Running head: GOAL SETTING IN THE CLASSROOM

Goal Setting in the Classroom Michele C. Baranczyk, Christina L. Wilson*,Jazmin Colon, and Amanda Norakus Kutztown University and *Colorado State University

Author Note Michele C. Baranczyk, Amanda Norakus, and Jazmin Colon, Department of Psychology, Kutztown University; Christina Wilson, Department of Psychology, Colorado State University. Kutztown, PA 19530 Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michele Baranczyk, Department of Psychology, Kutztown University, Kutztown, PA, 19530. Email: baranczy@kutztown.edu

Running head: GOAL SETTING IN THE CLASSROOM Abstract Goal-setting was experimentally manipulated in existing introductory-level classrooms. The first study used instructor-set goals as a means to increase student performance. Few significant results were found between goal-setting condition and grade performance. In the second study, students set their own performance goals. In addition, a second condition included students setting a behavior goal of study hours each week. Results again indicated few significant differences in exam performance. However, students who set study goals reported more weekly study hours than students who did not set goals as well as students who did not participate in goal setting. This research suggests a relatively simple way for instructors in large classes to encourage students to increase their study habits, if not performance directly. Keywords: goal-setting; college teaching; classroom performance

GOAL SETTING IN THE CLASSROOM Goal Setting in the Classroom Goal-setting research has a long history in industrial-organizational (I/O) psychology (Locke & Latham, 2003). Research on goal setting has been supported in a variety of settings. Three necessary factors of goal setting exist. First, feedback that enables people to gauge their process is needed. Secondly, goal commitment, or an individuals intent to commit to the goal, exists. Finally, knowledge and ability are important to achieving a goal (Mitchell & Daniels, 2003). For example, a person with no

athletic ability cannot overcome a lack of athleticism through goal setting alone; some physical ability is a prerequisite to goal setting. With this in mind, goals should be challenging, yet attainable to the individual. Consistently, researchers have found that setting specific, measurable, challenging goals leads to higher performance when performance feedback is available (Latham & Locke, 2006). These componentsspecificity, challenge, measurement and feedbackare four of the important aspects of goal setting. Other components are also useful. One of these is the distinction between proximal and distal goals. These refer to the immediacy of the goals. Proximal goals are relatively short in time span, while distal goals are long-term goal (Manderlink & Harackiewicz, 1983). These goals may be used in conjunction with each other. For example, a person who is trying to lose weight might set a proximal goal of 2 pounds a week, and a distal goal of 25 pound total weight loss in 6 months. Often, a long-term goal can seem daunting; adding in a shorter goal (the 2 pounds per week) seems more manageable and allows the individual to better track his or her progress along the way. The process of goal setting can be externally imposed; it does not need to be set by the individual. Higher performance through the use of goal setting was found even when the goal was set for participants by someone else, such as a manager (Latham & Locke 2006; Locke & Latham 1991). In other words, goals do not need to be set by an individual in order for that individual to benefit from goal-setting. This finding has been used by managers, and it could also be applied to classroom settings.

GOAL SETTING IN THE CLASSROOM Many introductory psychology courses (as well as other introductory courses) are filled with first

semester students who may be underprepared for college courses. Perhaps setting specific, challenging but attainable goals for students may help them achieve target performance. In fact, Marrs, Sigler, and Hayes (2009) found that motivation was the most critical factor among variables including attitude, anxiety, time management, and study aids in predicting final course grade. Motivation can have a large impact on student learning and grades. Given the robust findings of goal setting, the current studies use goal setting as a framework in college classrooms to track student performance. Given the practical importance as well as the research support, the use of goal setting in a college classroom may be one way for instructors to help motivate their students to learn the material, and to achieve higher grades. Study 1 uses instructor-set goals. Study 2 uses individually set goals. In addition, the type of goal (distal-only or distal plus proximal goal) is manipulated in Study 2. Study 1 Method Participants In the fall semester of 2010, two introductory psychology courses were taught by the same instructor. One was taught at 12 PM and the second at 1 PM. Most students were first-semester freshmen, though the course also contained sophomores, juniors, and seniors. These courses were used to examine effects of stated performance goals. The overall course grade was determined by 4 in-class exams (50% overall grade), and exam score was our dependent variable. No manipulations were conducted until after the first exam. This allows a baseline period for comparison to ensure that the two classes began with the same performance level. Materials and Procedure IRB approval was obtained prior to the study. After the first exam, a coin flip determined that the earlier class would be the control, and the later class the experimental condition. The control class was taught as usual; students received feedback about their grades, the professor invited students to

GOAL SETTING IN THE CLASSROOM discuss how to perform better on exams if needed, but no specific goals were set. Rather, a do your best implication was present, and was explicitly stated before exams. Exams were very similar in content and format to previous semesters; 50 multiple choice questions were given during the 50 minute exam period. The experimental class was conducted the same as the control class, except for instruction on

performance. After the first exam, the professor announced throughout the class that if students were unhappy with their exam grades, they should be targeting at least a 70%. Study 1 Results The results of our research indicated no significant differences in exam grades between the control and experimental conditions when t-tests were conducted on each exam. One likely reason for this is that the 70% target may have been too high for some students, while being much too low for others. In addition, exam scores are a distal (long-term) goal. After finding no differences in between-group scores, we also conducted a repeated-measures ANOVA to track scores over time. A significant interaction was found between Exam 1 (baseline) and Exam 2 (first exam after goal-setting intervention), F(1, 244) = 3.96, p < .05. As Figure 1 shows, though the experimental class performed worse at baseline, they performed better on Exam 2. On the other hand, the control class showed a decrease in score from Baseline to Exam 2. No other significant interactions or differences were noted for Exams 3 or 4. In addition to t-tests, we also conducted a chi-square on final grade distribution. Though the final grade distribution was not significant (2(4)=2.52, p > .05), as an instructor, the final grades reflected more A and B grades in the experimental class than the control, and fewer F grades in the experimental than the control. Again, while these were not statistically significant, from an instructor viewpoint they may be valuable.

GOAL SETTING IN THE CLASSROOM

The few significant results of this study led us to conduct a second study to further examine goal setting within an introductory classroom. In the second study, we added another experimental condition: proximal goal-setting. Study 2 Method Sample Two introductory psychology courses were again used, both taught by the same instructor, with the second section immediately following the first. The only major change to the class structure was that five exams were assigned rather than four exams, as in Study 1. Materials and Procedure The second study expanded on the previous study, and was conducted in Spring, 2011. IRB approval was again received prior to collecting data. After the results from Study 1 indicated little change in exam score, we decided to manipulate both proximal and distal (performance and behavioral goals). The structure of the course remained the same. In both sections, the professor led students in a goal-setting session, where students were informed about goal setting, and asked to set their own goals for the next exam. A coin flip was again used to determine the control condition (section 1).The manipulation in this case was that the experimental class was also asked to set a study goal of how many hours each week they would dedicate to studying for the course. The control group was not asked this question. To collect data regarding study habits, students could opt to fill out a 1 page survey prior to each exam for an extra credit point per survey. However, exam performance could be studied for all students, regardless of whether they participated in the exam survey. This provides us with a 2 (performance only goal or performance and study goal) x 2 (participating and non-participating students) quasi-experimental design.

GOAL SETTING IN THE CLASSROOM

Between exam periods, both classes were occasionally asked to report In the past week, how many hours have you spent studying via an electronic clicker response. The response to this question was recorded for all students in class with a clicker that day. The clicker system used allowed for open ended responses, so students entered a numerical response to this query. Study 2 Results The results of exam score were similar to the first studyfew, if any significant differences appeared between the control and experimental conditions. For each 2 (distal only or proximal and distal goal) by 2 (participant or non-participant) ANOVA conducted, insignificant effects were found in each exam grade. To summarize, there was no discernible effect on exam grade based on condition. However, when data were analyzed longitudinally, a significant main effect was noted such that student participants in the experimental condition reported significantly higher study hours as compared to those in the control (F (1, 43) = 10.10, p = .003). In other words, students who had set a study hour goal did report more study hours than students who did not set a study hour goal. In an addition analysis, reported study hour data was also analyzed for students who did not participate in the exam surveys. For students who did not complete the goal-setting surveys, no differences in reported study hours were noted (see Figure 2). This supports the notion that it is not a difference in classes, where one class was more studious than the other, because of the flipped relationship. In the distal-only goal, those in the goal setting condition reported fewer study hours than the control. However, in the proximal plus distal condition, those in the goal setting condition reported more study hours than the control. Discussion The results of this research can be of use to educators seeking to help their students set goals in the classroom. The results of these studies suggest that setting a performance exam goal does not

GOAL SETTING IN THE CLASSROOM increase exam scores. However, interventions that target behavior, such as setting study hour goals, may be of benefit to students.

Exam scores are a long term goal, and students have relatively little control over the exam itself. As such, it is not surprising that a goal setting intervention aimed at exam score is ineffective. Simply saying I want to achieve a grade of 85% does not equate with the behaviors necessary to achieve that score. As Latham and Locke (2006) note, a performance-only goal may misdirect their cognitive resources to sheer effort and persistence, which proves futile for goal attainment in the absence of knowledge of how to attain it (p. 334). However, when we change the goal-setting intervention to focus on one single behavior that is likely to correlate with exam score, we begin to see an effect of goal setting: Students who set a study hour goal are more likely to report studying more. This is a first step in helping students adjust to the expectations of the college classroom. Even though students in the proximal goal-setting condition reported studying more than those not setting proximal goals, there are still no differences in exam score. In data collection, we asked students to report the methods they used to study. Though students were studying more, the majority of them still reported reviewed notes and read the textbook. These behaviors alone are unlikely to help students do well, as most of the exam questions required application. Given these results, one might think that only setting proximal goals would be a solution. However, previous research has found that setting only proximal goals did not increase intrinsic motivation in students, while setting distal goals did increase intrinsic motivation in children (Manderlink & Harackiewicz, 1983). In other words, the distal goal can actually encourage an internal desire to learn and understand, rather than a sole focus on the external motivators of grades. For this reason, a combination of both proximal and distal goals is likely to show the strongest effects in both behavior change and intrinsic motivation. Limitations

GOAL SETTING IN THE CLASSROOM

This study does have limitations, the first being the nature of self-report data. Because the data was self-report, students may have misrepresented their study hours. The instructor of the course emphasized that this data was for the purpose of research only, and would not factor into grades to limit over-reporting of study hours. Additionally, the median reported study hours were 2 hours (Time 1 and Time 4) and 3 hours (Times 2, 4, and 5) for that week. Given these numbers, it appears as though students across the board were not inflating these responses. Secondly, study hour data was intended to be collected every week on Monday using the students clickers. However, due to exam days, clicker malfunction, or snow days and holidays, only 5 weekly data points were able to be recorded. Thus, reported study hour data was not collected throughout the entire semester, but rather a sample throughout the semester. Finally, as a last limitation, grades are not a perfect indicator of learning. Because all exams were multiple-choice in format, we have a limited view of both grades and learning. Short-answer and essay questions were not feasible given the practical constraints of the course, so the current data only includes the multiple-choice exam grades as an indicator of learning. Contributions Despite the limitations, this study does pose significant contributions. First, the study is a field study in an applied setting. The changes to the course were relatively simple and to employ, so that other instructors may also be able to use this in their courses. As a part of the field study, we were also able to employ a quasi-experimental design. A between-class design was used, but within each class, a control (those not participating in surveys) and experimental (those choosing to participate) condition was used. This allowed for a strong quasi-experimental design. The experimental conditions in each class should control for motivation; the students who are motivated by extra credit or a desire to improve scores would have chosen to participate, allowing a comparison between comparably-motivated groups. And, these experimental groups could still be compared to the control (non-participant) group.

GOAL SETTING IN THE CLASSROOM Because the instructor was able to use her classes, large sample sizes were available. In

10

addition, the data was gathered longitudinally throughout the semester, which allowed for the study of semester-long study and score patterns. In addition, these findings also leave us with many additional variables to continue to examine. Of particular interest is a further inquiry of specific study methods used by students. A second area of interest is to examine what students understand the term goal to mean. Based on a perusal of goals set, many students set very high goals (90% or above) when their previous exam scores were in the D range. It may be that some students are perceiving a goal to be more of a wish than a challenging, realistic outcome. Finally, perhaps one more variable to manipulate is to change the focus from grades to understanding concepts. This may be a difficult persuasion, as many students can be focused on grades rather than the learning behind it, but it may be a valuable area of study. Summary The current study suggests that setting behavioral goals can lead to increased behaviors. In addition, relatively little intervention was needed on the part of the instructor. This, I believe, is a key point. Just a few minutes of class time, throughout the semester, requiring students to reflect on study time may be one way to encourage students to study throughout the semester, rather than merely before the exam. While this type of intervention may be much easier to implement in smaller class sizes, the impact of the current study suggests a relatively simple way to begin incorporating this into large class sizes of over one hundred students.

GOAL SETTING IN THE CLASSROOM

11

References Conti, R. (2001). College goals: Do self-determined and carefully considered goals predict intrinsic motivation, academic performance, and adjustment during the first semester? Social Psychology of Education, 4, 189-211. Latham, G.P., & Locke, E.A. (1979). Goal Setting A Motivational Technique That Works. Organizational Dynamics, 8(2), 68-80. Latham, G.P., & Locke, E.A. (2006). Enhancing the benefits and overcoming the pitfalls of goal setting. Organizational Dynamics, 35 (4), 332-340. Marrs, H., Sigler, E., & Hayes, K. (2009). Study strategy predictors of performance in introductory psychology. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36(2), 125-133. Manderlink, G., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (1984). Proximal versus distal goal setting and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47 (4), 918-928. Mitchell T.R., & Daniels, D. (2003). Motivation. In W. Borman, D. Ilgen, & R. Klimoski (Eds). Handbook of Psychology, vol. 12: Industrial/Organizational Psychology (pp. 225- 254). New York: Wiley.

GOAL SETTING IN THE CLASSROOM

12

Average Exam Score by Class

80.00 78.00 76.00 74.00 Percent 72.00 70.00 68.00 66.00 64.00 62.00 60.00
Exam 1 Exam 2 Exam Exam 3 Exam 4 Control Goal Setting

Figure 1. Data from Study 1, indicating a significant interaction between Exam 1 (baseline) and Exam 2. No significant differences existed for Exams 3 or 4.

GOAL SETTING IN THE CLASSROOM

13

Participants
6 Average Study Hours Reported 5 4 3 2 1 0 Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Control Experimental

Non-Participants
Average Study Hours Reported 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Control Experimental

Figure 2. Interaction of Reported Study Hours between Conditions.