Personal Goal-setting and Autonomy in Language Learning

Supporting Independent English Language Learning in the 21st Century Proceedings of the Independent Learning Association Conference Inaugural 2005 Personal Goal-setting and Autonomy in Language Learning TOMOKO KODA-DALLOW AND MOIRA HOBBS, Unitec, Auckland, New Zealand Abstract Much has been written in the past 10 years about the differences in personal learning styles and study expectations, including aspects of academic literacy, of students familiar with the 'Western' education system and 'Asian' learners, particularly Chinese and Japanese. This attention also extends to the influences of the learning strategies used by the various student groups. This paper will discuss the relationship between personal goal-setting based on goal-setting theory and autonomy in a foreign language learning context. Participants were first and second year learners of the Japanese language in a BA degree course. The study involved a comparison between treatment and control groups of first and second year students. During class sessions, the treatment groups set weekly goals for Japanese learning over a five-week period, whereas the control groups did not set any goals. The research instruments included a triangulation of three forms of information 1. a questionnaire was administered to all groups before and after the treatment period 2. the treatment group were asked to evaluate goal-setting as a learning strategy 3. selected participants were interviewed. The aim of these interventions was to determine whether goal-setting influenced participants' attitudes to the level of responsibility they believed they had for their own learning of Japanese. The descriptive analyses of data showed no statistically significant difference between treatment and control groups to indicate that personal goal-setting promoted autonomy while learning Japanese. However, the analysis of qualitative data suggested that autonomy was promoted through the goal-setting process in some students,

Introduction Autonomy is a long-term aim of education (Candy, 1988; Pennycook, 1997) and a key factor in successful language learning. It is thus important that learners develop responsible attitudes and autonomy (Scharle & Szabo, 2000). Research has therefore focused on how learners concentrate on learning tasks and on their need to develop autonomous learning strategies. Increasing emphasis on communicative competence in language education has moved the pedagogy from being teacher-centered to student-centered (Wenden & Rubin, 1987). The resulting challenge is to take greater account of learners ability to set learning goals and to organize their own activity (Crabbe, 1999, p.3). First-year Japanese language learners must master two Japanese alphabets, Hiragana and Katakana, a total of more than 100 characters, in a very short timeframe. This can be difficult. Some students have commented I should try and master 10 Hiragana today. It makes me feel responsible and lets me achieve my goals ; I remembered 15 characters yesterday. I decided not to go home until I got a good score. From these student s comments, the following question arose Do these students show an increase in a sense of responsibility for their own language learning through activities where they set goals for themselves? Literature Review The definition of autonomy in language learning adopted for this study is the ability to take responsibility for one s learning as used by Benson (2001), Dickinson (1987), and Holec (1981). These authors claim that autonomy is not innate but develops through learner training, that is, learners need to be taught learning strategies and how to use them. Many researchers agree that metacognitive strategies are the most important strategies (e.g., Cotterall & Crabbe, 1999; Dickinson, 1992; Wenden & Rubin, 1987). O Malley and Chamot (as cited in Wenden & Rubin, 1987) state that metacognitive strategies include thinking about the learning process, planning for learning (e.g. setting a clear objective), monitoring of comprehension or production when strategies are being used, and evaluating by the learners themselves after the learning activity has finished. Saito and Tanaka (1999) suggest that students with low levels of autonomy believe this responsibility rests with the teacher. They claim that metacognitive strategies can be intentionally trained and, as Simmons (as cited in Tyacke, 1991) suggests, when the learning process is made clearer by strategy training, learners become free to control their own learning, and empowered to make [their] own changes (p.50). Goal-Setting Theory Goal-setting in language learning is commonly regarded as a metacognitive strategy encouraging learner autonomy (Hatano, 1980; Locke, Shaw, Saari & Latham, 1981; Wenden, 1991; Yang, 1998), but there is little discussion regarding either the characteristics of effective goals, or of the conditions necessary for their achievement. Higher outputs are achieved if goals are specific, measurable and challenging (Dörnyei, 2001; Locke et al., 1981; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996), and not unrealistic or outside the student s capacity. Locke and Latham (1990) believe that personal goals are not always relevant in increasing goal commitment and/or increasing performance, although choosing a goal (and telling others) may lead to greater feelings of self-control or commitment and, therefore, to better performance. This in turn promotes self-efficacy, especially when the goals are high. Self-efficacy is a person s belief about their own capability to achieve or perform to a certain level (Bandura, 1989; Tremblay & Gardner, 1995). Littlewood (1998) argues that this self-belief can lead to improved achievement. Bandura (1986) explains that goal choice without self-efficacy would not lead to increased performance, which points to the conclusion that self-efficacy is a vital component of personal goal-setting. Pintrich and Schunk (1996) conclude that people with high levels of self-efficacy set higher goals and are more committed. However, many learners have been shown to lack this (Cotterall, 1999; Oxford & Shearin, 1994). Nevertheless, the self-satisfaction arising when goals are achieved indicates that goals are important elements of motivation (Bandura, 1997).

Dörnyei (2001) shows that goal-setting can be an effective and powerful strategy, although under-used and little understood in second language education. Oxford and Shearin (1994, p.19) concur, claiming it is therefore shocking that so little time and energy are spent in the L2 classroom on goal-setting. Methodology This study measured autonomy by asking participants to gauge their own and their teachers levels of responsibility for their learning of the Japanese language. It investigated the relationship between goal-setting and learner autonomy and it sought to answer the question Does personal goal-setting have a positive effect on learner autonomy? The participants were 15 1st-year (Year 1) and 10 2nd-year (Year 2) learners of Japanese as a foreign language in a Bachelor of Arts course, divided into an experimental (goal group) and a control group (non-goal group) at each year level, with a reasonably level distribution of ethnicity, age and gender. The goal group was asked to set weekly goals for five weeks; the non-goal group had no goal-setting activities. The instruments were pre- and post- goal-setting questionnaires, weekly goal-setting sheets and an interview schedule. Questionnaires were selected and modified from Willing (1989, pp. 22-23, as cited in Sheerin, 1997, p.59) and Spratt et. al. (2002), based on Holec s (1981) definition of autonomy. Questionnaire 1 and Part 1 of Questionnaire 2 were identical and determined changes in the participants attitude to autonomy by identifying the students perceptions of their teacher s and their own responsibilities for their learning over five weeks. Part 2 of Questionnaire 2 was for the goal group only and was designed to evaluate the goal-setting activities. It was a modified form of Locke and Latham s (1990, pp. 355-358) goal-setting questionnaire, using the Likert scale. Some open-ended questions were also included since they have merit as qualitative data, which can provide richness in second language research (Dörnyei, 2003). Goal-setting sheets were adapted from Mizutani (2001) and used to indicate self-efficacy (self-confidence) in achieving goals, the level of achievement and the level of satisfaction when reflecting on past goals. The semi-structured interviews of 5 members of the goal group were taped in the last week of the project. The subjects were the students who had the highest and lowest mean gain scores in the pre- and post- goal-setting questionnaires, plus one additional student from the Year 2 goal group who had a negative gain score. Questionnaires Analysis For each student, the mean was calculated from the percentages given next to the student s responsibilities on the chart in the questionnaires. Comparing the responses to Questionnaires 1 and 2, the percentage gains for each item were calculated. Using the mean gains, independent samples t-tests were conducted to evaluate differences between experimental and control groups for each year level. Interviews and Written Reports Data from the goal-setting sheets, open-ended questions and interviews were analyzed qualitatively. Questionnaires Results The mean percentage rating for each student s perception of his or her own responsibility was calculated separately for each questionnaire, and percentage gain for each student was then calculated.

In the Year 1 goal group, 2 participants had negative gains, 5 had positive gains, and 1 showed no change. In the Year 1 non-goal group, 4 participants had negative gains and 2 had positive gains. In the Year 2 goal group, 3 participants had negative gains and 3 had positive gains whilst in the non-goal group, 2 had positive gains and 2 had negative gains. From these data, group mean percentage rating gains and standard deviations were calculated. Group means of percentage rating (goal and non-goal Groups in Year 1 and Year 2) were compared (See Table 1). To determine if there was a significant difference between the goal and non-goal groups for each year, independent samples t tests were conducted using mean percentage rating gains. The results showed no significant differences (Table 2). Goal-Setting Evaluation In Part 2 of Questionnaire 2, 14 goal group students commented on positive aspects of goal setting, on negative aspects, and recorded other remarks. Table 3 indicates that positive aspects related mainly to metacognitive strategies. Negative aspects were mainly associated with stress and time. Five students indicated that they felt stressed. One Year 2 student reported responsibility as a negative aspect. Most of the other comments were judgments about learning, about whether goal-setting was good, useful or bad. Some comments showed that a few students had reflected on their learning processes through goal-setting whilst others analyzed goal-setting itself. Further Comments Year 1 I found this task useful. I think goal-setting is essential and I will continue to set myself goals. Some good aspects, but it doesn t really give me as much confidence as encouragement from the teacher. In general, I don t like goal-setting. My rule is first thing first (sic). It s a good learning strategy for students to set goals when studying. Year 2 Useful thing for students to do. Great thing to help with Japanese study. Sometimes it s quite easy to forget what goal I set. I now think more about the content of my study. Setting goals only helps if you have conviction and really want to achieve them. In general, it s good. Goal-setting is more positive thing than negative. Interviews Participants were asked identical questions. Comments on positive aspects related mainly to metacognitive strategies [m/c]. The square brackets indicate the broad categories identified. Goal-setting tells you how far you ve advanced to be better able to learn Japanese in the time given. [m/c self-monitoring/evaluating] Goal-setting is a reminder of what I must do in a week. It keeps me motivated to achieve the goal. It is discipline s role and guides. [m/c planning and self-control] Good in general, it (goal-setting process) helps improve your own learning even if you didn t achieve the goal. [m/c self-evaluation] Regarding stress, the comments indicated a positive aspect that but it s good stress, makes you think and makes you work and learn. The Year 2 student who reported responsibility as a negative aspect commented that It is a personal thing. Because I know I m so lazy, I don t do anything unless I absolutely have to. If I set myself a goal, there are things I should and must do, so in that sense I have a responsibility to myself. Feelings About Setting Weekly Goals to Learn Japanese

I think it is interesting. See [pointing to his first goals] these are easy goals to achieve and I don t really think I can achieve them. I don t have confidence to achieve because I am so lazy. This goal was a lot harder [pointing to his fifth goal] but I was really confident. It was good, pushed to do extra work, goals set out of class work. Sort of success and enjoyed. I personally don t like goal-setting. From the study experience of English. Most classmates thought it was a waste of time. Feelings About When a Goal Achieved/Not Achieved. Achieved. Happy, confident, more comfortable. Very satisfied. Something extra on top of my homework, I did. I m a pretty level person in sense of emotion. I don t get really excited or really down over things. Not Achieved. I feel guilty because I didn t organised my time well, other times I thought, maybe I ll catch up next time. A little disappointed in myself for not trying hard to achieve my goal. I don t feel sad or angry. Just could have done better. I can try again. Further Comments It s a good thing, everyone should do it. Everybody is different, so some people will be able to use goalsetting positively, while others won t. It depends on their learning style. Really it is up to the person. If they want to, they can do it. If they don t want to do it, they will not. Feedback by the Researcher Examples of written feedback included I am happy you are satisfied with your outcome. Well done! It was a shame that you were not happy with the outcome... I suggest it might be advisable The five interviewees were asked if the researcher s feedback had assisted in setting new goals Some of them, yeah, if my goal wasn t achieved. I probably put it back a little to achieve (sic). It helped me to really see how I achieved and whether or not. I should use the same goal or whether I should move on. Not really, because no matter what the feedback was, I was going to change that goal anyway. Reasons Given for Goal Selection More interesting, therefore making more effort to complete it. A goal should be something I learn for myself outside the class. Something extra I needed to do. I was just checking the things which I didn t understand in class. I needed to review it and go over it. All goals set related to my study and were chosen on a priority basis. If a test is next week, I will set a goal to prepare for it. Influence on Learning Strategies Participants were asked if goal-setting influenced their learning strategies. No changes, I think. I m looking more now to actually learn and internalize it, rather than just this is what it means.

Discussion Autonomy In the pre- and post- goal-setting questionnaires, students indicated their perceptions of their own responsibilities for their learning of Japanese. Analysis of the quantitative data found no significant correlation (i.e., personal goal-setting, over a period of five weeks, had no measurable effect on the participants beliefs that they should take responsibility for their own learning.) However, the qualitative data from the open-ended questions suggested that some participants associated a greater sense of their own responsibility (i.e. the development of autonomy) with goal-setting. Several evaluations indicated a sense of autonomy It keeps me motivated for achieving the goal, it is discipline role ; It was good, pushed me to do extra work, goals set out of class work. One student said that what he set for goals should be something outside the class and he chose his goals because they were more interesting, which takes more effort to complete. Year 1 goal and non-goal groups had a wide range of mean gains whereas for Year 2 the range was very narrow, suggesting a positive influence from goal-setting in the Year 1 group. Neither year had a statistically significant gain. It could be concluded that goal-setting may be of value as a learning strategy for some 1st-year learners, but maybe not at a more advanced level, since these students may have already developed some degree of autonomy. Learning Strategy Preferences Choices of learning strategies are often influenced by learning style preferences (Nam & Oxford, 1998) and mismatches can have a serious effect on learners chances of successful learning (Oxford & Lavine, 1992). In this study, many participants found goal-setting to be an effective learning strategy. However, one student commented, I personally don t like goal-setting. For coursework every week we wrote a journal regarding our goals, what we learnt. Most classmates thought it was a waste of time. This suggests that the beliefs learners hold may contribute to, or interfere with, the development of autonomy (Cotterall, 1995). Takamizawa (1989) notes that students with previous language study experience may have developed their own learning strategies already, and if these are different from their teachers strategies, they may feel anxiety, leading to decreased motivation, a disincentive to learn, and discomfort or lack of confidence in goalsetting. Horwitz (1988) agrees that preconceived beliefs are likely to restrict a learner s range of strategies. Influence of Goal-Setting Goal-setting involves the use of other metacognitive strategies (e.g., organizing or planning for study, considering purposes, monitoring, seeking practice opportunities, and evaluation). Most students thought goalsetting was useful for learning Japanese a great thing ; an essential task ; a reminder ; a good learning strategy. Some used goals as tools to measure progress within a given timeframe. It appeared to assist some students to find an effective way to learn for themselves, as they reflected on their learning - one Year 2 student said it influenced her learning strategies I m looking more now to actually learn and internalize it, rather than just this is what it means. Similarly, one Year 1 student stated that his listening level was low compared with other skills so that goalsetting influenced his choice of skill strategy I try to listen to any Japanese song or tape everyday. He set the same goal the following week as he found the activity really good practice to improve my listening skill. Some students mentioned that they felt stress. One student thought that good stress makes you think, work and learn, although another thought that more to think about was a negative aspect of goal-setting. Others mentioned that they felt stressed, which they regarded as a negative aspect. This study supports the claim that metacognitive strategies involve thinking about the learning process (O Malley & Chamot, 1983; Wendon & Rubin, 1987).

Self-Efficacy Like previous studies which consider self-efficacy to be a precondition of autonomous behavior and which suggest that goal-setting assists in enhancing self-confidence, this study found positive affective reactions, e.g., satisfaction or pride in attaining goals. One Year 1 student explained that even though his first goal was easy, he was not sure he could achieve it. However, by the time he wrote about his fifth goal he could say this goal was a lot harder but I was really confident. This could be an example of increased confidence by experiencing success via the goal-setting process. When Year 2 students did not achieve a goal, they repeated it the following week and then were successful. Even reactions to low attainment showed more positive than negative comments catch up next time ; I can try again. Feedback Whilst feedback can lead to adjustments of the level and direction of effort or of performance strategies to match those needed to achieve the goal, this study does not fully determine the argument that without feedback, no clear judgment of progress is possible. Several participants mentioned that they had already determined new goals before reading the feedback. One commented that whatever the feedback, he would not change the goal he had already decided upon, supporting the contention that autonomous learners consciously monitor their own performance rather than relying on teachers feedback (Cotterall, 1995). Conclusion The answer to the research question Does personal goal-setting have a positive effect on autonomy in language learning? is that whilst the statistical analysis of the data collected from the students showed no significant difference between the goal and non-goal groups, the qualitative analysis suggested that a number of students experienced increased autonomy and, on the whole, goal-setting was evaluated positively. Goal-setting was identified as a useful strategy for learning Japanese, although this may not be evident if there is a mismatch between goal-setting and other preferred learning strategies. A number of students also reported an increase in their level of self-efficacy (self-confidence) through goal setting. As a final comment, the short duration and the small number of participants involved in this study are seen as major limitations to its validity. Although no statistical evidence was found to correlate personal goal-setting and autonomy in the language-learning context, the qualitative analysis gave a clear indication that a relationship may indeed exist. A study conducted over a longer period of time and with a greater, more statistically significant number of participants would be required to obtain a more definitive answer to the research question.

References Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy The exercise of control. New York W.H. Freeman and Company. Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. London, England Longman. Candy, P. C. (1988). On the attainment of subject-matter autonomy. In D. Boud (Ed.), Developing students autonomy in learning (pp.59-76). London, England Kogan Page. Cotterall, S. (1995). Readiness for autonomy Investigating learner beliefs. System, 23(2), 195-205. Cotterall, S. (1999). Key variables in language learning What do learners believe about them? System, 27(4), 493-513. Cotterall, S., & Crabbe, D. (Eds.). (1999). Learner autonomy in language learning Defining the field and effecting change. Frankfurt am Maim Peter Lang. Crabbe, D. (1999). Defining the field Introduction. In S. Cotterall & D. Crabbe, Learner autonomy in language learning Defining the field and effecting change (pp. 3-9). Frankfurt am Maim Peter Lang. Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-instruction in language learning. Cambridge, England Cambridge University Press. Dickinson, L. (1992). Learner autonomy 2 Learner training for language learning. Dublin, Ireland Authentik. Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge, England Cambridge Language Teaching Library. Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research Construction, administration, and processing. USA Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hatano, G. (1980). Jikogakushuunouryoku o sodateru. Tokyo Tokyo University Press. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in foreign language learning. Oxford, England Pergamon. Horwitz, E. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. The Modern Language Journal, 72, 283-294. Littlewood, W. T. (1998). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 71-94. Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal-setting and task performance 1967-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 125-152. Mizutani, S. (2001) An investigation of the effects of goal-setting on language learning motivation. Unpublished master s thesis, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. Nam, C., & Oxford, R. (1998). Portrait of a future teacher Case study of learning styles, strategies, and language disabilities. System, 26, 51-63. O Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1983). A review of the literature on learning strategies in the acquisition of English as a second language The potential for research applications. Rosslyn, VA InterAmerica Research Associates. Oxford, R., & Lavine, R. (1992). Teacher-Student style wars in the language classroom Research insights and suggestions. ADFL Bulletin, 23(2), 38-45. Oxford, R., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation Expanding the theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 12-28. Pennycook, A. (1997). Cultural alternatives and autonomy. In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language Learning (pp. 35-53). London, England Longman. Pintrich P., & Schunk, D. (1996). Motivation in education Theory, research, and applications. NJ Merrill Prentice Hall. Saito, S., & Tanaka, N. (1999). Gakushuu sutoratejii wa gakushuusha o shiawase nisuruka. In S. Miyazaki & J. V. Neustupny (Eds.), Nihongo kyooiku and nihongo gakushuu (pp. 161-181). Japan Kuroshio Shuppan. Scharle. A., & Szabó, A. (2000). Learner autonomy A guide to developing learner responsibility. Cambridge, England Cambridge University Press. Sheerin, S. (1997). An exploration of the relationship between self-access and independent learning. In P. Benson. & P. Voller. (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 54-65). Essex, England Addison Wesley Longman.

Simmons, D. (1996). A study of strategy use in independent learners. In R. Pemberton, E. Li, W. Or & H. Pierson. (Eds.), Taking control Autonomy in language learning (pp. 61-75). Hong Kong, China Hong Kong University Press. Spratt, M., Humphreys, G., & Chan, V. (2002). Autonomy and motivation Which comes first? Language Teaching Research, 6(3), 245-266. Takamizawa, H. (1989). Atarashi gaikokugo kyoojyuhoo to Nihongo Kyooiku. Tokyo Aruku. Tremblay, P., & Gardner (1995). Expanding the motivation construct in language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 505-518. Tyacke, M. (1991). Strategies for success Bringing out the best in a learner. TESL Canada Journal / Revue TESL du Canada, 2, 45-56. Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. London Prentice Hall. Wenden, A., & Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies in language learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hall. Willing, K. (1989). Teaching how to learn. Sydney National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research. Yang, N. D. (1998). Exploring a new role for teachers Promoting learner autonomy. System, 26, 127-135.

Appendix A Questionnaires 1 & 2, Part 1 Teacher s responsibility 1 correct all mistakes. 2 tell me what I have to do to learn Japanese effectively. 3 tell me what exercises to do. 4 be present during speaking activities in pairs or groups. 5 give us lots of homework 6 my learning. 7 tell me my strengths and weaknesses in my learning. 8 expertise to make the right decisions about my learning. 9 make me work hard. 10 set objectives for my learning. 11 tell me what books to read. 12 explain everything to me. 13. decide what Japanese I learn outside the classroom. 14 keep me interested in learning Japanese. 15 evaluate my progress in my learning. Teacher s rate Student s rate Total = 100% ( %) ( %) Your response find my own mistakes wherever possible. find out for myself what I have to do to learn Japanese effectively. choose for myself what exercises to do. do speaking activities in pairs or groups even without the teacher. study Japanese outside the classroom without being told to do so. my own learning. identify my own strengths and weaknesses in my learning. make decisions about my own learning. study hard. set goals for myself. choose for myself what books to read. work on finding out the answer to problems wherever possible. decide what Japanese I learn outside the classroom. staying motivated to learn Japanese. evaluate my progress in my learning.

16 select materials for me to use in my learning. 17 explain what to learn and how to learn it. 18 teach us the strategies we need to be effective learners. 19 give us resources from outside the classroom. 20 control all aspects of my learning. 21 should tell me how well I ve learned. 22 answer every question. 23 decide what I should learn next. 24 decide on use of resources for pair or group work. identify what materials to use in my learning. make decisions about what to learn and how to learn it. developing my own effective learning strategies. seek other resources from outside the classroom. be in charge of my learning. know myself, how well I ve been learning. find answers to my questions myself, wherever possible. make decisions about what I next need to do and experience. choose the best use of resources for pair or group work.

T. Koda-Dallow & M. Hobbs 1 Appendix B Questionnaire 2, Part 2 SD Strongly disagree D Disagree N Neither agree nor disagree A Agree SA Strongly agree Goal setting S D N A SA 1. was useful for learning Japanese. 1 2 3 4 5 2. was enjoyable. 1 2 3 4 5 3. gave me confidence in achieving. 1 2 3 4 5 4. demotivated me. 1 2 3 4 5 5. helped me focus. 1 2 3 4 5 6. made me study harder. 1 2 3 4 5 7. made me more disciplined about my study. 1 2 3 4 5 8. gave me lots of stress. 1 2 3 4 5 9. Feedback assisted me in setting new goals. 1 2 3 4 5 10. 10. I feel proud of myself when I get feedback indicating that I have reached my goals. 1 2 3 4 5 11. I will use goal setting in my studies now or at some time in the future again. 1 2 3 4 5 (b) What are the positive aspects of goal-setting? (c) What are the negative aspects of goal-setting? (d) Any comments about goal-setting ISSN 1176-7480 Manukau Institute of Technology, Auckland, September 2005

T. Koda-Dallow & M. Hobbs 2 Table 1 Participants Perceptions of Their Own Responsibilities Year 1 (N = 15) Goal (N = 8) Non-goal (N = 7) M SD M SD PRE 43.31 7.83 55.63 4.76 POST 48.54 21.40 51.28 8.11 Year 2 (N = 10) Goal (N = 6) Non-goal (N = 4) M SD M SD PRE 47.78 5.86 44.48 10.13 POST 48.85 9.10 45.31 8.87 Note. M = group mean percentage rating; SD = standard deviation (%) ISSN 1176-7480 Manukau Institute of Technology, Auckland, September 2005

T. Koda-Dallow & M. Hobbs 3 Table 2 Independent Samples T Test Between the Two Groups in Each Year N Gain mean (%) SD t df Sig. (2-tailed) Year 1 Goal 8 5.23 17.77 Non-goal 7-4.72 8.07 Year 2 Goal 6 1.08 7.55 Non-goal 4 0.83 8.46 1.309 13 0.213 0.048 8 0.963 ISSN 1176-7480 Manukau Institute of Technology, Auckland, September 2005

T. Koda-Dallow & M. Hobbs 4 Table 3 Summary of Students Written Reports Year 1 (N = 8) Frequency Year 2 (N = 6) Frequency Positive aspects of goal-setting Focus on study 2 Focus on study 1 Motivated me to study 2 Makes me study hard 2 Discipline 2 Discipline 1 Helps me organize my study 2 Helps me organize my study 1 More self-control 1 Identifies the goal, making it more achievable 1 Knowing what you have achieved 1 Helps me to evaluate my learning process 1 Negative aspects of goal-setting Some degree of stress 3 Some degree of stress 2 More to think about 1 Responsibility 1 Short term goal-setting 2 Obligation 2 No negative aspects 2 Lost confidence when not achieving my goal 1 ISSN 1176-7480 Manukau Institute of Technology, Auckland, September 2005