ERIC ED053816: The Use of Individual Goal-Setting Conferences as a Motivational Technique.

DOCOHEHT RESOHE

ED 053 816

PS 004 929

AUTHOR

TITLE

PUB DATE
NOTE

Gaa^ John P,

The Use of Individual Goal-Setting Conferences as a
Motivational Technique.

[70]

13p.

EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29

DESCRIPTORS ♦Achievement, Attitudes, Classroom Research,

♦Conferences, Elementary School Students, ♦Goal
Orientation, ♦Motivation

ABSTRACT

This study examined the effect of goal-setting on
the achievement and attitudes of 108 boys and girls from grades 1-4.
Pupils in Group I participated in four goal-setting conferences with
the experimenter. Pupils in Group II also had conferences but class
study topics were discussed and students did not set goals. Group III
was a control group receiving only classroom instruction in reading
skills. Two attitude measures were administered to all pupils along
with an experimenter-developed and a cr iterion- referenced achievement
test. The experimental design was a 3x3x2 randomized block design
with three treatments, three levels of previous achievement, and two
sexes. Findings indicate that the use of an individual goal-setting
conference can improve the classroom motivation of pupils. The
confounding of other factors makes present findings tentative.
Suggestions for future research include beginning with a more precise
delineation of the attributes of goal-setting. (HI)

PS 004929

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.

* EDUCATION & WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO-
OUCEO EXACTLY AS REUEIVEO FROM
THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG-
INATING IT. POINT? OF VIEW OR OPIN-
IONS STATEO DC NOT NECESSARILY
REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EOU-
CATION POSITION OH POLICY.

The Use of Individual Goal-Setting Conferences

r— H

CO

tn

o

o

UJ

as a Motivational Technique
John P. Gaa

University of North Carolina

Although experimental evidence relating to goal-setting, and to a lesser
extent motivation in general, has traditionally been obtained in laboratory
settings employing tsks not typically found in the classroom, increasing em-
phasis is being placed on exploring and defining procedures for academic mo-
tivation. Recent studies at the Wisconsin Research and Development Center for
Cognitive Learning (Kennedy, 19&0; Klausmeier, Quilling, and Wardrop, 1968;
Lamal, 1969; Schevenn, Sorenson and Bavry, 1970) have identified motivational
techniques which may be used in classroom settings, and have contributed to the
development and validation of a system of individually guided motivation (Klaus-
raeier, Schwenn and Lamal 1970). The present studies were conducted in conjunc-
tion with the cej.iter and were designed to investigate the effect of goal-setting
on attitudes and achievement and to further elineate the attributes of goal-
setting. The procedures investigated in this study might weM be integrated
into the motivation system as a means for allowing studen.ts to set and attain
goals and as a situation in which feedback may easily be provided.

There can be no doubt that the setting of performance goals is a potent
variable. For example, Armstrong (1947), Lockette (1956), Kausler (1969), and
Fryer (1964) have conducted research relating goal-setting performance. Each
investigator employed a different experimental task and age group, yet the same
general conclusion was reached in each case; subjects tidio predict future per-
formance scores and set goals attain a higher level of performance than that

2

attained by those who do not set performance goals.

Traditionally, knowledge of results and goal setting have been viewed as
related but essentially separiite processes. Several recent studies have in-
dicated, however, that the primary use of knowledge of results may be in its
use in shaping a student's intentions in terms of performance. Locke, in a
pair of studies (Locke & Bryan, 1966b; Locke, 1967) obtained results indicating
that automatic improvement in performance is not obtained by giving a subject
knowledge of his total score, but rather, is dependent upon how the knowledge
of results is employed in setting future goals. The emphasis is placed on the
role that knowledge of results plays in goal setting rather than on any intrinsic
value of supplying knowledge of results. On this basis, knowledge of results is
not treated as a separate independent variable in this study, but rather is
treated as a component part of the goal-setting process itself.

In developing the goal-setting procedure used in the study, three other

I.

important questions were considered: student- versus teacher-set goals, goal

specificity, and goal difficulty. Studies (Bayton, 1940; Locke, 1966a) have
indicated that student-set goals are superior to teacher-set goals. However, in
an ongoing classroom situation the student may not be able to set appropriate
goals because he is not acquainted with the subject matter to be studied.

Because of this, appropriate goals were listed for the students and they then
chose their own goals from the listing.

Classroom goal:^ have usually been framed in terms of a "do your best" type
of statement by the teacher i^ithout specifying performance objectives. However,
several studies (Bayton, 1948; Locke 6e Bryan, 1966a, 1967b) have indicated that
specific performance goals provide for better learning than do "do your best"
goals. Therefore, the goal-setting procedure used in the study insured that the
goals set related to specific performance objectives.

2

Experimental evidence indicates that the difficulty level of goals can
play an important role in goal setting. Locke (1966a) has shown that gods must
be relatively difficult in order for the goal-setting process to be effective.
This would seem to indicate that although goals should be student-set, there
should be some feedback concerning appropriate difficulty level.

Method

Treatment and Groups

In developing the goal-setting procedure to be used in the study the fac-
tors discussed above were taken into account. Goal-setting subjects met once
a week with the experimenter. During this session, feedback was provided on
the appropriateness of the previous week's goals in terms of their achievement
of goals for the week as rated by the classroom teacher. Following a brief
discussion of the material to be studied during the coming week the students
were asked to set performance goals. A range of possible goals was presented
to each student in the form of a goal-setting check list. This check list was
developed in conjunction with the classroom teachers and was based on their
estimation of the types of behaviors which vrould be indicative of a growing
mastery of a specific reading skill being taught. By presenting the goals in
this manner they were student- set in the sense that they were "student chosen,"
while at the same time were both specific and appropriate to the reading skill.
Students in the goal-setting treatment group received four such conferences
during the study.

Schwenn, Sorenson, and Bavry (1970) demonstrated a positive effect of
individual reading conferences on the amount of independent reading of elemen-
tary school children. In the present study, this type of social interaction is
present as an implicit part of the goal-setting conferences. This would present

4

\

a problem in interpreting positive results since it would be unclear whether
the treatment effect was due to the goal-setting procedures or simply the re-
sult of the individual conference per se .. To allow for a clearer interpretation
of the data and to judge the effect of the conference alone in this type of pro-
cedure, a second treatment group was established. The conference group received
individual conferences with the experimenter on the same schedule as the goal-
setting treatment group. The conferences differed, however, in that students
did not set specific performance goals. During the conference the topics which
would be studies in class were briefly discussed and general class goals were
pointed out by the experimenter.

The third group in the study X7as a control group. This group received the
same classroom instruction as the other two groups, but received no conferences
of any kind.

Subjects

Subjects were students in Units B and D of an elementary school x^hich is
organized following the Ifeilti-Unit concept. Students in Unit D would normally
be in the third and fourth grades, while students in Unit B would normally be
in the first and second grades. Fifty-four students participated within each
unit with the sexes equally represented.

Within each unit students who had not previously meastered the reading skill
to be studied were divided by sex- and then blocked on the basis of previous
reading skill achievement into three reading achievement groups. In the Multi-
Unit framework, students are not restricted to a single classroom, but are
grouped by ability and competence for the various classes so that students may
have different teachers and classmates throughout the day. With this type of
organization in use, students could be assigned to the three treatment groups
on the basis of a stratified random assignment procedure across classrooms.

O

ERIC

4

PS 004929

5

Students were then assigned to reading-skill teachers using a stratified random
assignment procedure such that each teacher had one student from each of the
cells in the experimental design^ Teachers were not told which treatment groups
students were assigned to.

Evaluation Procedures

Evaluation procedures were divided into two parts which reflected the
questions asked in the study. The first general question to be answered con-
cerned the effect of the goal-setting procedure on the attitudes and achieve-
ment levels of the students. T\4o attitude measures were administered to all
subjects: the first was a measure of general reading attitude and the second

was a measure of attitude toward the specific reading skill being studied. In
each of the Unit levels both experimenter-developed and criterion-referenced
achievement tests were given. The criterion-referenced tests were developed
by reading and measurement experts of the Wisconsin Research and Development
Center for Cognitive Learning and dealt with the specific skills studied during
the experimental period.

The second of the tV7o general questions the study seeks to answer is more
theoretical in that it attempts to describe more accurately the goal-setting
process. The question relates to the effects of practice in goal-setting on
the number and accuracy of goals set and on the degree of confidence that sub-
jects show in attaining them. Following the administration of the attitude and
achievement measures, all students in the three treatment groups participated in
an individual goal-setting conference. The results of this conference, along
with teacher ratings, were used to compare the effect of the treatments on the
goal-setting behavior of the groups.

Experimental Design

The experimental design was a 3x3x2 randomized block design with three

O

ERIC

5

6

\

treatments, three levels of previous achievement, and two sexes. The design
was replicated at the two unit levels (B and D) .

Separate multivariate analyses of variance were conducted incorporating
appropriate subsets of the following dependent measures: (a) scores on the

reading attitude inventory, (b) scores on the skill attitude inventory, (c) scores
on the experimenter-developed achievement tests, (d) scores on the appropriate
subtests of the criterion-referenced achievement test, (e) the number of goals
set, (f) the accuracy of the goals set (the absolute value of the difference
between the number of goals set and the number of goals achieved) and (g) the
score for confidence in achieving the goals set.

Results and Discussion

For convenience in consideration of the results of the two parolled studies
conducted; the treatment effect found in both units will be considered at the
same time in relation to each variable.

Attitude Measures

In neither Unit D nor Unit B was there a difference in attitude as a func-
tion of treatment. No significant differences were found between the goal-
setting and non-goal-setting groups or between the conference and control
groups. Because of the relatively short term nature of the study however, the
failure to find differences in attitude toward reading in general is not sur-
prising; the likelihood of changing long standing attitudes in a short period
of time is small. There xvas also no difference between treatment groups in their
attitudes toward the reading skills class. On an intuitive level, one would
expect the goal-setting group to haae a more positive attitude toward the class
due to generally higher achievement and more individual attention. As Bayfield
and Crockett (1955) and Locke (1965) have poirlted out, however, attitude and

O

ERIC

6

4

7

performance are not necessarily correlated. Perhaps the only possible explana-
tion which can be proposed to explain the lack of differences in attitude toward
the reading skills class is to point out that the average attitude score for
all students was extremely high, thereby effectively producing a ceiling effect
and eliminating any chance of discriminating among groups.

Achievement Measures

Within Unit D no significant differences V7ere found in achievement on
either the experimenter - developed achievement test or the criterior referenced
test. After examining these results in Unit D, it was decided to place more
emphasis during the goal setting conference on providing feedback relating to the
students ability to handle the specific reading skills. With the change in
emphasis, goal-setting students in Unit B showed significantly higher achieve-
ment on the criterion-referenced achievement tests and, although the differences
were not statistically significant, attained a higher level of achievement on
the experimenter-developed tests as X'/ell. In neither Unit were there any
differences between the conference and control groups. This finding is of
extreme importance because it indicates that the higher achievement of the goal-
setting group can be attributed to the goal-setting procedures per se rather
than to a general "conference effect."

Insert Table 1 about here

Goal-Setting Behavior

There can be little question of the effect of the goal-setting procedures
on the ability of students to set more realistic goals. In both Unit D and
Unit B behavior of the goal-se'-tting group differed at the .01 level of signif-
icance from that displayed by the conference and control groups. No differences

were found in the conference versus control comparisons. Again, the differen-
tial effect found in the goal-setting versus non-goal-setting comparisons must
be attributed to the goal-setting procedures employed rather than to a general
"conference effect."

In both Units, the goal-setting group set fewer goals than the other groups.
This is interpreted as representing a more realistic statement of goals. This
type of interpretation is supported by the fact that the goal-setting groups
showed smaller differences between the number of goals set and the number of
goals attained. In other words, the goals were more accurate and more realistic.
This seems to support the findings of Porat and Haas (1969) that more information
(feedback in this case) results in more accurate levels of goal setting and
decision making.

The consistency of goal-setting behavior between Units is also apparent in
the confidence levels displayed by the treatment groups. In both Units, the
goal-setting group had lower confidence scores than did the non-goal-setting
groups. The "lower scores" are again interpreted as reflecting more realistic
appraisals by the students of their chances for success. It would seem that
a greater percentage of goal-setting students realize that they would probably
require help in learning and mastering the reading skills and that they might
not be able to achieve all of the goals which they had set.

Insert Table 2 about here

Insert Table 3 about here

9

The present study demonstrated that the use of an individual goal-setting
conference can improve the classroom achievement of students and investigated
the effects of the procedure on goal-setting behavior.

Clearly, the significant differences found betv^een treatment groups in
relation to their goal-setting behavior are attributable to the effect of the
goal-setting conferences, since conferences by themselves (without goal-setting)
showed no effect on goal-setting relative to the control. In neither Unit
were there differences as a function of sex, previous achievement level, or sex
by previous achievement level; the only differences were as a function of treat-
ment. Goal-setting ^s on the average set fewer goals, had a smaller absolute
difference between number of goals set and number of goals achieved, and had a
lower confidence score in their ability to achieve the goals they had set.

This last finding can be partially explained by the fact that non-goal-setting
^s tended to show extremely high confidence in their ability to attain their
goals .

The findings regarding the effect of individual goal-setting conferences
on achievement are less clear cut. In the first Unit studies (Unit D) nc sig-
nificant differences were found, while in the second Unit (Unit B) , significant
differences did appear. The fact that students received more feedback in rela-
tion to skill attainment in Unit B conferences may explain this difference.^

If this is the case, implementation of the procedure with classroom teachers
giving the conferences should produce larger differences in that more accurate
feedback could then be provided. Another factor which might help increase the
goal-setting conference effect would be daily teacher reminders in class to

Hov;ever, other factors such as age. Unit level, skill studied, etc. might
also be considered in accounting for the differences in Unit B. Since all of
these factors were unavoidably confounded in the present study, this change can-
not be attributed to a single variable.

ERIC

9

10

concentrate on the goals set for the week. This was not done in this study
because ^s from all treatment conditions were present in each classroom in an
attempt to minimize teacher bias. It would seem that in normal classroom use
that these considerations wuld probably combine to increase the effects found
in the present study. This is an empirical question however, which should
be studied before final recommendations are given regarding the goal-setting
procedures^

In this study the effects of the goal-setting process on achievement, at-
titudes, and goal-setting behavior were examined, but no attempt was made to
fully evaluate the procedure. Besides the possible teacher influences mentioned
above, factors such as cost, feasibility, inservice training needed and time
must be investigated.

In future studies the target population should also be varied. As Katz
(1967) has pointed out, age, socio-economic status, and race affect the ability
to effectively use performance feedback. Because feedback is an important part
of the individual goal-setting process, these variables should be systematically
iitvesti gated.

The significance of this study lies in the establishment of goal-setting
procedures which affect ongoing classroom achievement and in the more precise
delineation of the attributes of goal-setting per se . The attributes of goal-
setting which have been studied will contribute to the general knowledge of goal-
setting in both school and non-school situations. The goal-setting procedures
must now be more fully evaluated in everyday classroom use, but tentatively
provide the teacher with an important motivational technique to improve student
achi^£:vement .

10

Significant at the .05 level

K

H

H

c/3

H

, n

r|

ri

fD

ri

H

H fD

fD

O

O fD

O fi>

n

03

<

03

O O 03

(D

n> rr

H*

<

< rr

p P rr

O O 0)

n

O 03 B

Q

CO

CO B

hh h-» 0

rr

rr n>

C

•

• fD

fD 1 fD

^ ^ 0

<

< 0 P

CO

. .P

ri c/3 P

CO CQ n>

CO

CO n) rr

n a rr

fD fD rr

• • P

•

• P

>

P rr

.rr cr

O

cr

O rr

olol

no ^

P“

fD H*

O-

H*

P

^ >

fD

CO

^OQ

^ o

<

fD

n

>

> P“

fD

o

O H*

0

o

cr

P* fD

fD

<

H*

H' <

P

CO

(D

fD fD

rr

• <

<

< 0

CO

(D

0

fD fD

0 P

n •

o ^

<D

fD rr

<

P 21

P

P

fD

rr o

CO

rr

rr

h-*

ri p

o

^ CL

® JL

h-» o

W

r|

H* cr

H*

o

O

rr

rr H*

rr

fD

cr

Pr p

P*

C^ilh-*

H-

H*

S-^ 1

P

P c/3

P

CO

fD

fD

CO

rt

(D

03

fD

rr

0

h-*

H*

03

fD

P

CO

OQ

(D

CO

ol

h-*

o^ o^

o^

0^

N3

U3

U3

U3

U3 U3

Vf

Vi Vi

a

ht»

o^ o^

o^

o^

OO

U3

U3

U3

U3 U3

isi

ISO

h-*

h-»

h-»

h-* h-»

A A

A

/\

h-» h-»

h-»

h-»

h-»

h-»

h-*

ISO ISO

•

.

•

*

• •

IS3

ISO

U3

O

h-» SO

CO

Ui

Ui

^ VO

fsj

Ui

o^

OO

VO

OO

h-»

00

O O

• •

.

•

•

.

•

.

. .

ON 0^

ISO

o

ISO

U3

H- O

TO

OO

Ui

M 4>

A

4> N3

o^

CO

Ui

o

U3

h-* Ui

A

U>

4>

h-»

4>

U3

O 00

3^

o

11

Multivariate Analysis of Variance of Scores
the Levels B and C Base Words Sufatests and Level B
ound Words Subtests of the WTRSD Battery for Unit B

Significant at the .01 level

T

k

T

H

H

CO

rt

rt

CD

H CD

CD

CD O CD

o

<

P

0 O

O O fD

o

O

CD rt

H*

< < rt

P P

09

09 p

0

CO CO p

t-h

< < n*

<

<

c?

C

• • CD

CD 1

CO CO p

CO

CO

0 P

CO

p

rt CO

• • fD

•

•

CD rt

CD| 0|rt

CD CD

Cl| 0| S Cl| OlS O'

>

o

cr

p rr
o rr

p"

CD H*

.cr

cr

H*

p

V- >

CD

CO

2-

<

CD

n

>

> p"

2

^ /-s

o

O H*

P

o

P" CD

CD

<

H*

H* <

P

CO

n>

CD CD

rr

• <

<

< 0

CO

ffi

Q CD

r*

n •

B

0 P

CD

o

n>

CD rr

<

p s;

p

P ^

CD

rr o

n-

rr ^

h-*

rt P

K rt

H*

H* p-

H*

o

rr

rr H*

rr

P"

P" P

P-

n

H*

H*

H*

w* 1

P

P CO

p

CO

CD

CO

rr

2

P

CD

rr

h-*

>!

H*

p

CD

P

»-*

CO

era

n>

CO

3

h-»

o^

o^

o^ o^

DO

U9 U9

U9

U9 U9

**

w w

%» w

o^

o^

o^ o^

CO

U> U9

U9

U9 U9

4>

4>

-p-

4>

m

VD

DO DO

ro

DO DO

N

h-»

1— • h-*

>-*

l-J

l-a

DO

h-» ^

•

•

•

•

• •

U>

o

o^

DO

M 4>

Ui

U9

ON h-»

h-»

o^

U9

G^ O

4>

VO

U9

VO

00 U9

•

•

• •

•

• •

0

• •

DO

o^

U) ON

o

00 ^

o

U) o

h-»

VO CO

VO

ON 4>

VO

U9 O

00

00

^ ON

ON

4> VO

CO

^ o

o

4>

^ 00

Ui

DO VO

VO

12

Multivariate Analysis of Variance
of Goal-Setting Behavior for Unit D

H

H

CO

H

rt

rt

p

i-«

H

H fD

fD

CD O fD

CD O P

C/3

rt

ri 03

<

P

OOP

H*

fD

fD rr

H*

< < rr

P P rr

(TO

O O 03

n O

0) 0

O

p p 0

hh i-» p

P

rr

rr fD

C

• • fD

P 1 P

H*

^ ^ 0

< <

0 P

CO

,^,P

^ CO P

nt

CO 03 0)

CO CO

fD rr

OlOirt

P p rr

H*

• • p

• •

P

> ’

P rr

O

. .rr

.rr cr

o

cr

O rr

03

G

C

G

C

1 V-

P“

P H*

P

cr ^

H*

P

rr

j>

fD

CO

^ OQ

^ o

<

p

CD

03

>

> p*

fD

rr

o

O H*

0

O

p*

P“ fD

fD

<

rr

H-

H* <

P

p

nr

fD

fD fD

rr

• <

CO

(D

<

< 0

p

o

fD

fD fD

C3 •

p

•

0 P

fD

O

rt

o

fD

fD rr

<

P SJ

O

h- •

P

P _

fD

rr o

P

rr

rr

h-*

P

O 1

(D

rr

»-» O

<

H*

H* p-

H*

o

(D

rr

rr H*

rr

/^,p

nr

P“ P

P“

CD Ih-*

H*

H*

H*

1

P

P CO

p

CO

p

3!

CO

rr

Q

p

fD

rr

0

h-*

H*

D

fD

P

h-»

CO

00

fD

CO

Ol

o^ o^

<r» On

ISD

O U>

U>

U> U3

V

%*

%*

0^ <Tk

ON ON

CX)

U3 U3

U3

U3 U>

N3 ISD

ISD IS3

ISD

h-* h-*

h-»

t-» h-*

/V

A

A

A

h-* h-*

h-» h-»

h-»

h-» h-*

h-»

»-* Ui

•

•

•

ft

• 4

O

Ui

»-»

O

NO VO

U3

h-»

O

ON

NO U>

ON

O

h-»

00

VO ^

ON

CO

U> Ov

•

•

• •

•

• •

•

•

•

4>

VO h-*

U3

U3 Ui

ON

oo

o

h-»

4> 00

ON

o

h-»

o

O

00

Ui VO

o

ON

U3

Ui

NO

Ui

Ui

4> ON

NO

ON VO

NO

ON

55-

13

Multivariate Analysis of Variance
of Goal-Setting Behavior for Unit B