Research shows that students have better learning outcomes and higher self-efficacy when they use “goal-setting” . These two outcomes seem to be related. As students achieve goals, their self-efficacy increases. They then increase the effort they put towards harder goals, which increases the likelihood of achieving those goals. This then further increases self-efficacy .
Incorporating goal setting into instruction creates a forward feedback loop of motivation and learning.
How to use Goal Setting in Instruction
When incorporating goal setting into instruction, it is important to find the right balance of difficulty, customized to the learner’s current ability level. Goals should be hard, but achievable . People who set harder goals tend to have better performance , but failing to achieve a set goal can negatively impact self-efficacy, which decreases effort put towards future goals . Combining a mix of proximal and distal goals may be an effective way to strike this balance . A harder, distal goal can be broken up into smaller, more achievable goals. As students experience the small successes along the way, their confidence that they can achieve the larger, further goal increases.
Goal Setting in the OpenStax Algebra 1 Curriculum
We have incorporated a series of “Student Self Assessments” for every unit (within each lesson) in the OpenStax Algebra 1 curriculum. Each lesson contains a list of proximal goals for student understanding. Students can indicate how confident they feel about each of the skills they should have acquired in that unit, and indicate that they need additional support if they don’t feel highly confident in their mastery of the skills. This activity incorporates aspects of both goal setting and metacognitive awareness, another useful process for improving learning outcomes .
References
(1) Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating Competence, Self-Efficacy, and Intrinsic Interest Through Proximal Self-Motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(3).
(2) Elliott & Harackiewicz (1994). Goal setting, achievement orientation, and intrinsic motivation: a mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (5).
(3) Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New Directions in Goal-Setting Theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00449.x.
(4) Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705.
(5) Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal Setting and Self-Efficacy During Self-Regulated Learning. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2501_6.
(6) Tosi, H. L., Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1991). A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. The Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 480. https://doi.org/10.2307/258875.
(7) Flavel (1979). Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring. AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST.
(8) Guo, L. (2022). Using metacognitive prompts to enhance self‐regulated learning and learning outcomes: A meta‐analysis of experimental studies in computer‐based learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(3), 811–832. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12650.