance to that obtained when participants have less well-articu-lated goals (such as do your best; Mento et al., 1987; Locke & Latham, 1990; Locke,

1996). However, although there have been some attempts to apply goal setting

strategies in education (e.g. Wentzel, 1991; Gillat & Sulzer-Azaroff, 1994; Berry,

1996), no work has investigated the potential benecial effects of goal setting in a

university context. Related to this gap in the literature, very few researchers have

attempted to dene and measure goal setting. This study addresses these limitations

and proposes the following denition, goal setting consists of the cognitive and

behavioural processes involved in an individuals attempts to plan and regulate their

ISSN 0144-3410 print; ISSN 1469-046X online/02/030285-20 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd

DOI: 10.1080/01443410220138520


2/20

286 F. White

FIG. 1. High Performance Cycle Model (Locke & Latham, 1990).

activities in order to achieve some longer-term outcome. This denition will form the

basis of a new measure, the Student Goals and Behaviour Questionnaire (SGBQ), the

psychometric properties of which will be explicated here. It is anticipated that the

SGBQ will identify salient factors that perhaps may aid educators and researchers in

modifying, designing and implementing effective goal setting programmes in tertiaryeducation.

Locke and Lathams (1990) HPC Model

One of the leading approaches to understanding motivation is goal-setting theory

(Locke & Latham, 1990). Goal setting refers to conscious behavioural intention that

channel our energies or motivation to help us attain future objectives (Muchinsky,

2000, p. 350). Goal setting theory provides the conceptual framework for Locke &Lathams (1990) High Performance Cycle (HPC) model, one of the most empirically

tested models in the work motivation literature over the past 25 years (see Fig. 1).

Locke (1991, p. 25) states that the HPC model is data-based, conceptually well-devel-

oped, and integrated with other theories that have some insights to offer to researchers.

The HPC model adopts conceptual tenets from Goal Setting theory (Locke, 1968),

Expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) and Social Cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986). In

particular, the HPC model highlights Banduras (1982, p. 122) concept of self-efcacy,

that is, ones judgement of how well one can execute courses of action required to deal


3/20

Student Goal Setting 287

with prospective situations. According to Locke & Latham (1990) self-efcacy is said

to interact with goal setting and mediating mechanisms to predict performance.

Self-efcacy includes not only ones estimate of the degree to which effort will pay

off, but also ones ability, adaptability, creativity and capacity to perform in a situational

context. Self-efcacy is thought to reect both an individuals self-perceived ability, and

a motivational component dened by Kanfer (1987, p. 260) as intentions for effortallocation. Thus, the more capable people judge themselves to be, the higher the goals

they will set for upcoming performance (Bandura & Cervone, 1986; Bandura & Wood,

1989; Thomas & Mathieu, 1994). Although previous research suggests that high goal

setting and high self-efcacy are positively related, this relationship is yet to be

investigated within a tertiary educational context.

The HPC model predicts that individuals with specic, challenging and clear goals

perform better than those with no goals, easy goals or vague goals (Locke, 1991). Locke

& Latham (1990) state that nearly 400 (mostly experimental) studies have shown this

relationship to be the case. These specic and challenging goals then intervene with

moderating factors (such as task complexity and ability) to predict high performance.

High performance, in turn, produces rewards, satisfaction and commitment to future

goals. Button et al. (1996, p. 1085) dene performance episodes as distinguishable

periods of time over which performance accrues and is reviewed. Organisational

practice such as yearly performance appraisals, monthly progress reports and quarterly

sales are examples of how performance has been operationalised in work settings

(Button et al., 1996). In fact, the HPC model has been applied almost exclusively

within work-related settings and relatively little work has adopted this model to develop

a comprehensive theory of academic performance. However, as Locke & Latham

(1990, p. 245) state the usefulness of the HPC model goes beyond the connes of the

work organisations another application of this model is to the eld of education.

The important point to note here is that despite the general similarities that exist

between work settings and educational contexts, each is quite specialised with regard to

complexity of tasks, rewards and performance measures. For example, in an educa-

tional setting, performance may be operationalised via class work and exam assess-

ments, where students receive feedback. By adopting these specic performance

indicators the HPC model will be applied to an educational context.

Application of the HPC Model in an Educational Context

The academic performance literature has previously identied a range of factors likely

to have a positive impact upon student academic performance, and interestingly these

factors appear similar to those highlighted in the HPC model. For example, some

researchers have examined internal student attributes, such as cognitive styles and

approaches to study (Biggs, 1987; Marton & Saljo, 1984) as possible determinants ofacademic performance. Other factors examined have included external determinants,

such as teaching effectiveness. For example, Marsh (1987) and Ramsden (1990) have

developed instruments for measuring teaching quality, nding that effective teaching,

involving quality feedback and understandable explanations, is related to improved

student performance. As previously mentioned, these factors appear similar to the HPC

models moderating factors of situational constraints and feedback. Therefore in order

to understand how student academic performance is moderated, it may be valuable to

measure variables considered to be important within the HPC framework.


4/20

288 F. White

Attempts to Measure Individual Motives and Performance Outcomes

As discussed, previous attempts have been made to measure individual motives and

approaches to study. For example, Biggs (1987) Study Processes Questionnaire (SPQ)

examines motives and strategies, surface versus deep approaches, used in learning.

Related to this, Marton & Saljo (1984) found that students who adopted a deepapproach, which involved seeking the meaning of material, appeared to understand

material better than students who adopted a surface approach by memorising infor-

mation. Moreover, Pintich & DeGroot (1990) developed an attitudinal measure titled

the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire, developed for improving second-

ary teaching and learning. Despite the intuitive appeal of this research, results have

shown that students approach to studying have not been found to correlate well with

academic performance (Provost & Bond, 1997). Provost & Bond (1997) suggested that

one of the problems with these instruments is that they tend to focus upon what

students intend to do, rather than what they actually do in order to learn material.Attempts have also been made to specically target attitudes towards goal setting.

Locke & Latham (1990) developed a questionnaire called the Goal Setting Question-

naire (GSQ) in order to evaluate attitudes to goal setting within work settings. It

consists of the items relating to goal clarity (I have specic, clear goals to aim for on

my job) and goal conict (I have too many goals on this job) and other goal setting

attitudes. However, none of the items measure goal setting behaviour. When specic

behaviours (such as conscientiousness and goal orientation) have been examined,

greater effects upon academic performance have been recorded (Colquitt & Simmering,

1998). Therefore, in order to provide an adequate model of successful student aca-demic performance it is necessary to shift the emphasis from intention to actual

behaviour.

Measuring cognitive and behavioural goal setting in a tertiary educational

context: the construction of the SGBQ

This brief review of the literature would suggest that there is a genuine need for a

cognitive and behavioural measure of goal setting in a tertiary educational context. TheStudent Goals and Behaviour Questionnaire (SGBQ) was constructed to address this

need. The attitudinal and behavioural variables highlighted in the HPC model provided

the foundation for the construction of some of the SGBQ items. For example, items

were formulated to measure specic student goals (such as What are your short term

goals for studying psychology?), general student goals (such as What are your long

term goals for studying at university?). Some attitudinal items relate to difculty of

student goals (such as How difcult are the goals you have set?); feedback (Do you

receive adequate feedback about your academic performance?). Other items related to

students goal setting behaviour, for example, student effort (such as How much timedid you spend writing your last class report ?) and goal setting (such as What form do

these goals take?).

The purpose of this study was to provide a preliminary examination of the utility of

the SGBQ in an educational context. Several psychometric properties of the SQBQ will

be investigated. First, internal reliability and factorial validity of the SGBQ will be

measured. The predictive validity of the SGBQ in relation to academic performance

will also be reported. The construct validity of the SGBQ will be examined in relation

to the Modied Goal Setting Questionnaire (MGSQ) and the Academic Self-Efcacy


5/20


Questionnaire (ASEQ). Finally, the relationship between the SGBQ and a variety of

demographic variables (e.g. age, sex and course of study) will be investigated in order

to provide further information about the construct validity of the scale.

MethodsParticipants

The participants were 27 male and 73 female rst year undergraduate Psychology

students from the University of Western Sydney, Macarthur. Participants were aged

between 18 and 49 years (M522.41 years). The Tertiary Entrance Rank (TER) for the

sample ranged from 25 to 95 (M564.35). Of the sample 60% spoke only English at

home, 16% also spoke a European language, 16% also spoke a Middle Eastern

language and 8% also spoke an Asian language. The majority of students were enrolled

in Arts and Social Science degrees. All participants in the study obtained course creditfor their involvement in the study.

Materials

There were three questionnaires used in this study: the Student Goals and Behaviour

Questionnaire (SGBQ), the Modied Goal Setting Questionnaire (MGSQ) and the

Academic Self-Efcacy Questionnaire (ASEQ).

(1) The Student Goals and Behaviour Questionnaire (SGBQ) was developed in

order to test the salient factors identied in the HPC model and with a focus

open actual behaviour, rather than attitudes towards goal setting. The SGBQ

consists of 26 items. Items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 9 are categorical in nature. Items 5,

6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23a, 23b, 24, and 25 are

responded to on a Likert rating scale. Item 19 is an open-ended item. The

psychometric properties and subsequent scoring of the SGBQ will be outlined in

the results section. A complete version of the SGBQ can be found in Appendix

A.

(2) The 53 items of Locke & Lathams (1990) Goal Setting Questionnaire (GSQ)specically refer to work settings and thus in its current form is not appropriate

fore measuring student goal setting in a tertiary educational context. To address

this limitation, 38 items were extracted and modied for an educational context

resulting in the Modied Goal Setting Questionnaire (MGSQ). For example, I

have unclear goals on this job has been changed to I have unclear academic

goals. The MGSQ consists of a seven-point Likert scale (where 65Almost

Always to 05Never). A full list of these items is contained in Appendix B.

(3) Wood & Lockes (1987) Academic Self-Efcacy Questionnaire (ASEQ), consists

of 35 items relating to Banduras conceptualisation of magnitude of self-efcacy, that is whether one can achieve that level of attainment and strength

of self-efcacy, that is ones degree of condence in their ability to perform at

that level (Wood & Locke, 1987). For example, the item memorise and recall

60% of facts and concepts, measures magnitude with a yes/no response set and

strength is measured by a degree of condence rating between 0 and 100%.

Reliability coefcients for the seven subscales ranged from 0.56 to 0.83 (Wood

& Locke, 1987).

(4) Finally, students academic performance was measured via their marks achieved


6/20

290 F. White

on assessment items in a rst year Psychology course. These assessment items

included: (a) a research report of 1250 words in length that is based on a class

experiment; and (b) a total mark which is made up of two research report marks,

and two sets of multiple choice exam marks that assessed lecture, tutorial and

textbook material for each semester across the year.

Procedure

All participants completed the SGBQ, the MGSQ and ASEQ after receiving their

results from their rst assessment item, a research report. Six months lapsed before

participants received their nal total mark in rst year Psychology. The administration

of questionnaires was counterbalanced to avoid order effects. On completion, students

returned all questionnaires to the researcher at the end of each testing session. When

the academic year was complete, the project investigators were provided with a list of

student identication numbers and marks that were matched with the questionnaire

data before identication numbers were removed. Participants remained anonymous at

all times to the project investigators. The research reported here was approved by the

University of Western Sydney Ethics Review Committee (project number 99/067).

Results

The validation of the SGBQ began with the formulation of a construct denition

derived from Goal Setting theory, and prior research and systematic observationinvolving the HPC model (Locke & Latham, 1990). The reliability and validity of the

SGBQ framework and empirical analyses of items now follow.

The Factor Structure and Scoring of the SGBQ

Participant responses to 25 SGBQ items were subjected to an exploratory principal

components factor analysis with varimax rotation (NB. Item 19 was omitted from the

analysis) with no missing data points. This procedure was conducted in order to

investigate the SGBQs factor structure prior to reliability and validity analyses. Ac-cording to Kaisers criteria, factors are retained on the basis of having an eigenvalue

greater than one (Bryman & Cramer, 1990). The results of the factor analysis revealed

that there were 10 factors with eigenvalues greater than one.

The 10 factors reported in Table I accounted for 65.8% of the total variance. These

factors include:

Factor 1. Effort contained items representing the amount of time students put towards

their class work. Factor 1 accounted for the greatest percentage of total variance. The

alpha coefcient for this ve-item scale was 0.74.Factor 2. Feedback contained items relating to the perceived effect of educators

feedback on students goals in psychology. The alpha coefcient for this two-item scale

was 0.96.

Factor 3. Goal Setting contained items relating to goal setting strategies in psychology.

The alpha coefcient for this two-item scale was 0.64.

Factor 4. Goal Inuence contained one item relating to students perception of the

degree to which others have inuenced their goal setting.

Factor 5. Teaching Support contained items that measure the degree to which educa-


7/20


8/20

292 F. White

TABLE I. Principle components factor analysis of the SGBQ

Factor

loading Eigenvalue

Factor 1: Effort

13. How much time did you spend in the library for your last lab report? 0.605 3.7714. How much time did you spend reading your textbook for your last lab report? 0.836

15. How much time did you spend reading your lecture notes for your

last lab report? 0.742

18. How much time did you s pend writing your last lab report ? 0.572

16. How much time did you spend in discussion with your tutor for 0.440

your last lab report?

Factor 2: Feedback

23 a. To what extent has feedback (grades, comments etc) affected your 0.973 2.30

goals in psychology?

23 b. Specically, how has feedback affected your goals ? 0.969

Factor 3: Goal Setting

What are your long term goals for study in psychology? 0.648 1.85

How did you decide on these goals in psychology? 0.801

Factor 4: Goal Inuence

5. To what degree have the formulation of these goals been inuenced

by others? 0.841 1.65

Factor 5: Teaching Support

12. Do you receive adequate feedback about your academic performance 0.811 1.5625. How important is it for your lecturers and tutors to support your need

to set goals? 0.689

Factor 6: Goal Efcacy

7. With regard to Psychology, how difcult are the goals you have set? 0.822 1.46

8. How likely do you think it is that you will achieve all of these goals? 0.435

11. Studying is more enjoyable if I have clear goals. To what extent do

you agree with this statement? 0.474

Factor 7: Meeting Deadlines

24. Do you have any trouble dealing with getting work completed on a

deadline? 0.861 1.386. To what degree have you set deadlines for these goals? 0.479

Factor 8: Goal Type

9. What form do these goals take (a contract, diary entry, thoughts in my

head etc)? 0.759 1.29

10.To what extent do these goals place stress upon you? 0.488

Factor 9: Student Discussion

17. How much time did you s pend in discussi on with other st udents 0.853 1.19

for your last lab report?

Factor 10: Short-term Goals

3. What are your short term goals for study in psychology? 0.818 1.10

Factor 11: Long-term Goals

What are your long term goals for study at university? 0.787 0.872

Factor 12: Class work

20. Where was this mark relative to the mark you expected to get in this lab report? 0.537 0.822

21. Were the written comments on your last lab report (positive/negative) ? 0.735

22. How useful were these comments? 0.590


9/20


TABLE II. Course of study and means and standard deviations of SGBQ factors

Goal Setting Goal Efcacy Meeting Deadlines

M SD M SD M SD

BA (n5 33) 8.88 1.93 11.15 1.18 4.64 1.22BSS (n5 15) 9.20 2.31 11.72 1.54 5.01 1.31

BPsych (n5 9) 10.22 2.05 12.22 1.30 4.67 1.23

BSW (n511) 7.72 1.32 10.53 1.12 1.78 0.67

BA/Law (n5 9) 6.67 1.99 11.22 0.97 6.72 1.79

Misc (n5 6) 9.17 1.72 12.33 0.82 4.67 2.07

BA5Bachelor of Arts; BSS5Bachelor of Social Science; BPSych5Bachelor of

Psychology; BSW5Bachelor of Social Work; BA/Law5Bachelor of Arts/Law; and

Misc5miscellaneous degree students).

signicant positive relationship was found between age and several of the SGBQ

factors, namely:

Factor 1: Effort (r50.509, P,0.001);

Factor 3: Goal Setting (r50.362, P,0.001);

Factor 6: Goal Efcacy (r50.392, P,0.001).

Therefore, it would appear from these correlational results that Effort, Goal Setting and

Goal Efcacy increase signicantly with age.

Predictive validity of the SGBQ and academic performance. Prior to testing the predictive

validity of the SGBQ, a correlational analysis of students TER scores and academic

performance was conducted. Amongst a sample of 65 reported TER scores, no

relationship was found between students TER and their research report mark

(r50.166, P.0.05), however, a small but signicant positive relationship was found

between students TER score and their total end of year mark in Psychology (r50.267,

P, 0.05). Thus, it is important to note that irrespective of goal setting (SGBQ factors),

students TER scores were related to their end of year Psychology mark.A correlational analysis between SGBQ factors and academic performance was

conducted to investigate predictive validity. Table III reveals that signicant associa-

tions were found between Factor 1: Effort, and Factor 6: Goal Efcacyand the research

report. Whereas signicant associations were found between Factor 4: Goal Inuence,

Factor 6: Goal Efcacy and Factor 10: Short Term Goals and their overall performance

in Psychology.

A more detailed analysis of these ndings revealed that students who set clear short

term goals in psychology (Factor 10), such as to obtain a credit or distinction, perform

signicantly better in their overall performance in Psychology than those studentswhose short term goals are unsure (F(5, 70)52.49, P, 0.05). See Fig. 2 for a graphical

depiction of these ndings.

Convergent validity of the SGBQ with the MGSQ and ASEQ. Table IV reveals support

for the predicted moderate degree of convergence between the SGBQ factors and

appropriate subscales of the MGSQ and ASEQ. For example, Factor 1: Effort has a

signicant positive correlation with MGSQ subscales of Goal Efcacy and Rationale

and ASEQ subscales of Self-efcacy Magnitude and Strength and signicant negative


10/20

294 F. White

TABLE III. A correlational analysis between SGBQ factors and academic performance

Academic performance

Report mark (n5 100) Total mark (n5 100)

Factor 1: Effort 0.271** 0.132Factor 2: Feedback 20.142 2 0.056

Factor 3: Goal Setting 0.160 0.028

Factor 4: Goal Inuence 0.119 2 0.225*

Factor 5: Teaching Support 20.066 2 0.152

Factor 6: Goal Efcacy 0.362*** 0.362***

Factor 7: Deadlines 0.191 0.165

Factor 8: Goal Type 0.014 0.069

Factor 9: Student Discussion 0.069 0.006

Factor 10: Short-term Goals 0.127 0.309**

*P,0.05; **P, 0.01 and ***P, 0.0001.

association with MGSQ subscales of Goal Stress and Goal Conict. Factor 3: Goal

Settingwas found to have a signicant positive correlation with the MGSQ subscale of

Goal Efcacy and Goal Clarity and the ASEQ subscale of Self-efcacy Strength.

Similarly, Factor 6: Goal Efcacy had a signicant positive correlation with GSG

subscales of Goal Efcacy and Goal Clarity and ASEQ subscales of Self-efcacy

Magnitude and Strength, and a signicant negative association with the MGSQ

subscales of Goal Conict and Dysfunctional Effect. Interestingly, SGBQ Factors 2:

FIG. 2. Short-term Goals (Factor 10) and academic performance.


11/20


12/20

296 F. White

TABLE

IV.

CorrelationsbetweentheSGBQfactorsandtheMGSQandASEQ

scores

MGSQsubscales

ASEQ

Subscales

SGBQ

Goal

Goal

Tang.

Goal

Dysfunt.

Goal

SE

SE

factors

Support

Stress

Efficacy

Rationale

Rewards

Conct

Effect

Clarity

mag

strength

Factor1

0.0

65

2

0.1

90*

0.3

96***

0.2

60*

2

0.0

54

2

0.2

09*

2

0.0

37

0.2

57*

0.2

37*

0.2

40*

Factor2

0.1

59

0.0

71

0.0

94

0.0

08

0.0

72

2

0.0

59

2

0.1

35

0.1

24

2

0.0

50

0.0

74

Factor3

2

0.1

00

2

0.0

55

0.3

88***

0.0

56

0.0

31

2

0.1

44

2

0.2

21*

0.3

03**

0.1

14

0.2

70**

Factor4

2

0.0

99

0.1

31

0.0

07

0.0

07

0.0

84

2

0.2

10*

2

0.1

46

0.0

55

2

0.1

87

2

0.1

71

Factor5

0.0

24

2

0.0

03

0.1

70

0.2

20*

0.2

11*

2

0.0

58

2

0.0

23

0.2

92**

2

0.3

6

0.0

41

Factor6

2

0.0

92

2

0.0

93

0.4

62***

0.0

87

0.0

45

2

0.2

11*

2

0.2

03*

0.2

23*

0.2

04*

0.2

78**

Factor7

0.0

67

2

0.2

46*

0.1

43

0.1

07

0.0

62

2

0.1

77

2

0.0

18

0.0

70

0.0

74

0.1

59

Factor8

2

0.1

85

0.0

58

0.0

84

0.0

40

0.0

41

0.0

28

2

0.1

84

0.1

02

0.7

30

0.0

08

Factor9

0.0

02

2

0.0

29

0.2

14*

0.1

41

2

0.0

04

2

0.2

00*

2

0.0

45

0.2

83**

2

0.0

50

2

1.1

05

Factor10

0.0

45

2

0.1

23

0.3

13**

2

0.0

12

0.0

93

2

0.3

10**

2

0.0

54

0.2

29*

2

0.1

67

0.1

95*

r5

100;*P,

0.0

5;**P,

0.0

1and***P,

0.0

01.


13/20


found. Specically, older students placed more Effort, were more likely to set Specic

Goals and had higher Goal Efcacy than younger students. This nding may be

explained by the fact that older students are highly motivated because they have

specically chosen tertiary study at this point in their life, whereas younger students

simply see tertiary study as a transition from secondary school and are less motivated.

Predictive Validity of the SGBQ

Students academic performance was measured via:

a research report of 1250 words in length that is based on a class experiment;

a total mark that is made up of two research report marks and two sets of

multiple choice exam marks that assessed lecture, tutorial and textbook material

for each semester across the year study.

Thus, the two performance measures were quite distinct. Analyses of the predictive

validity of the SGBQ revealed that Effort and Goal Efcacy are signicantly associated

with students research report mark. This nding may be due to the fact that most of

the items on the Effort factor relate to the lab report. SGBQ factors of Goal Inuence,

Goal Efcacy and Short Term Goals were found to be signicantly associated with

students overall performance in Psychology (see Table III).

Moreover, Figure 2 reveals that students who set clear short-term goals, such as

seeking to obtain a credit or distinction on their next lab report, actually predicts their

overall performance. These results support the prediction of the High Performance

Cycle model and other research ndings (Mento et al., 1987; Locke & Latham, 1990;

Locke, 1996) that suggest that specic goals results in superior performance. The

signicance of these results is enhanced by the fact that students completed their goal

setting questionnaires 6 months prior to receiving their nal mark in rst year Psy-

chology. Because of this time lag, the results can be interpreted as genuinely predictive

of future academic performance.

It must be noted here that six factors of the SGBQ were not found to signicantly

predict academic performance. Theoretically, these six factors are important (see the

HPC model), however, the items as they currently stand may not accurately reect thetheoretical concepts that they purport to measure. For example, Goal Setting (Factor

3) items, as they currently stand, refer to long-term goal setting and do not refer to the

end of rst year performance. Therefore, the items that make up this factor may be

more useful and predictive of third year psychology students performance, rather than

rst year students. Furthermore, all of the items of the Effort factor refer to the lab

report, thus new items that refer to exam-goal-setting-behaviour may also need to be

included in a revised version of the SGBQ.

Convergent Validity of the SGBQ

Further analysis of validity revealed the SGBQ Factors 1, 3 5, 6, 9 and 10, which

incorporates variables from the High Performance Cycle Model, showed moderate

levels of convergence with the MGSQ, which measures attitudes to goal setting and

Wood & Lockes (1987) ASEQ which measures students magnitude and strength of

self-efcacy (see Table IV). This degree of convergence is supported by previous

ndings (Bandura & Cervone, 1986; Bandura & Wood, 1989; Thomas & Mathieu,

1994) in the literature that suggest that high goal setting and high self-efcacy are


14/20

298 F. White

positively related. However, SGBQ Factors 2 and 8 did not converge signicantly with

any MGSQ or ASEQ factors revealing that the uniqueness of each measure was also

conrmed.

Limitations and Future Applications of the SGBQ

When interpreting these ndings, sample size limitations need to be taken into account.

A larger more heterogeneous sample of tertiary students, involving second and third

year undergraduates would need to be included in future research investigations using

the SGBQ. Moreover, existing items will need to be modied and new items added as

previously discussed. Once such changes to sample characteristics and items are made,

the generalisability of these results, reliability and validity of the SGBQ will be

improved.

It is anticipated that the SGBQ will have important applications in the tertiary

educational context. Once acceptable levels of reliability and validity are achieved, the

SGBQ can be used to assess student attitudes and behaviour to goal setting, identify

problem areas in student goals setting, and implement changes to the curriculum where

students are taught to set specic high goals. Experiments can then be conducted to

investigate whether students who set specic high goals have improved academic

performance relative to a control group of students who do not set specic goals.

The development of a valid scale requires multiple procedures that are employed

sequentially at different stages of test construction (Anastasi & Urbina. 1997, p. 137).

Thus, further psychometric validation of the SGBQ amongst a larger, more heteroge-neous sample of tertiary students will be needed before rm conclusions can be made

about the psychometric properties of the SGBQ. Continued validation of the SGBQ

will allow it to be used as an instrument by psychologists, educators and other

researchers in future research concerned with the nature of processes involved in

student academic performance. Moreover, should future research adopting the SGBQ

support the nding that systematic goal setting improves students academic perform-

ance, then all stakeholders in academic institutions have the potential to benet from

this research outcome.

Correspondence: Fiona White, School of Psychology, University of Western Sydney,

Locked Bag 1797, South Penrith Distribution Centre, NSW, Australia, 1797.

NOTES

[1] Portions of this research s tudy were presented at the Teaching and Learning Conference, Northern

Territory University, Australia, 1999. This study is supported in part by a research grant awarded

by the Research Committee of the University of Western Sydney.

REFERENCES

Anastasi, A. & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological Testing. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efcacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122147.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. & Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive inuence in cognitive

motivation. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248287.

Bandura, A. & Wood, R. (1989). Effect of conceived controllability and performance standards on

self-regulation of complex decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 805814.


15/20


Berry, G. (1996). Improving Student Achievement through Behaviour Intervention. EDRS: Microche [2

card(s)], Paper.

Biggs, J.B. (1987). Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for

Educational Research.

Biggs, J.B. (1993). What do inventories of students learning processes really measure? A theoretical

review and clarication. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 319.

Bryman, A. & Cramer, D. (1990). Quantitative Data Analysis for the Social Scientists. London:Routledge.

Button, S.B., Mathieu, J.E. & Aiken, K.J. (1996). An examination of the relative impact of assigned

goals and self-efcacy on personal goals and performance over time. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 26, 10841103.

Colquitt, J.A. & Simmering, M.J. (1998). Conscientiousness, Goal Orientation, and Motivation to

learn during the learning process: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 654665.

Gillat, A. & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1994). Promoting principals managerial involvement in instructional

improvement. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 27, 115129.

Kanfer, R. (1987). Task-specic motivation: An integrative approach to issues of measurement,

mechanisms, processes, and determinants. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 5, 237264.

Lee, C., Bobko, P., Earley, P.C. & Locke, E.A. (1991). An empirical analysis of a goal setting

questionnaire, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 12, 467482.

Locke, E.A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organisational Behaviour and

Human Performance, 3, 157189.

Locke, E.A. (1991). Goal theory versus control theory: Contrasting approaches to understanding work

motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 15, 928.

Locke, E.A. (1996). Motivation through conscious goal setting. Applied & Preventative Psychology, 5,

117124.

Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (1990). Work motivation and satisfaction: light at the end of the tunnel.

Psychological Science, 1, 240246.

Marsh, H. W. (1987). Students evaluations of university teaching: research ndings, methodologicalissues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11.

Marton, F. & Saljo, R. (1984). Approaches to learning. In, F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle

(Eds) The Experience of Learning(pp. 3655). Edinburgh, Scottish Academic Press.

Mento, A.J., Steel, R.P. & Karren, R.J. (1987). A meta-analysis of the effects of goal setting on task

performance: 19661984. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 39, 5283.

Muchinsky, P.M. (2000). Psychology Applied to Work. USA: Wadsworth.

Pintich, P. & Degroot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom

academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 3340.

Provost, S.C. & Bond, N.W. (1997). Approaches to studying and academic performance in a

traditional psychology course. Higher Education Research and Development, 16, 309320.

Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: the course

experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16, 129150.

Thomas, K.M. & Mathieu, J.E. (1994). Role of causal attributions in dynamic self-regulation and goal

processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 812818.

Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.

Wentzel, K.R. (1991). Relations between social competence and academic achievement in early

adolescents. Child Development, 62, 10661078.

Wood, R.E. & Locke, E.A. (1987). The relations of self-efcacy and grade goals to academic

performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 10131025.


16/20

300 F. White

Appendix A: Student Goals and Behaviour Questionnaire (SGBQ)


17/20


Appendix A: Student Goals and Behaviour Questionnaire (SGBQ)continued


18/20

302 F. White

Appendix A: Student Goals and Behaviour Questionnaire (SGBQ)continued


19/20


Appendix B: Modied Goal Setting Questionnaire (MGSQ)

1. I understand exactly what I am supposed to do as a student

2. I have specic, clear goals to aim for as a student

3. The academic goals I have are challenging, but reasonable (neither too hard or too easy)

4. I understand how my academic performance is measured5. I have deadlines for meeting my study goals

6. If I have more than one goal to accomplish, I know which ones are most important and which

are least important

7. Lecturers and/or tutors clearly explain to me what my goals should be

8. Lecturers and/or tutors tell me the reasons for the goals I should have

9. Lecturers and/or tutors are supportive with respect to encouraging me to reach my goals

10. Lecturers and/or tutors let me participate in the setting of my goals

11. Lecturers and/or tutors let me have a say in deciding how I will go about implementing my goals

12. If I reach my goals I know my lecturers and/or tutors will be pleased

13. I get credit and recognition when I attain my academic goals

14. Trying for academic goals makes studying more fun than it would be without goals15. I feel proud when I get feedback (in the form of grades) indicating that I have achieved my

academic goals

16. The other students I work with encourage me to attain my academic goals

17. I sometimes compete with other students to see who can do the best in reaching their academic

goals

18. If I reach my academic goals, I feel that this will increase my academic opportunities

19. If I reach my academic goals, it increases my chances of a pay rise

20. If I reach my academic goals, it increases my chances of getting into a higher degree

21. I usually feel that I have a suitable or effective action plan(s) for reaching my academic goals

22. I get regular feedback from my lecturers and/or tutors indicating how I am performing in relation

to my academic goals

23. I feel that my course was good enough so that I am capable of reaching my academic goals

24. Departmental policies help, rather than hurt academic goal attainment

25. Students work together to attain academic goals

26. This department provides sufcient resources (equipment, etc.) to make goal setting work

27. I nd working toward my academic goals very stressful

28. My academic goals are much too difcult

29. In the past I have not succeeded in attaining my academic goals

30. My lecturers and/or tutors acts non-supportively when I fail to reach my academic goals

31. I have too many academic goals

32. Some of my academic goals conict with my personal values33. I am given incompatible or conicting goals by different people (or even by the same person)

34. I have unclear academic goals

35. My academic goals lead me to take excessive risk

36. My academic goals serve to limit, rather than raise my academic performance

37. The academic goals that I have lead me to ignore other important aspects of university life

38. The academic goals that I have focus only on short-range accomplishment and ignore important

long-range consequences


20/20

Documents

Motivatie Chestionar