Goal orientation

Goal orientation is a "disposition toward developing or demonstrating ability in achievement situations".^[1] Previous research has examined goal orientation as a motivation variable useful for recruitment, climate and culture, performance appraisal, and selection.^[2] Studies have also used goal orientation to predict sales performance, goal setting, learning and adaptive behaviors in training, and leadership.^[2] Due to the many theoretical and practical applications of goal orientation, it is important to understand the construct and how it relates to other variables. In this entry, goal orientation will be reviewed in terms of its history, stability, dimensionality, antecedents, its relationship to goal setting and consequences, its relevance to motivation, and future directions for research.

Historical perspective

Early conceptualizations

The earliest conceptualizations of goal orientation were proposed in the 1970s by the educational psychologist J.A. Eison. Eison ^[3] argued that students who approached college as an opportunity to acquire new skills and knowledge possessed a learning orientation while students who approached college with the goal to exclusively obtain high grades possessed a grade orientation. Eison originally believed that these two orientations were two ends of the same continuum and developed the Learning Orientation-Grade Orientation Scale to measure the continuum. At about the same time, J.G. Nicholls ^[4][5][6] was developing a related theory that achievement motivation would lead grade school children to set high task related goals. Nicholls ^[4] found that when some high-ability children encountered difficult tasks, they would use maladaptive strategies, leading to eventual feelings of helplessness, while others would use more productive coping strategies. Nicholls later conceptualized these differences as two types of achievement goals: (a) task involvement: where individuals seek to develop their competence relative to their own abilities and (b) ego involvement: where individuals seek to develop their competence relative to the abilities of others.^[4] Nicholls's early work set up Dweck's^[7] proposition of two types of goal orientation: learning orientation and performance orientation.

Dweck postulated that children with learning goals were believed to approach situations with the goal to master the acquisition of new skills, while children with performance goals were believed to approach situations with the goal of gaining approval from peers and teachers. Similar to Eison, Dweck ^[7] conceptualized goal orientation as a two-dimension construct. Individuals with a learning goal orientation (sometimes referred to as mastery goal orientation or abbreviated as LGO), seek to develop their competence by acquiring new skills and mastering new situations. They are not concerned about their performance relative to others, but rather with furthering their understanding of a given topic or task.^[8] Individuals with a performance goal orientation seek to demonstrate and validate the adequacy of their competence in order to receive favorable judgments and avoid negative judgments. Although Dweck's work in this area built on the foundation laid by Nicholls, the fundamental difference between the two scholars' works was the attribution of an individual's goal orientation. Nicholls believed that the goal orientation held by an individual was a result of the possession of either an internal or external referent, while Dweck considered the adoption of a particular goal orientation to be related to the theory of intelligence held by that individual.

Subsequent work by Eison and colleagues in 1982, led to a change in the conceptualization of these orientations from two ends of a continuum to two separate constructs.^[9] More recently, researchers have embraced the idea that individuals can adopt the two orientation style simultaneously: persons can be high in both learning and performance orientations, low in both learning and performance orientations, or high in one orientation and low in the other. Ultimately, individuals can entertain multiple competing goal orientations at the same time, striving to both outperform competitors and improve their own performance. This led to the conceptualization of two separate continuums, one for learning goal orientation and one for performance goal orientation.^[10]

Recent conceptualizations

Just over a decade after Dweck conceptualized the two-factor model of goal orientation, VandeWalle ^[1] proposed that goal orientation is better conceptualized as a three-factor model, further dividing performance goal orientation into the dimensions of avoidant performance goal orientation (APGO) and prove performance goal orientation (PPGO). APGO is centered on the goal of avoiding failure and negative judgment from others centered on lack of competence while PPGO is centered on demonstrating performance to prove competence. Learning goal orientation has also been separated into two categories learning approach orientation and learning avoid orientation,^[11] however, this conceptualization is neither widely accepted nor substantially proven. According to VandeWalle, Cron & Slocum,^[12] APGO and PPGO have differing relationships with various outcome variables, supporting the argument that a three-factor model should be used in place of the originally conceptualized two-factor model.

State versus trait

There has been great debate if goal orientation should be operationalized as a state or as a trait. Throughout the goal orientation literature, there are inconsistencies with regard to the conceptualization of the stability of the construct. For example, DeShon & Gillespie ^[13] stated that in the literature, goal orientation has been conceptualized as a trait, quasi-trait, and state. They articulated that whether researchers conceptualize goal orientation as a trait or a state "depends on the breadth of the inference that the researcher is attempting to support" (p. 1115 ^[13]). State goal orientation refers to the goal one has in a particular situation. It is similar to trait goal orientation in that it represents one's preference in an achievement situation. However, state goal orientation is "specific to the task and context at hand" (p. 5 ^[14]). For example, VandeWalle, Cron & Slocum ^[12] stated that goal orientation can be domain specific. They stated that it is possible for an individual to have a strong learning goal orientation in their academic domain but not in their work domain. Trait goal orientation refers to the "consistent pattern of responses in achievement situations based on the individual's standing on goal orientation dimensions".^[15] This view of goal orientation treats the construct as a stable, individual difference characteristic. Button, Mathieu, & Zajac ^[16] take an integrative view of the construct, stating that goal orientation is best categorized as a relatively stable individual difference variable that can be influenced by situational and contextual characteristics. These authors found that when few situational cues are present, individuals will adopt their dispositional goal orientations. However, when "dispositional goal orientations predispose individuals to adopt particular response patterns across situations, situational characteristics may cause them to adopt a different or less acute response pattern for a specific situation (p. 40 ^[16]). Thus, trait and state goal orientation interact, so both operationalizations should be considered simultaneously.^[2]

Types

Since the realization that performance goal orientation is best split into two separate parts, researchers have conducted validation studies to demonstrate the statistical and conceptual distinction of these three dimensions to goal orientation. Conceptual and empirical work by Elliot and Church ^[17] and VandeWalle ^[1] demonstrated that the factor structure of Goal Orientation does indeed lend itself to three distinct dimensions, as summarized below. An explanation of the learning-approach and learning-avoidance goal orientations are also included for completeness.

Communications

In communications there is a theory that coincides with this overall concept. The theory is titled, the Theory of Goal-oriented communications. The idea behind it is that when communicating if individuals are concentrated on the goal at hand rather than the communication itself it will lessen confusion. Communication is not the goal in itself but something bigger, getting a planned idea across.^[18]

Learning

VandeWalle defines learning goal orientation as the "desire to develop the self by acquiring new skills, mastering new situations and improving one's competence" (p. 1000^[1]). Persons with learning goal orientation seek feedback on past performance to evaluate current performance. These individuals focus on improving skills and acquiring knowledge, and are less concerned with making mistakes. Research shows that adoption of mastery goals leads to greater intrinsic motivation as opposed to performance approach or performance avoid which are associated with external motivation.^[17] One area where this can be seen as important is in the area of curriculum design. When designing learning environments for students, it is important to create opportunities that promote learning goals as opposed to performance goals. One possible implication for educators is the need to emphasize knowledge-centered classroom environments that encourage "doing with understanding".^[19]

Learning-approach and learning-avoidance

Although learning goal orientation is most commonly conceptualized as a single construct, researchers have begun to make the approach and avoidance distinction that they have previously done with the performance goal orientation. According to Elliot,^[20] learning-approach goals "entail striving to develop one's skills and abilities, advance one's learning, understand material, or complete or master a task" (p. 181). This type of learning goal orientation is consistent with the way general learning goal orientation has been conceptualized previously. Alternatively, learning-avoidance goals "entail striving to avoid losing one's skills and abilities (or having their development stagnate), forgetting what one has learned, misunderstanding material, or leaving a task incomplete or unmastered" (^[20] p. 181). Individuals are likely to pursue learning-avoidance goals when they feel that their skills or abilities are deteriorating. For example, an elderly individual may notice that his/her physical and mental capacity is declining, and as a result may focus his/her goals on sustaining or improving these diminishing capacities.

Prove performance

VandeWalle defines performance prove goal orientation as the "desire to prove one's competence and to gain favorable judgments about it" (p. 1000^[1]). The performance approach orientation represents a desire to achieve a high level of performance. Persons with performance approach orientation seek positive reinforcement and feedback.^[21] These individuals don't want to put forth a lot of effort unless they will be positively evaluated, and tend to avoid tasks where they may make mistakes and therefore be poorly evaluated.^[14]

Avoid performance

Finally, VandeWalle defines avoid performance as the "desire to avoid the disproving of one's competence and to avoid negative judgments about it" (p. 1000 ^[1]). The performance avoid orientation represents a desire to avoid instances of low believes. Persons with performance avoid orientation focus on avoiding situations in which they will receive evaluations or risk demonstrating lack of confidence. Individuals high in fear of failure are more likely to adopt performance avoid goals.^[17]

Antecedents

Throughout the goal orientation literature, many studies have examined relationships between goal orientation and various antecedents. These antecedents have been identified as having varying levels of importance. In a meta-analysis by Payne and her colleagues,^[14] both need for achievement and the Big Five personality traits were identified as important antecedents of goal orientation, while cognitive ability was found to have almost no relationship with goal orientation. The following sections go into more detail about each antecedent. Payne and her colleagues did not distinguish between proximal and distal antecedents.

Cognitive ability

Research has produced mixed results when examining the relationship between cognitive ability and goal orientation. For example, Eison ^[3][22] found that learning-oriented (learning goal orientation) students had higher levels of cognitive ability than grade-oriented (performance goal orientation) students. However, Dweck and her colleagues were unable to find any relationship between the constructs.^[7] Although findings are mixed, "a substantial body of theory and research suggests motivational and ability traits are generally uncorrelated" (p. 130^[14]). In a meta-analysis by Payne and her colleagues,^[14] cognitive ability and goal orientation were found to be independent constructs. Accordingly, individuals with high cognitive ability are equally likely to hold learning, prove performance, and avoid performance goal orientations. These authors also found that LGO predicted job performance above and beyond cognitive ability.^[14] Based on this research, goal orientation, rather than cognitive ability, serves as useful tool for practitioners to use to predict job performance.

Need for achievement

Need for achievement refers to the degree to which an individual "maintains high standards" and "aspires to accomplish difficult tasks".^[23] Goal orientation dimensions have been conceptualized as manifestations of Atkinson's (1957) need for achievement and need to avoid failure competence-relevant motives.^[14][17] In a meta-analysis by Payne et al.,^[14] the authors found that need for achievement was positively correlated with LGO, negatively associated with APGO, and unrelated to PPGO. Another interesting finding by these authors was that need for achievement correlated more strongly with LGO than the trait, conscientiousness. Although LGO and need for achievement were found to be strongly related, the findings demonstrate that LGO is related to, but not synonymous with need for achievement.

Big Five personality characteristics

Extensive research has been done on personality and many researchers have agreed that personality is best conceptualized as a five-factor model (the Big Five).^[24] These traits include extraversion, openness to experience, emotional stability, conscientiousness, and agreeableness.^[25] In a study by Zweig and Webster,^[26] the relationship between the Big-Five personality traits and goal orientation was examined. The authors found that goal orientation and the Big-Five personality traits are related yet distinct constructs. They also found that personality factors combine to create people's various orientations toward learning and goals, which in turn predict the types of tasks they will engage in. In a meta-analysis by Payne et al.,^[14] goal orientation was found to predict job performance over and above the Big-Five.

Goal setting

Historically, goal setting theory has primarily been concerned with performance goals. Locke and Latham ^[27] summarize 25 years of goal setting research by stating that as long as an individual is committed to a goal and has the ability to achieve it, specific, high (hard) goals lead to a higher level of task performance than vague or easy goals. However, the vast majority of goal setting studies have been conducted with a specific performance goal and often in laboratory settings where the task was fairly simple. It is possible that when tasks are more complex or require a long-term commitment, adopting a learning goal may lead to higher performance. Fan, Meng, Billings, Litchfield and Kaplan ^[28] found that the relationship between trait learning goal orientation and goal-setting was moderated by self-efficacy such that individuals high in learning goal orientation and self-efficacy set higher goal that those high in learning goal orientation but low in self-efficacy. This finding suggests that while learning goal orientation can have an impact on goal setting, the relationship also depends on other factors such as the individual's level of self-efficacy. Fan et al. also found that learning and prove goal orientations facilitated challenge striving, suggesting that either orientation can effectively facilitate motivation for goal attainment. Another factor to consider when examining the relationship between goal orientation and goal setting is the level of complexity inherent in the situation or task. In situations with more complex tasks, it appears that "do your best" goals may actually lead to higher performance than specific goals. It is possible that in complex tasks, a specific, difficult goal imposes greater cognitive demands on employees, making it difficult for them to learn the complex task due to this increased pressure.^[29] Kanfer and Ackerman ^[30] found that in an air traffic controller simulation (a highly complex task), having a performance-outcome goal actually interfered with acquiring the knowledge necessary to perform the task. People performed better when they were asked to do their best. This suggests that adopting a learning orientation may be appropriate for complex tasks or in specific settings. However, it may be possible to set a specific, difficult learning goal. Latham and Brown ^[31] found that when MBA students set specific, difficult learning goals such as mastering complex course material, they outperformed MBA students who set a performance goal for GPA. Locke and Latham ^[27] claim that creating a specific, difficult learning goal in this type of situation facilitates meta-cognition which is particularly helpful in complex environments with limited guidance, such as in an MBA program.

Consequences and outcomes

The goal orientation literature has examined the relationships among goal orientation and various proximal (e.g., self-efficacy, metacognition, & feedback seeking) and distal consequences (e.g., academic outcomes, organizational outcomes). In a meta-analysis by Payne and her colleagues,^[14] the goal orientation dimensions were found to be more strongly related to the self-regulatory constructs (i.e., self-efficacy, metacognition, & feedback seeking) than the performance constructs (i.e. academic and organizational performance). They also found that APGO was the only dimension negatively related to the various outcomes. Payne and her colleagues found that the learning strategies (metacognition would likely fall into this category) and self-efficacy are the most important proximal consequences of goal orientation followed by feedback seeking, academic outcomes, and organizational outcomes. The following sections go into more detail about each consequence.

Self-efficacy

Bandura (1982) defined self-efficacy as "a belief in one's ability to effectively perform and to exercise influence over events".^[32] Individuals who are high in self-efficacy set more difficult goals, exert more effort to achieve those goals, and seek to learn from the processes of pursuing those goals.^[2] In a meta-analysis by Payne et al.,^[14] self-efficacy was identified as a proximal outcome of goal orientation. Similarly, VandeWalle, Cron & Slocum ^[12] found that LGO was positively related to self-efficacy, effort, and goal setting level. Since "self-efficacy functions as a primary motivational mechanism by which goal orientation influences subsequent learning processes", employees with higher levels of self-efficacy will exert more effort toward and learn more from task assignments (p. 164^[2]).

Metacognition

Metacognition is conceptualized as an individual's knowledge and regulation over one's own cognitions.^[33] Individuals high in metacognitive awareness are skilled at monitoring their progress towards goals, identifying their strengths and weaknesses, and adjusting their learning strategies accordingly to achieve favorable outcomes.^[34] Although there have been relatively few research studies conducted on the role of metacognition in leader development outcomes, some studies have found that metacognition plays an important role in such outcomes. For example, Ford et al.^[34] linked LGO and metacognitive activity and found that metacognitive activity was significantly related to knowledge acquisition, post-training performance, and self-efficacy. In a study by Schmidt & Ford,^[35] metacognitive activity was positively related to LGO as well as cognitive, affective, and skill based learning outcomes. Similarly, Bell and Kozlowski ^[36] found that LGO was significantly related to metacognitive activity. The National Research Council (2000) points out that it is important to remember that metacognitive skills can be taught and essential that teachers explicitly teach metacognitive skills across the curriculum in a variety of subject areas.^[19]

Feedback seeking and interpretation

In an organizational context, the extent to which employees actively seek feedback can positively influence job performance.^[14] Goal orientation influences how individuals evaluate the costs and benefits of feedback-seeking opportunities.^[37] According to VandeWalle,^[37] when individuals have the opportunity to seek feedback, they face a cognitive dilemma between the need for self-assessment and the need for self-enhancement. Since individuals with a learning goal orientation are interested in developing competencies, they are more likely to interpret feedback positively and thus engage in more feedback-seeking behaviors to enhance performance. These individuals interpret feedback as valuable information about how to correct errors and improve future performance on a given task. Conversely, individuals with a performance goal orientation are likely to interpret feedback as "evaluative and judgmental information about the self" (p. 631^[12]), and as a result are less likely to seek feedback. Consequently, individuals with high levels of learning goal orientation are more inclined to seek feedback, while individuals with high levels of prove performance goal orientation or avoid performance goal orientation are less inclined to seek feedback (VandeWalle & Cummings, 1997).

Academic outcomes

As previously stated, goal orientation refers to individuals' behavioral tendencies in achievement-oriented tasks. Therefore, it seems intuitive that goal orientation would be associated with various academic outcomes. According to Payne et al.,^[14] learning goal orientation is positively associated with self-regulatory behaviors such as planning and goal setting, which in turn are associated with academic performance. Thus, individuals with high levels of LGO are more likely to perform well on academic tasks than individuals with high levels of the PGO dimensions.^[14] In addition, research has also shown that students' motivation can predict both the quality of the engagement in academic learning as well as the degree to which they seek out or avoid challenging situations.^[38] If all students are to move "through the increasing challenges and academic rigors" of school, then their motivation to learn must be identified and nurtured.^[39]

Organizational outcomes

Goal orientation has also been linked to organizational outcomes, specifically job performance. Payne et al.^[14] found that individuals with high levels of trait and state LGO and low levels of trait APGO had better job performance. They found that PPGO was unrelated to performance. The authors also found that LGO predicted job performance above and beyond both cognitive ability and the Big Five personality characteristics. This finding suggests that LGO is a valuable predictor of job performance and it may be in the best interest of organizations to create a climate in which learning is valued over performance. In another study by VandeWalle, Cron & Slocum,^[12] the authors found that individuals with a learning goal orientation had higher sales performance than those with performance goal orientations. This finding suggests that in order to be successful in organizational setting, individuals must have the desire to develop their skills.

Learning environments

Research has shown that goal orientation is linked to outcomes and performance.^[7][11][39] Much of this research has been centered on outcomes in schools and job performance. When examining research on learning environments and curriculum design, one could argue that there is significant alignment with LGO and ideal learning environments. When designing learning environments, there are some essential principles that should be in place. These principles were outlined by the National Research Council in their 2000 report entitled How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School.^[19] First, classrooms and school need to be learner centered. By this, teachers need to be aware of the strengths, skills, attitudes and knowledge that students bring with them when they enter school. This should include acknowledging cultural differences and creating a place for the inclusion of their everyday lived experiences in the classroom. Second, teachers should strive to create a knowledge-centered classroom by focusing on what is taught, why it is taught and what competence or mastery looks like. The emphasis here should be placed on learning with understanding. One way students can demonstrate this understanding is by successfully transferring content and skills to novel situations and problems. This also relates back to metacognitive skills that have been demonstrated to be linked to learning goal orientation. Next, it is important to remember that formative assessments are essential in learning environments. This type of ongoing assessments allows teachers to assess where students are and design their instruction accordingly. Lastly, it is very important to look at the environment in which learning takes place. The teacher wants to create an environment that nurtures a learning goal orientation as opposed to a performance goal orientation. This means encouraging a community of learners who are willing to take risks and make mistakes for the sake of learning. Teachers should create environments that emphasize mastery over performance. Performance is primarily focused on learning in the moment and a demarcated demonstration of understanding. Mastery implies skill development over a period of time that includes experience and practice. Authentic learning occurs when students can not only demonstrate understanding but apply it in multiple settings and to novel situations or problems.

See also

• Adaptive performance
• Carol Dweck

References

1. VandeWalle , D. (1997), Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 8, 995-1015.
2. DeGeest, D., & Brown, K. G. (2011). The role of goal orientation in leadership development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(2), 157-175.
3. Eison, J.A. (1979). The development and validation of a scale to assess different student orientations towards grades and learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
4. Nicholls, J.G. (1975). Causal attributions and other achievement-related cognitions: Effects of task outcome, attainment value, and sex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31,379-389.
5. Nicholls, J.G. (1976). When a scale measures more than its name denotes: The case of the Text Anxiety Sale for Children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 976-985.
6. Nicholls, J.G., (1978). The development of the concepts of effort and ability, perception of own attainment, and the understanding that difficult tasks require more ability. Child Development,49, :800-814.
7. Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
8. Hendricks, J.W., & Payne, S.C. (2007). Beyond the Big Five: Leader goal orientation as a predictor of leadership effectiveness. Human Performance, 20, 317-343.
9. Eison, J.A., Pollio, H., & Milton, O. (1982). LOGO II: A user's manual. Knoxville: University of Tennessee, Learning Research Center.
10. Eison, J. A., Pollio, H., & Milton, O. (1986). Educational and personal characteristics of four different types of learning- and grade-oriented students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 54–67.
11. Pintrich , P. R. (2000). Multiple goal, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544-555.
12. VandeWalle, D. Cron, W. L. Slocum, J. W., (2001), The role of goal orientation following performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 629-40.
13. DeShon, R. P., & Gillespie, J. Z. (2005). A motivated action theory account of goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1096-1127.
14. Payne , S. C. Youngcourt , S. S. Beaubien , J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 128-150.
15. Cellar, D. F., Stuhlmacher, A. F., Young, S. K., Fisher, D. M., Adair, C. K., Haynes, S., & Twichell, E. (2011). Trait goal orientation, self-regulation, and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Psychology, 26, 467-483.
16. Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996, July). Goal orientation in organizational research: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(1), 26-48.
17. Elliot , A. J. Church , M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-232.
18. "A Theory of Goal-Oriented Communication." Journal Of The ACM
19. National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience and school. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.
20. Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 169-189.
21. Shatz, I. (2015). "The negative impact of goal-oriented instructions". Educational Studies, 41(5), 476–480.
22. Eison, J. A. (1981). A new instrument for assessing students' orientations towards grades and learning. Psychological Reports, 48, 919–924.
23. Jackson, D. N. (1974). Personality Research Form manual (2nd ed). Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press.
24. Costa, P.T.,Jr. & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
25. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.
26. Zweig, D., & Webster, J. (2004). What are we measuring? An examination of the relationships between the big-five personality traits, goal orientation, and performance intentions. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(7), 1693-1708.
27. Locke, E.A., & Latham, G. P (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 265-268.
28. Fan , J. Meng , H. Billings , R. S. Litchfield , R. C. Kaplan , I. (2008). On the role of goal orientation traits and self-efficacy in the goal-setting process: Distinctions that make a difference. Human Performance, 21, 354-382.
29. Latham, G.P & Seijts, G.H. (1999). The effects of proximal and distal goals on performance on a moderately complex task. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2, 81-127.
30. Kanfer , R. Ackerman , P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 657-690.
31. Latham, G. P. Brown, T. C. (2006). The effect of learning vs. outcome goals on self-efficacy and satisfaction in a MBA program. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55, 606-623.
32. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanisms in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.
33. Flavell, J.H. (1979), Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 51, 397-420.
34. Ford, J.K., Smith, E.M., Weissbein, D.A., Gully, S.M., & Salas, E. (1998). Relationships of goal orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 218-233.
35. Schmidt, A.M., & Ford, K. (2003). Learning within a learner control training environment: The interactive effects of goal orientation and metacognitive instruction on learning outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 56, 405-429.
36. Bell, B.S., & Kozlowski, W.J. (2002). Goal orientation and ability: Interactive effects on self-efficacy, performance, and knowledge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 497-505.
37. VandeWalle, D. (2003). A goal orientation model of feedback-seeking behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 581-604.
38. Fadlelmula, F.K. (2010). Educational motivation and students' achievement goal orientations. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 859-863.
39. Long, J.F., Monoi, S. Harper, D. & Murphy, P.K. (2007). Academic motivation and achievement among urban adolescents. Urban Education, 42 (3), 196-222